Trichome

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 1,721: Line 1,721:


*'''Comment''' - also, someone has made what is essentially identical content the prominent first section of [[Political positions of Sarah Palin]]. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 23:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - also, someone has made what is essentially identical content the prominent first section of [[Political positions of Sarah Palin]]. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 23:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

*'''Oppose removal''': Basically, as long as she herself makes it a notable subtopic to the media, and the media finds it notable enough to discuss regularly, it's notable enough for here. We aren't to judge what we ourselves are supposed to find interesting, in the face of notability reactions outside wikipedia (as long as citations and reputable sources support inclusion, of course). --23:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:41, 13 September 2008

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.

Dispute #1: Alaskan Independence Party

AKIP Inclusion Proposal For Review

Proposed Palin attended the Alaskan Independence Party convention in 2006 and sent a welcome movie to the attendees of the 2008 AKIP statewide convention.[5] Sitedown (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support If you support this with minor modifications please included the modified version you would support.

  1. I support this text, but would like additional material, as shown in my addition to Talk:Sarah Palin/sandbox. --Zeamays (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)--Zeamays (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the idea of a sandbox is a bad idea, just opening up another avenue for edit warring and potential libel. Could you please move your suggestion here and ask an admin to remove that page?--Paul (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't my idea. I saw a note on this pages asking to place proposals for edits via admins to be placed ion the sandbox. --Zeamays (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)--Zeamays (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. She not only attended, she was a member, and only switched her party affiliation when she ran for governer, according to Dexter Clark in this video from last year (jump to 6:00).
  3. The Dexter Clark youtube video above specifically mentions Sarah Palin, which makes it a valid part of the entry about her- the same goes for the AIP's later retraction. The readers should be given both pieces of information- our job is not to draw conclusions for them, but to publish relevant facts. Dexter Clark's statements in the YouTube video create sufficient reason to question the retraction, so it seems relevant--Grumbleputty (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A video is a primary source and wikipedia requires secondary sources. Plus, this one is certainly not a reliable source. Including this video is WP:OR original research which is not allowed. At this point this false charge has been thoroughly debunked, and there are many reliable sources testifying that she was never an AKIP member.--Paul(talk) 20:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
secondary source for Dexter Clark's speech at the Secessionist' convention here and here. Reliable source argument holds little water, as any doubt about the secondary sources accuracy is removed by watching the primary source video. The WP:OR Original Research argument is absurd- the secondary sources accurately quote Dexter Clark from the YouTube video, in which Mr. Clark, a Vice Chairman of the AIP and an undeniable expert on his own words, states that Ms. Palin was a former member and sympathizer. There is no interpretation, spin or bias- simply the man's own words, spoken by him of his own free will. Dexter Clark's statements in the video clearly describe a relationship between Gov. Palin and the AIP, which is borne out the the videos and convention appearances the OP wanted to add in the first place. Mr. Clark makes no claim that she is currently a member of the AIP, and I have yet to see a statement which refutes his contention that she is "sympathetic to our cause", or the AIP's strategy to "infiltrate" the two major parties- only his contention that she was a member is in question. I can't see how the wikipedia page of a candidate for the second-highest office in the US could be accurate and non-partisan without acknowledging this debate and describing the evidence and statements, PRO and CON.--Grumbleputty (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support Her husband was a member for a decade. She attended at least two, if not three state conventions. She gave the address by video just six months ago. Clearly she has "supported" the party, even though she wasn't a member. In my view, to NOT include any mention of it whatsoever would be POV.GreekParadise (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support, for reasons already outlined above by others. However, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and polls such as this are no substitute for good editing. If Palin's association with AIP is a demonstrable fact, it must go in the article. Arjuna (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support It is definitly worth mentioning. As to whether it was a symbolic gesture (i.e. Palin was/is a secessionist herself), or merely a tactical move (i.e. she doesn't agree with them), we don't know (at the moment). What we do know is that she sent a video for that convention and praised AIP (with "good work")--the party that her husband was a member of up until she "made an unsuccessful bid for the Republican nomination for lieutenant governor" [in 2002]. (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-aip3-2008sep03,0,6399468.story). So cool (talk) 08:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose If you oppose please either include a supported version or state your reason for not including anything in relation to the AKIP

  1. It's a McCarthyistic attempt to prove "guilt by association" with a fringe party which is not even accused of doing anything illegal, but only of having a fringe viewpoint - and with no evidence that Palin herself agrees with that viewpoint. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The simple fact that multiple meetings were attended by her makes this worth mentioning. There is no reason to try to prove guilt by association but if you believe a statement to be added in relation the rumors then please provide a suggestion. 99.228.151.16 (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Are people still pushing the debunked "secessionist" meme? I thought even dKos had given up on flogging that. But Bugs is correct - there's no need to give undue weight to a trivial relationship with one particular group. As governor, she attended and greeted many organizations, from the Better Business Bureau to the Girl Scouts of America. Kelly hi! 15:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if the rumors had never been raised this still warrants a mention. If she has attended multiple conventions for other parties I beleive this would also deserve a mention. 99.228.151.16 (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It might have had some relevance when it was suspected that Palin had once been a member, but since that has been debunked, the only reason for inclusion would be to imply "guilt by association." She attended the 2006 convention while campaigning for Governor, and sent a welcome video to the 2008 convention in her capacity as Governor. And even though it isn't mentioned above, she attended the 2000 convention in her capacity as mayor of Wasilla. Inclusion of the proposed sentence violates NPOV and UNDUE WEIGHT.--Paul (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If a governor attends multiple conventions for a seperatist group and submits a video then it is worth a mention. I recall you previously agreed that a statement could be included. 99.228.151.16 (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Rebuttal to 1-3: This is well-documented material. AN AIP leader can be seen on video at their convention stating that their aim is to "infiltrate" other political parties, so this is relevant. My proposed addition doesn't mention "secessionist". More importantly, she expressed support of AIP aims in the video. Did she also send a video to the Democratic Party Convention that year supporting their aims? Wikipedia policy for Well-known public figures reads, "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." [emphasis mine] --Zeamays (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you watched the video? "Your party plays an important role in our state's politics. I've always said that competition is so good. And that applies to political parties as well." Very sinister!--Paul (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. As I said above, the story is dead. If she had been a member of the party, I think there would be something here, but those claims (made by that party itself apparently) have since been debunked. Addressing the convention of a competing party is interesting (and something I think should be encouraged), but it's trivial and not biographical, and thus including it in the article would be wp:undue. Should further facts on the matter emerge, though, I reserve the right to change my mind.  :)   user:j    (aka justen)   02:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Rebuttal to 4: Once agin, this is not a dead issue. The facts have been documented that she and her husband have been associated with the AKIP, he as a formal member, she as a sympathizer, who stated in the welcome video a sympathy for the party and support for its success. --Zeamays (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Were articles to list every politician's every slight contact with every organization, then perhaps this might be valid. It doesn't. The connection is sufficiently minor as to verge on the use of Wiki for political statements and campaigns. Collect (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Clearly at this point the attempt to include an undue weight statement about this item is POV. The organization in question has acknowledged that Palin has is not nor has ever been a member and no legitimate press organization is spending any time on this. --Textmatters (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Jillyan2008 (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Palin's ties to the Alaskan secessionists are neither irrelevant nor too thin to be worthy of mention. Whether found on You Tube or blogs across the internet, the video of Sarah Palin is real evidence that she did in fact say she was "delighted" to address the 2008 convention of secessionists and advised them to "Keep up the good work!" Her sentiments were made clear by her own words and are available for anyone to see on tape. It's a fact. And it most certainly is relevant to her political career as she was serving as a governor at the time and was charged by the electorate of her state to serve them and represent them. And now she seeks to be the vice president of the nation from which the members of the organization she told to "Keep up the good work" wish to secede. It is factual, relevant and one of the most important issues in the 2008 campaign. No, she was not an official member. No suggestion to say she was on Wikipedia has been made. But her remarks in her words should be included in her biography. To do otherwise is to present an unbalanced press release for a political candidate and ignore the fair, factual, complete picture of this historic figure. A brief explanation of the organization and its official beliefs and activities, that she deemed good work worth keeping up, would be appropriate.[reply]

It seems pretty clear that Sarah Palin was in bed with the AIP. Her husband Todd was a member, they attended conventions together, she addressed them at their convention speaking of them positively and voicing support for their philosophy. If those six things were all we said about the matter and didn't even get into how it affected the $40 billion dollar natural gas pipeline that would be fine. The pipeline could go in its own section. Rktect (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is another opposition research fringe issue. Sarah Palin was never a member of the AIP; she's been a Republican since 1982. Politicians talk to a lot of people; that's sorta their jobs. Her husband's views are irrelevant; would you put Michelle's views into Barack's bio?... Unhhh .. no. Leave this out; include in her political positions article if you want. Freedom Fan (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the media coverage on this issue and the widespread misinformation that she was a member of this party, it is important to mention that she has just sent a welcome DVD to the members of 2008 AKIP statewide convention. Nevertheless there must be some sympathy for this secessionist party or would anyone send such a movie to a movement he/she doesn't like? M0s6p (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you watched the video? Palin: "Your party plays an important role in our state's politics. I've always said that competition is so good. And that applies to political parties as well." Then she lists a few issues and says "and I know you agree with that" and then wraps it up. There is nothing at all here that is the least bit notable or out of the ordinary.--Paul (talk) 13:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the party is secessionist is unclear. Merely sending a video-taped greeting to a meeting of a prominent minor party sounds like a politician reaching out for votes and not particularly noteworthy. I see no compelling reason to include this material. Ronnotel (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The contents of the video as described above merely illustrate a good politician at work - buttering people up. Technically, the AIP doesn't specifically argue for secession unconditionally, they claim that statehood was attained unconstitutionally, and they want the chance to vote on the matter. Last time I checked, expressing opinions was not against the law. Not in America, anyway. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-> source quoting AIP's chairperson stating AIP's goal is secession here. Politicians go to great lengths to avoid appearing at the conventions of/sending endorsement videos to groups they don't agree with ideologically, as it tends to identify them with the goals of that group. Knowing that, when a politician does send a supportive video to a group with an unusual agenda, it becomes noteworthy, and tends to get added to that politician's wikipedia page (unless that politician's supporters clutter the talk page with the magic word "debunked".--Grumbleputty (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Levi's age

I was admonished for added back Levi Johnston's age as 18. Here is proof; [6] but I don't want to put it the article since it is a court record (for a fishing violation). The vast majority of the sources say he is 18. Any probs? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paritcularly, you were admonished for going against a consensus that you knew about and for marking the edit as minor despite knowing that there had been a consensus to remove his age completely. The archive is at Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 13#Levi Johnston's age. Accuracy was not at issue in the admonishment, nor is it really the issue in the consensus. GRBerry 03:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I missed that consensus, but I agree with it. I've removed the age per that discussion. MastCell Talk 03:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Consensus was that if we didn't know his age, we shouldn't get it wrong. If this source had been presented in that discussion, the result would have been different. Accuracy was at the core of that discussion, not any BLP violation, since dozens of media outlets were already saying he was 18. Do you doubt he is 18, MastCell? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, did you read the linked discussion properly? All people in the canvass who said remove said so because it was irrelevant to Sarah Palin. Some also mentioned the discrepancy as a factor although some said the discrepancy wasn't a major issue. No one in the straw poll said to remove based solely on the discrepancy Nil Einne (talk) 06:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hereby request that his age be added back, take your time to develop a new consensus. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The detail is irrelevant to Sarah Palin's bio and should stay out. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? You haven't really provided any good reason and you appear to have misread the existing consensus Nil Einne (talk) 06:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Phlegm Rooster, I gather that your reference to "a new consensus" means that you're hoping people will change their minds now that better information is available. Can you explain why we should? I think most bio article don't give the ages of the bio subject's in-laws, let alone prospective in-laws. For that matter, I still think we should delete the guy's name. JamesMLane t c 09:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, there is no need to give his age. But he's not an unknown, he's appeared on TV with John McCain. So I think we can give him a name. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's "not an unknown." In fact, he's a bit of a celebrity. One of the British tabloids called him "sex on skates," presumably because he's good looking. So let's give him his own Wikipedia article, perhaps on the order of other minor celebrities. SkyDot (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's the problem with giving his age? He's an adult. And, if you're going to mention the pregnancy of her daughter at all, then it's relevant. I agree with Plegm. Put the age in.GreekParadise (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you look, the title of this article is not "Levi Johnson" - his age currently is not relevant to Sarah Palin's biography. GRBerry 19:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it may not be relevent in this article. The article on Levi Johnson, unfortunately, already exists and describes a football player. Oh wait. It's Levi Johnston that we're talking about. :) Hey, that link points back to this article, so it is an article on him. I still think he should get his own article. SkyDot (talk) 07:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not content to let Obama be the lone "celebrity" in the race, the GOP wanted some celebrities of their own. I've got a hunch they didn't have Levi Johnston in mind, though. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnancy with Trig

I apologize if this has been brought up already, however I propose the addition of this in the personal life section (added after "Palin's youngest child ... prenatally"):

Palin had difficulty coming to terms with Trig's illness and concealed her pregnancy, continuing to work up until she gave birth and returned to work three days after Trig was born.[1][2] She has since been accused of exploiting her child's illness for political gain.[2]

Normally I would go WP:BRD but this is article is quite contentious. Also, can anyone suggest wording to balance the last bit? The sources (New Zealand Herald New York Times) suggest that supporters are glad a child with special needs is "in the spotlight". Thanks, ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 11:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is unacceptable in a whole load of ways: how do we know (apart from human sympathy) that Gov. Palin "had difficulty in coming to terms" with her child's "illness"? in what way did she "conceal her pregnancy"? What does "return to work" mean for a State Governor?
The second sentence is simply not supported by the cited source. Physchim62 (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"She was, it seems, struggling to come to terms with the fact that the baby would be born with Down's syndrome." "... some accuse her of exploiting Trig for political gain." You did actually look at the sources, right? ~ Ameliorate! U T C @ 14:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How much informational value does this add? A.J.A. (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it says a lot about her personal life. The world's media appear to agree. ~ Ameliorate! U T C @ 23:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"She was, it seems, struggling to come to terms with the fact This is supposition and in a WP:BLP it isn't allowed regardless of the fact that a WP:RS is doing the supposing. The second quote from the source is just repeating attacks. How does that help anything? What _is_ missing from the article is the quote from Palin that "she and Todd feel blessed and chosen by God" to have this child. Now that really does say a lot about her personal life and deeply-held beliefs.--Paul (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parentage

I believe it may be appropriate to report upon the controversy over the parentage of the child. It is widely believed that the child is actually her grandchild. There is also the controversy over her claim that her water broke when she was in Texas yet she flew to Alaska to give birth.[7][8] I do not wish to commit slander nor do I wish to enter into an editing war.Dstern1 (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were continual unsubstantiated rumours that the child was her grandchild - possibly fuelled by the actual pregnancy of her child. But there's been nothing substantiated. Unless that appears, the only use we have for the rumour is to demonstrate that some people are prepared to circulate unsubstantiated rumour, and that's hardly news. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably as "widely believed" as Elvis Presley still being alive. Yet, I gather that an inclusion of the unsubstantiaded rumours in the article could be appropriate. --Hapsala (talk) 04:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never-the-Less, it is well sourced that she reported her water broke when she was in Texas, yet flew to Alaska to give birth. The events as she reported them have been highly criticized. I agree that the question of the child's parentage has not been well sourced.Dstern1 (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The women has had five children, and I would dare to say that she is the world's greatest expert on the functions of her own reproductive system. Kelly hi! 01:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Trig's Birth

I propose an addition of information regarding the controversial birth of Trig Palin. I tentatively propose the following text following the report of the child's down syndrome: "Headlines were made after Sarah Palin reported that she entered labor and her water broke with Trig while she was in Texas. She then flew 11 hours to Anchorage and drove an additional hour to Wasilla, AK to give birth at a local hospital. Some healthcare professionals had criticism of the risk she reports taking; while her own physician reported supporting her decision."[9] This account is well documented in press reports and more specifically by Sarah Palin herself. I believe that it is relevant to the personal life section. I have also been careful to attribute to her directly to avoid concerns over the account having been doubted in blogs.--Dstern1 (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. This has been discussed here before, and always rejected. We don't try to synthesize some POV about her judgment via some misogynistic speculation about the operations of her reproductive system. Kelly hi! 01:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I would respectfully disagree about the misogyny, I do believe that it is relevant. Perhaps, it may be better to exclude the references to controversy? I am seeking opinions. I shall look through the archives for previous discussion; unless someone could point me to that discussion. --Dstern1 (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I welcome response from someone who is not partisan. A fan of Palin is not a valid responder to my questions (nor is one of her hater's for that matter).--Dstern1 (talk) 02:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the Archives and see that Archive #12 previously had discussion of this topic. I see much support for inclusion. So far the only opposition seems to be from a cheerleader for Palin. But I shall certainly wait until tomorrow to hear more opinions before I make an edit. The topic is obviously sensitive.--Dstern1 (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many examples of this being discussed in the archives and the consensus has always been to exclude. Take a look at archive #8 for instance. There are others.--Paul (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked over the archives including #8 and #12. I am proposing inclusion of an astonishing report of her personal life as she reports it. I contend that her own report of the events is relevant as stated. Can conjecture develop from this issue? Perhaps, and it has. Am I proposing report of that conjecture? No. Is any of that conjecture relevant to this article? Not at this time, in opinion; at least not unless that conjecture can ever be sourced as fact. I am proposing inclusion of information which is relevant and well-sourced.--Dstern1 (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like Palin and I say include it.--Rosebud999 (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New (And I believe harmful) Edits to "Bridge to Nowhere" Section

A single wikipedian editor has made several important changes to the Bridge to Nowhere section which I believe delete important information.

1. He has removed five words at the beginning indicating Palin supported the bridges. 2. He has taken out the information about the location of the bridges (where the bridges are). 3. He has removed the name of the second bridge ("Don Young's Way" named for Alaskan Congressman) 4. He removed the amount of the earmark ($454.4 million). 5. He has removed 6 of the original 15 sources to the incident in the reference section. 6. He has removed the fact that Palin changed her stance less than one month after McCain criticized the bridge. 7. He has removed Palin's many references to the "Bridge to Nowhere" on the campaign trail. 8. He has removed Newsweek's comment on Palin's references on the campaign trail.

You've probably guessed I'm not pleased with the changes. I think the section was not very long and that the location and name of the bridges, the amount of the earmarks, and the many references, etc. should remain in the article.

But I want to see if other wikipedians agree before I revert back to the original. And if the editor that I disagree with wants to add his two cents, fine by me.GreekParadise (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have my support to revert. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Supported. 216.215.233.66 (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto, let him come to the talk page. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I edited for length only (the section was longer than ANY other in the ENTIRE article). Palin's support is made clear in the next paragraph (objection #1)- no need to mention it twice. I changed the bridge to its correct name not its nick name (#3) and removed excess background info (#2). The section is way too long and somethign had to go. The background info seemed to be the best candidate. The exact timing of the change also seemed unnecessary. (#6) Three commentaries about here comments was quite excessive, I removed 1 and someone else removed a second. (#7-#8) --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also there was no need to reference every fact 3 times. Once is suffient. (#5) Objection #4 is just plain false - the $ amount is still there. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's now been an hour and a half since I posted to the talk page and an hour since Thaddeus wrote his response. Hearing no further discussion, I will revert with the support of the three wikipedians. However, in deference to Thaddeus' concerns about length, I'll see if after reverting, I can cut some of the fat without losing the bone (content). Still Thaddeus you should know that "Don Young's Way" is the official name of Knik Arm Bridge, not the nickname. The name is in the earmark legislation.[3]GreekParadise (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering others edited the section in the interim, I don't think going back to the old version was justified. You undid my changes and the changes of several other people all at once, to restore the version you wrote. Why not just work with what's there instead of insisting on your version? I have undid your revert. If any details are missing from the current version, by all means add them back in - but I don't see any missing other than the unnecessary background info. In reference to the bridge's name - wikipedia and most news articles call it the Knik Arm Bridge, so that is the name that should be used. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NO ONE but you Thaddeus edited it in the interim. Don't believe me? Check the history. I undid no one's changes but yours. And, as I explained on my talk page, I can't work with what's there because you've been busy throwing away sources. Do you even know what are the four references you deleted? Can you tell me why you deleted them? If you want to delete a reference, please tell me why, but that's not tightening. I can't add details and references and everything and have you willy-nilly delete them without telling me what you're doing. As for the name of the bridge, I can't help that. In the earmark bill, Congress named it "Don Young's Way." I would explain it further but you wanted the article kept short. However, if you prefer I am happy to use both names, even though the article will be a little longer.GreekParadise (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What relevance does the bridge collapse in Minnesota have to Sarah Palin's biography? Adding that quotation serves solely an incendiary purpose, and was *not* discussed above. Does anyone else agree that it should be removed?JoeyCG (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also felt it non-relevant and deleted it. GreekParadise, however, had a cow about my edits and undid them all. Please feel free to re-delete it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not autoconfirmed, so I cannot delete it. BTW, as written the quotation appears to be by John McCain. In the source, it is *not* ascribed to John McCain as a quotation.JoeyCG (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The quote is by John McCain and was ascribed to him. Thaddeus thought the section was too long and so I was trying to cut as many words as I could. I have no problem removing it, however. See? All you have to do is ask.GreekParadise (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I would ask that no one remove any more references or content from this subsection on the bridges to nowhere without explaining what and why on the talk page first. If you want to move stuff around, tighten it, edit it, etc., go ahead. But removing detailed references without telling the talk page which onesyou did makes it a real chore to re-create (and messes up subsequent references too). And if you want to remove content, please say why (as Joey did). You'll find I'm quite flexible if you'll just work with me.GreekParadise (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed the McCain quote. I left the first half of the line, since I wasn't sure if that was OK to ditch, although I feel it adds nothing and could easily go too. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, changed my mind. Sorry 'bout that. Reason on my talk page. Suffice to say that it's inaccurate without full quote since McCain had condemned bridge prior to 2007.GreekParadise (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to see this:

"The next year, Palin ran for Governor on a "build-the-bridge" platform, attacking "spinmeisters" for insulting local residents by using the term "Bridge to Nowhere."[72][73][74] In October 2006, she said build "sooner rather than later. The window is now - while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."

become:

The next year, Palin ran for Governor and she supported the bridge, but was non-specific about the details. "She told local officials that money appropriated for the bridge "should remain available for a link, an access process as we continue to evaluate the scope and just how best to just get this done." Fact Check: Palin and the Bridge to Nowhere

Any objections to that? Theosis4u (talk) 05:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I object. The original quotation has four Palin quotations in two sentences. It shows her platform, her attacking opponents, her reaching out to locals, her discomfort with the nickname of the bridge, her pressure for time, and her work with the Alaska congressional delegation. So I would be very resistant to deleting these two sentences which convey a lot of information in a small space.

So then there's the question of whether the quotation you wish to add should be added to, rather than substituted in place of, what's there. I read your submitted quote several times and frankly had trouble understanding it. "Access process as we continue to evaluate the scope"???? Huh??? Sounds like bureaucrat-speak to me. So I went to the yahoo article which unfortunately gave no context. Perhaps you know the full context? What's your point of including it? That she was open to changing bridge details? That she was "non-specific about details"? Why is that notable? The project was in early stages, just getting funding. I've been criticized for making this part of Palin's bio too long. So I'm really hesitant to add to it with something that frankly, to me, doesn't seem to say all that much.

On the other hand, if you want to add it to the longer, more detailed Governorship article, I would not fight you on it. But I guess at the end of the day, I don't believe in adding every quotation the subject of a bio makes on a subject unless I feel she's actually saying something important. And in the case of this quotation, I can't quite figure out what it is so important about the quotation.

On the other hand, if you just want to add another reference in the footnotes, fine by me. I like multiple references, although I know ThaddeusB is not as fond of multiple references as I am.GreekParadise (talk) 07:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for complete feedback. My intention behind inclusion of the quote is it shows Palin didn't support the bridge to no-where as a blanket statement. She supported a "link" for the residents of the islands. And that she would "evaluate" the details when it was appropriate. The only reasons I was "removing" the other references was for length. I'm fine with them staying and this new content being included - if everyone else is ok with it. Theosis4u (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds to me like she said different things at different times. Since I've been urged to keep this section short, why don't you put it in a footnote of this article and/or in the body of the Governorship section where there is a much longer article on the bridge.GreekParadise (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the other's should be footnoted (if any) in favor of this one being in the text. The others imply she supported the full blown POV slant that she endorsed the earmark of the "bridge to no-where" when in fact, she didn't. This quote represents that best because it directly addresses the intent of why people are looking at the section entitled "bridge to nowhere", whereas the other quote doesn't. Theosis4u (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theos, she DID endorse the earmark of the "bridge". Period. Full-stop. She was 100% for it before she was 50% against it. That's why some news sources are calling her opposition a "naked lie." At best your quote is saying that she wanted all the federal money but she would have considered scaling down the size of the bridge. And that may be true. But it doesn't mean she didn't want every penny of the money. After all, she kept every penny even when she didn't build the bridge. That's the fact. You may not like the facts. But it's not POV to give fact. It is, however, POV to imply something that is not true because it looks good politically. And to say she did not endorse the earmark or she did not want the money is 100% false. In fact she still supports the other bridge (Knik Arm-Don Young's Bridge) to this day, and that's half the earmark and she hasn't given back the other half to the federal government and won't. Now did she change positions? Of course, she did. She switched sides on one bridge and kept the money. That's in the article.

I think you're taking your quote out of context. I can show you 10 quotations of Palin supporting the bridge, more than 100 articles in everything from Anchorage to Ketchikan newspapers, on everything from candidate surveys to several speeches in Southeast Alaska to promises to local leaders to attacks on opponents. You have one amorphous quote. You don't know when she said it. You don't have the original context or the full context. (Yahoo doesn't provide it and neither do you.) And she says some bureaucrat-speak language saying there will be a process. Yet even the exact same Yahoo article you cite says in its second sentence: "In fact, Palin was for the infamous bridge before she was against it." It says "Palin did abandon plans to build the nearly $400 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport. But she made her decision after the project had become an embarrassment to the state, after federal dollars for the project were pulled back and diverted to other uses in Alaska, and after she had appeared to support the bridge during her campaign for governor. McCain and Palin together have told a broader story about the bridge that is misleading." All of this is right there in the very article you cite for your quotation! Now the article does go on to say that at some point, she called the bridge design "grandiose" and said something more modest might be appropriate. But it doesn't say what date or where she made such a statement. Find the original statement in its original context and let's talk about it. She may have contradicted herself during her campaign and said one thing to Alaska voters and another thing to someone else. I don't know. But right now, we have no context. Please find out the original source of the quotation you want to add so we can see its context. But please don't say silly things like "she didn't endorse the earmark of the 'bridge to no-where'." If what she said was not an endorsement of the bridge and her actions (keeping the federal money and even spending $25 million on an unneeded access road rather than giving back the money to federal taxpayers!) do not show she wanted the money, then I have another bridge to sell ya--in Brooklyn.GreekParadise (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Bridge to Nowhere section is very important, but I also think it's way too long. It is more than 50% of the Budget and Spending section. Can we trim it to a single paragraph, or two at most? Some things like the exact names of the bridges, and who they are named after are unimportant. Focus instead on the controversial issues involved. --JHP (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To reduce space, I also suggest removing all but the most essential quotes. --JHP (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a proposed trimming of the section. It is still three paragraphs, but I removed stuff I thought was nonessential.

Two proposed Alaska bridges, both supported by Palin in her run for Governor, have been derided as a symbol of pork barrel spending. In 1995,[citation needed] Congress earmarked $454.4 million to build the two bridges but reversed itself under strong criticism. Congress then gave the $454.4 million to Alaska for general transportation instead.[4][5][6] The next year,[citation needed] Palin ran for Governor on a "build-the-bridge" platform, attacking "spinmeisters" for insulting local residents by using the term "Bridge to Nowhere."[7][8][9]

In September 2007, Governor Palin canceled the Gravina Bridge, saying: "it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island."[10][8] Palin did, however, continue construction of a $25 million access road on Gravina Island, a road which would have linked to the bridge but now goes only to an empty beach. State officials said if the $25 million had not been spent, it would otherwise have been returned to the federal government.[8] Alaska has not returned any of the $454.4 million in the original earmark to the federal government."[11] To this day, Palin continues to support funding the second bridge, Don Young's Way. [12]

In her nomination acceptance speech and on the campaign trail, Palin has often said: "I told the Congress 'thanks, but no thanks,' for that Bridge to Nowhere."[13][14] McCain-Palin television advertisements also claim Palin "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere".[15] Given Palin's previous support for the Bridge, these claims have been described as misleading by The Wall Street Journal,[16] the Associated Press,[17] The New York Times,[18] Newsweek,[19] and The Washington Post.[20]

--JHP (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing that User:MastCell did some trimming to the section, I realized that my proposed change would stomp on his edits. To avoid a potential stomping on his edits, I just kept what he changed and did a little more trimming. The edit changes are here. --JHP (talk) 01:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed something. The Bridge to Nowhere section (and my proposed edit) is factually incorrect. The first paragraph suggests she ran for governor in 1996. --JHP (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to do some comparisons to see what you removed. Perhaps you can just tell me. As I recall, I edited it pretty tightly, and I can see you've taken out the bridges' locations and the very reason they were called bridges to nowhere. That doesn't make sense. You (or someone) else also claimed it was "dubious" that the first and both bridges have both been called Bridges to Nowhere. See footnotes 78 and 79 and please remove the dubious tag. Just combine 79 with 78 since one source describes one and one describes both.GreekParadise (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC) I feel the Bridge(s) from Nowhere section is extremely important. It is the single thing most focused on by McCain and Palin and the media about Sarah Palin. And it doesn't make sense to me not to explain simple things like why the bridges got their name. I really don't think this can be justifiably cut much further, but why don't you tell me exactly what facts you want to cut and why. (I have no problem with tightening that doesn't remove content but I don't think that's possible in large measure.) So exactly what content do you propose to remove? GreekParadise (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer me, so I found out myself. You removed:

1. That Sarah Palin originally supported these bridges -- important, I think, in first sentence says bio is about her and it explains why they're here and flows better 2. Location of bridges and name of bridges, which I think is basic stuff and important 3. Dubious tag is wrong but I'll fix link to make it a double-link to prove it 4. insulting local residents is more accurate way to describe source 5. removed her demand that it be done sooner while congressional delegation can assist 6. removed that palin made her switch right after mccain criticism 7. removed quote from governor cancelling bridge 8. removed (astonishingly, IMO) fact that palin still supports second bridge 9. removed newsweek quote 10. removed washington post quote

I agree 5, 7, and 10 will make article significantly shorter without taking out valuable content. Because I disagree with most of the changes -- some of which like location are part of consensus above -- I will revert but then proceed to delete 5, 7, and 10 and put the two tags in to fix whoever thought claim was "dubious."

If you have further changes THAT DELETE CONTENT, please come to the talk page and say what content you want to delete and why before making the changes. Thank you.GreekParadise (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GreekParadise, most of the edits were done by User:MastCell. I didn't disagree with him, so I felt no need to undo his edits. I followed up with these edits. My original proposed edits are above.
Regarding item #3, let me point out that the term is "Bridge to Nowhere", singular, not "Bridges to Nowhere", plural. Almost all sources refer only to the Gravina Island Bridge as the bridge to nowhere. The first New York Times reference, which is being used to claim that the Knik Arm Bridge (Don Young's Way) is also called the bridge to nowhere doesn't mention the Knik Arm Bridge at all. It only mentions the Gravina Island Bridge. The source doesn't back up the claim. In fact, it uses the singular "bridge to Nowhere", thus contradicting the claim. If that's not dubious, then I don't know what is. There is one single source referring to the Knik Arm Bridge as a second bridge to nowhere, but that source defies the common understanding of the nickname and it conflicts with almost all other sources.
Regarding item #5, I didn't feel the quote adds much useful information. It mainly just wastes space.
Regarding item #6, you have not established a cause and effect relationship. This appears to be nothing more than a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Fallacious logic does not belong in Wikipedia articles.
Regarding #9 and #10, these are just quotes. They don't add any more useful information than the sentence that came before them. Please focus less on useless quotes and just stick to the facts. Quotes take up too much space when we are trying to conserve space. The more words you use to get a point across, the less likely people will actually take the time to read what is written. --JHP (talk) 07:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just writing up what I'd done when I hit an edit conflict. You beat me to it.
  • On #3, there are many sources that use Bridges to Nowhere (referring to Gravina and Knik Arm) and many more that use Bridge to Nowhere (referring to Gravina). I have fixed all refs. But google "bridges to nowhere" and you'll see 38,000 references. This nickname has been used both ways.
  • 5, not wedded to it but shortened it so hopefully you're OK with it now
  • 6, I didn't say one caused the other, I just noted the time frame. Some of the articles I've researched have speculated that one caused the other but I have not. McCain spoke in August 2007 and Palin's decision was made in September 2007.
  • 10, removed
  • 9, shortened greatly but would like to keep in shortened quote because it sums up critique nicely. It's always better, I think, to show a critique than to say it's been "critiqued" and I did it in few words
  • Also completed mammoth reference review of every reference in the article. Feel free to double-check, but I expect/hope/pray you'll approve. Now it's 4 am Eastern Time. I've been working on this for 6 hours. Need rest. Good night.GreekParadise (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think references 90 and 91 should go immediately after the quote, instead of where they currently are. In general, I prefer references at the end of sentences, rather than in the middle of them. After reference 92, there is a lone comma sitting in between sentences. Don't go to sleep. This is Wikipedia. By the time you wake up, some other editor will have come along and changed everything. ;-) --JHP (talk) 08:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Three days ago--seems like three weeks ago--another wikieditor who will remain nameless (unless you really want his name) told me he hates multiple sources next to each other at the end of a sentence. He said it makes it hard to read. The trouble was, in the interest of both brevity and comprehensiveness, I had crammed four sources in one sentence. (It used to be four sentences, but why say in four what you can say in one?) So where do you put the four sources? If I removed a source, then part of the sentence was unsourced, but I could see how four sources together did make it difficult to read. I also got some complaints that things weren't sourced. (They were sourced, just not in the first source at the end of the sentence.) So last night, I painstakingly reviewed each and every source and put it precisely over the word or words it was sourced to. Actually as an encyclopedia, this makes it easier to use and edit because people can look up exactly what they want to look up in the references.GreekParadise (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. That rant was just prelude. In the case you mention, we have a joint quote from two sources. I can see why you want it at the end. If you really want to put 90 and 91 back together at the end of the sentence, go right ahead. And yes, it's only two sources together, so no biggie. But I warn you. If someone complains again about "multiple sources strung together makes article difficult to read," I'm sicking that editor on you! (Last point. Can't find evil comma. Maybe some other editor removed it.)GreekParadise (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I moved references 90 and 91. I should clarify. I usually prefer references at the ends of sentences, phrases, or quotes, but not within phrases unless it would be unclear what fact the reference is supporting. Whenever there is a quote, the reference should go immediately after it. It is the quote that needs to be backed up with evidence, not where it was said.
Also, I corrected the official names of the newspapers being cited. It is The New York Times, not the New York Times. Same with The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. On the other hand, it is the Associated Press, not The Associated Press, so I kept that as is. I guess the AP just likes to be different. --JHP (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe these three paragraphs should definitely be in the article. It is concise yet provides all the necessary details and is very important in defining Sarah Palin. Anyone objecting to these paragraphs is not being neutral but is rather pushed by political reasons. " Two proposed Alaska bridges, both supported by Palin in her run for Governor, have been derided as a symbol of pork barrel spending. In 1995,[citation needed] Congress earmarked $454.4 million to build the two bridges but reversed itself under strong criticism. Congress then gave the $454.4 million to Alaska for general transportation instead.[4][5][6] The next year,[citation needed] Palin ran for Governor on a "build-the-bridge" platform, attacking "spinmeisters" for insulting local residents by using the term "Bridge to Nowhere."[7][8][9]
In September 2007, Governor Palin canceled the Gravina Bridge, saying: "it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island."[10][8] Palin did, however, continue construction of a $25 million access road on Gravina Island, a road which would have linked to the bridge but now goes only to an empty beach. State officials said if the $25 million had not been spent, it would otherwise have been returned to the federal government.[8] Alaska has not returned any of the $454.4 million in the original earmark to the federal government."[11] To this day, Palin continues to support funding the second bridge, Don Young's Way. [12]
In her nomination acceptance speech and on the campaign trail, Palin has often said: "I told the Congress 'thanks, but no thanks,' for that Bridge to Nowhere."[13][14] McCain-Palin television advertisements also claim Palin "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere".[15] Given Palin's previous support for the Bridge, these claims have been described as misleading by The Wall Street Journal,[16] the Associated Press,[17] The New York Times,[18] Newsweek,[19] and The Washington Post.[20]" Ruick (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newsweek reports Palin admonished by judge that her disparagement of Wooten constituted child abuse

Warned by the Court Palin and her family continued to disparage Wooten.

Court documents show that Judge Suddock was disturbed by the alleged attacks by Palin and her family members on Wooten's behavior and character. "Disparaging will not be tolerated—it is a form of child abuse," the judge told a settlement hearing in October 2005, according to typed notes of the proceedings. The judge added: "Relatives cannot disparage either. If occurs [sic] the parent needs to set boundaries for their relatives."

It is the mother's [Hackett's] responsibility to set boundaries for her relatives and insure [sic] they respect them, and the disparagement by either parent, or their surrogates is emotional child abuse," Judge Suddock wrote. He added that: "If the court finds it is necessary due to disparagement in the Mat-Su Valley [the area north of Anchorage where Palin and her extended family live], for the children's best interests, it [the court] will not hesitate to order custody to the father and a move into Anchorage."

Do Warnings about Palin behavior characterized by a judge as child abuse belong in the article? I expect they bear on her temperment and becaues of questions about John McCains temperment raise questions about the tickets suitability for a position where remaining cool calm and collected in a crisis is a matter of life and death for thousands and Palins suitability to be McCains pick.Rktect (talk) 09:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not very clear. How would statements made in a court proceeding be child abuse? This is reasonably well reported in quite a few sources but the significance and context is not all that clear. It is not up to us to decide what raises questions about Palin's suitability for office and what does not. We can't take sides there. If a lot of people decide Palin's involvement in the case is important to the election, that sentiment will be reported in the press and it may be worth mentioning in the election article. If they report it as a major event in her life then it might be relevant for this article about her biography, but that's not obvious from the sources I could find. The argument to include something here is not that it tells us something bad about Palin, but rather than a lot of people (as evidenced by the weight of reliable published sources) think it is worth reporting. If it is reported as a campaign issue then it might be good for the campaign article, and if as a life issue for the bio article. But if it is reported as the blog / news tidbit of the day we really have to take a longer view and not report every last rumor or political argument. Wikidemon (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's more, our own Wikipedia article states "On March 1, 2006, Wooten was notified of the results of an Alaska State Trooper internal investigation. The probe found that Wooten violated internal policy, but not the law, in making the death threat against Heath (the father of Sarah Palin and Molly McCann).[21] Wooten denied having made the threat, but the investigation decided that he had in fact done so. [21] The trooper investigation concluded that the death threat was not a crime because Wooten did not threaten the father directly; therefore, the investigator deemed the threat to be a violation of trooper policy rather than a violation of criminal law.[22] " police investigation found that Wooten did actually make a death threat against Palin's father. So what was called "disparagement" against this trooper at the time may very well have been simple statements of fact. (btw the "disparagement" wasn't done by Palin, she is only included in the "McCann and family" category) Hobartimus (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, my reading of the issue is that the judge warned Palin's sister Molly Hackett that Molly's family and friends should not be demeaning/ridiculing Molly's ex-husband during the course of everyday life because doing so was harmful to the children Molly and he shared. Or put more directly, it is not okay for one parent (or her family) to poison the child against the other parent. What the significance of the judge's statements are with respect to Sarah Palin in particular (as opposed to Molly's family in general) is unclear to me. Dragons flight (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Palin was one of the people disparaging Wooten's reputation. ;) Starting in August 2005, she sent several strongly worded letters to the head of the Troopers asking why the guy was still employed. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's possible to disparage anyone with factual statements. Police investigation found that Wooten did make a death threat and Wooten did taser his 10 year old stepson. I'd go as far as propose a mention of the death threat against Palin's father in the main article. It gives a lot of context to the case. Hobartimus (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not obvious that those are the specific and only items the judge was referring to. And even if those are the circumstances, I'd imagine that how one expresses those facts make a difference. For example, "that worthless, arrogant, pig thought he could threaten us and get away with it" would be pretty disparaging even if it were just a reaction to the death threat. Dragons flight (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well.. I'm sure telling the guy's boss repeatedly that he was unfit to be a state trooper is fairly disparaging to one's reputation. But then, I added it to the Troopergate article last night (I also added it here, but it was later removed as an unnecessary detail for the summary here), so unless you think it is a necessary detail in this article... --Bobblehead (rants) 17:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent> I don't understand the desire to put Trooper Wooten on trial right here in the court of Wikipedia. His alleged transgressions of years ago are not pertinent to the current abuse-of-power investigationn. The guy ought to be adequately identified and that's it. The only point I can see to argue for including "The life story of Trooper Wooten, according to the Palins" is to convict Wooten on this page of being a reprobate, and imply that regardless whether the investigation finds Palin guilty of misdeeds or not, that she was justified. Spiff1959 (talk) 05:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hobartimus added the claim about an alleged "death threat" made by Wooten, which I reverted as he did not add a reference and it is a rather serious charge. Hobartimus then added a note (with a reference) on my talk page. I have not checked the reference (someone should), but regardless the claim is cited or not, I do not think this material is at all suited for the article. Wikipedia is not the place to sort out the claims and counter-claims of this ongoing dispute, and as Wooten is now a public figure to some degree, any portrayal of him or his actions falls under the category of WP:BLP. Leave it out. Arjuna (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hobartimus added another note on my talk page to the effect that he was re-posting the "death threat" claim described above from another article. I have not checked this out, but will take him at his word, and so this is to confirm that I am not accusing him of any violation or bad faith edit. The material is still very much inadvisable. Arjuna (talk) 09:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

The personal section needs expanding, in particular about the religion aspects. There are abundant sources on the subject (both national and international media) in which her attitude to religion and beliefs are described. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is already far too big and there is a whole paragraph on her religious views. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At this point we have thousands of news articles talking about the "glasses" of Sarah Palin other thousands discuss her "hair". As time passes we will have "abundandt sources" on everything regarding Sarah Palin. I checked the Obama article and even though wikipedia has a huge amount of material on religion and related matters relating to Obama not that much is in the Barack Obama main article, his BLP which summarizes his whole life. Hobartimus (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not overly thrilled with everything that's there - a Catholic paper calls her a "post-denominationalist" and that makes it into an encyclopedia article. I'm really not thrilled about having articles where we tell someone else what they believe. If she describes herself that way or her church describes itself that way, ok, fine, but I'm not a big fan of putting words into someone's mouth. --B (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent point. I can see no reason for editorial commentary in a WP:BLP it almost always pushes a POV. Why don't you take it out of the article?--Paul (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree GtstrickyTalk or C 16:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not paper, and if there is substantial material about this, we can alwways spin off a new article and summarize here. Given the extensive coverage on this aspect of Palin's life, I see no reason why not to include it, after all as Obama is concerned we have several spinoff articles about the Wright controversy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wright controversy seems different. The media coverage of that was immense, because he was a fiery preacher. In contrast, Palin's pastor for the last several years has been relatively sedate, and 99.999% of Americans could not tell you his name.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point, even if there were a controversy here, we would hopefully rely on either self-identified beliefs or the mainstream media, rather than on a "rival" denomination, to tell us the story. We wouldn't rely on a newspaper put out by an Islamic religious group to tell us what Obama's religion believes and so I don't think we should rely on a newspaper put out by a Catholic church to tell us what Palin's religion believes. --B (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this video of her addressing her old church in Alasaka should be placed on the External Links: Its pretty much sums up her religious beliefs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG1vPYbRB7k (part 1 of 2)

Monowiki (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it appears that someone has reinserted the characterization from the National Catholic Reporter. The consensus in this section is that such a source doesn't cut the mustard, and I agree, so I'll remove it again.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this article says, "Although initial press reports said that she was the first Pentecostal ever to appear on a major-party ticket, Palin described herself in an interview with Time magazine on August 29, 2008, as a "Bible-believing" Christian." I think we ought to strike out the stuff up to the first comma, because it's merely discussing an inaccurate initial report from the National Catholic Reporter. Why describe inaccurate initial reports, especially if they're from a religious journal for a religion different from Palin's?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The First Post and The National Enquirer on Palin

They are both established news sources so their articles on Palin can be cited. Here is the one from The First Post.--Sum (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "established". The National Enquirer is not a reliable source as Wikipedia defines the term, and it's certainly not a suitable source for use in a biographical article. Somewhat more reputable sources, like the Post, which are skeptically rehashing Enquirer stories are no more suitable. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. MastCell Talk 23:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Corriere della Sera, the newspaper that sells the most in Italy, covers the news along with other details on Palin's familiar life: [10]. --Sum (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read Italian, but I can read that this is a reprint of the Enquirer story. As Mast noted, this is not a tabloid. Arzel (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Established" does not equal reliable and encyclopedic. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Enquirer may not be a RS, but if cited in other sources and if notable for that reason, the other sources can be used. For example "Newsweek and other media outlets described The Enquirer's blah blah bah, which was rebutted strongly by blah blah blah and threatened with a lawsuit for libel." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting we put possibly libelous material in a BLP??--Paul (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A story like this would have to pass a pretty high threshold before it could get into this article:
  1. It must be reported by multiple, independent reliable sources.
  2. It must be germane to the article in some tangible way (a mere allegation of an affair, even if widely reported, would still not be relevant enough to Palin's bio to outweigh the due care we must show to the subject of a BLP)
  3. It must impact, or be perceived to impact her career in a lasting way (in this case, I hardly think there would be much interest in repeating these rumors were Palin not the VP candidate)
So far, none of these criteria are even close to being met. Ronnotel (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul h. Absolutely not, that was not my point. Read again. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jossi's comment is in congruence with WP:BLP's discussion of when Wikipedia should include media discussion of a rumor of a politician having an affair. Some seek to set too high a bar. like forensic examination of the bedsheets, rather than a rumor spreading from the blogosphere to reliable sources as WP:BLP demands. I personally like to see a reporter ask the politician about it and they deny it. A politician having an affair is, in the post-Clinton era, quite germane to an article about the politician. Edison (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it is less germane since Bill Clinton. He has made it a non-issue. Much different climate now then when say Gary Hart was caught with his pants down, so to speak. Not sure if your analogy is a good one here, as IMO if the situation is analogous to an affair of a politician, it's a non-issue.Die4Dixie (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon my extreme skepticism. Arjuna (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say to create the Sarah Palin personal life article, espanding from the current section, and quote there what just the reliable sources report, carefully attributing everything.--Sum (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would likely be a content fork. The Enquirer is a rag, and just because they accidentally get something right once in awhile doesn't qualify them as a reliable source. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How reliable is the National Enquirer?--Rosebud999 (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no separate section on environmental issues?

A few, quick lines under 'political positions' is not enough. She's the governor of the largest state in the union, which controls vast amounts of natural resources and abundant wildlife. It's also affected by global warming quicker than any other state in this union due to its proximity to melting polar ice caps. Saying she opposes having polar bears listed on the endangered species list when she's suing the federal government over that very thing hardly covers the subject! Since it was in the original article, and all sourced, why was it taken out? To leave it out is to take sides with the McCain campaign, unless that's the point. It is NOT political position to give the facts if they are supported by sources; those were. It makes absolutely no sense. Given that Alaska is the type of state it is, those positions would be mentioned IF she were not McCain's VP choice. I've seen many articles in Wikipedia less sanitized, with fewer sources. Those facts have obviously been dug up by news sources, just not all very often put in one place. Therefore, facts that are good or bad should not be left out. This subject needs its own separate section. Jolly momma (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because there's a separate article Political positions of Sarah Palin which has a section on her positions on the environment.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you missed the gist of the question. This subject should be discussed in a separate section. Fly-by sentences do not cover the subject. I believe I gave sufficient reasons above. This makes no sense, given Alaska's natural resources, oil companies, wildlife, mining, and the possible effects on the environment. Is this a political position on Wikipedia's part?Jolly momma (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I share your concern that people have access to material to understand her policy positions on environmental issues, but detailed descriptions of those positions are best handled in the separate article as Cube lurker indicates. But...go for it in Political positions of Sarah Palin. Aloha, Arjuna (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of Alaska Not Returning Money on Bridge to Nowhere

"Alaska will not return any of the original earmark to the federal government." Should sourced statement be included?

Support One wikieditor argues that it is "irrelevant" to the Bridge to Nowhere whether, after Palin canceled the bridge, any of the original federal earmark will be returned to the federal government and has removed this sourced sentence twice. I disagree. I think the whole point of the Bridge to Nowhere was that it was criticized as a wasteful earmark by the federal government. Palin takes credit for canceling the bridge. But I think whether or not that canceling saved federal taxpayers any money is relevant to the discussion of whether or not canceling the bridge was a good decision. In fact, the removed sourced specifically criticized Palin for Alaska's refusal to return the money. (http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSN3125537020080901) At any rate, the article simply stated neutrally (and pithily) the facts, that which is Alaska does not intend to return any of the federal funds originally earmarked for the bridge. I think it's highly relevant. Do I have support for putting back in the deleted sentence (with source)?GreekParadise (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it's relevant if it gets a lot of coverage by neutral reliable sources. What to make of it should be up to the reader. It's actually pretty complicated, and an odd campaign issue. Would anyone expect a governor of either party in any state to say "no thank you" to federal funds, once procured? Who ever gives money back voluntarily to the federal government? That she didn't do so probably tells us nothing about her governorship, it's just an incident that may or may not be notable to her life history.Wikidemon (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the surface, it seems applicable if cited properly. One has to wonder, given the nature of politics, if there may be more to it than what is on the surface. States often are victims of unfunded mandates by Congress. If they get money from another source (earmarks) and then won't return it, placing the funding into an area the federal government would not fund, is that legitimate? Where will this money actually go? Do we know for certain? If a statement could accurately be made, such as "Alaska will not return any of the original earmark to the federal government, but will use it to fund ____ instead." then it seems appropriate. Atom (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
$25 million is going to the gravel access road and I put that in. The rest is being held for future needs.

GreekParadise (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the statement is an attempt to strengthen the conversion from "bridge to nowhere" to "no strings attached". I don't see any reason for two sentences on the issue, but rewriting the first sentence to be more clear seems reasonable. Aprock (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think too that the sentence on the funding is crucial and should be included.--Sum (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it's irrelevant and not notable, and also the above statement has factuality problems to say the least. "Alaska will not return any of the original earmark to the federal government." There was no "earmark" to be returned. A proposal for attaching the earmark died back in Congress in 2005, the money that was finally paid to Alaska was a "transportation grant" to be spent by the state of Alaska on transportation projects. By the time Palin cancelled the "bridge the nowhere" project a big chunk of the transportation grant was already spent on well... transportation projects, so there wasn't actually that much left to "give back" and the original money was given to Alaska for them to use as they see fit, building roads and other projects. The story cited in the first post actualy gets away by attributing the half-truths to local Alaska politicians, so the source is not Reuters to this but a local Alaska democrat for example. In reality Alaska never received an "earmark" for the bridge. Hobartimus (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per this section, I have reincluded the funding (and made it one sentence rather than two). Thanks for your help everyone.GreekParadise (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you included even misrepresents the source, you state as a statement of fact a sentence attributed in the article. Your article said exactly, "The state, however, never gave back any of the money that was originally earmarked for the Gravina Island bridge, said Weinstein and Elerding." the people referred are, "Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein, a Democrat, and Mike Elerding, a Republican who was Palin's campaign coordinator in the southeast Alaska city." So two local Alaska politicans, actual political opponents of Palin from the town for which the bridge was proposed (read, when Palin killed the bridge, they and their town got burned). Hobartimus (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that you, GreekParadise outright misrepresented the source, writing "According to Palin's campaign coordinator Mike Elderling", when from the article it is clear that he WAS campaign coordinator (no longer is) in KETCHIKAN ONLY, this was probably in the 2006 campaign before they became politcal opponents because Palin shut the bridge down which was for their town. Hobartimus (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add "Ketikan" to the reference to the campaign coordinator.GreekParadise (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And also unless you have a source that he is currently coordinator put in a 'was' also, and don't refer to the money as "earmark" as Alaska never received an "earmark". They received "developement funds for transportation", if you can't help yourself and absolutely must put it back try "federal money" at least that's accurate, earmark is just wrong in any context. Hobartimus (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add "former" and "$442 million" in place of "earmark". No problem. But please, no more wholesale deletions without discussion.GreekParadise (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The statement, "Alaska will not return any of the original earmark to the federal government[86] and is spending $25 million on Gravina Island for a bridge access road to an empty beach so that none of the money will have to be returned.[81]" is, at best, misleading. It misrepresents what its own sources say by implying that returning it was an option. The first source says, "...but Alaska was still granted an equivalent amount of transportation money to be used at its own discretion." Returning this money is not an option that any state legislature would be expected and certainly not lauded for exercising. They would be soundly criticized by their own citizens if they returned the money which your statement implies was the better choice. This is not an earmark but a grant of an equivalent amount to the state of Alaska.
The second references says "Weinstein noted, the state is continuing to build a road on Gravina Island to an empty beach where the bridge would have gone -- because federal money for the access road, unlike the bridge money, would have otherwise been returned to the federal government." Again, this is not a statement made directly by the source but is a comment by Weinstein. "Empty beach" is an exaggeration intended to imply negativity where there is none. The state would be remiss in its duties and would be criticized by its citizens if it did not use this federal money for that road.
In both cases, these statements are not about Palin and are irrelevant to a biography about her. They are misleading at best. They misrepresent their sources and try to imply negativity where none exists. They should both be removed from this biography about a living person. WTucker (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe arguing whether Alaska's return of the money is a good thing or not is POV. The article simply states Alaska won't return the money. State officials gave the reason on the $25 million (so that no money will not have to be returned) When that was spelled out in two sentences yesterday, the article was said to be too long. (I'm between a rock and a hard place. When I consolidate, people feel it's not fully explained. When I elucidate, people say the article is too long.) As for "empty beach," I originally had the longer version from the link "to the spot where the bridge would have gone", or something like that (quoting article). Asked to consolidate, I used the shorter term empty beach. I'm up for putting back in longer version or even pointing out in refs that "empty beach" was said by the Ketchikan Mayor who's a Democrat (and, I'm sure, disappointed by the bridge decision though I can't include this POV parenthetical). But I can't have it both ways. It will make the article longer.GreekParadise (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the quote from the article that doesn't involve the upset mayor:
Meanwhile, work is under way on a three-mile road on Gravina Island, originally meant to connect the airport and the new bridge. State officials said last year they were going ahead with the $25 million road because the money would otherwise have to be returned to the federal government.

Can we agree on changing "spending $25 million on Gravina Island for a bridge access road to an empty beach" to "spending $25 million on a Gravina Island road to the place where the bridge would have gone"?GreekParadise (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ya know what? It's only maybe two words longer. I'll make the change and eliminate "empty beach."GreekParadise (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, not to be technical, but Palin didn't kill the bridge project: CONGRESS DID. The funds had already been allocated and sent, but the bridge project was over before she had a chance to kill it. The funds were given to Alaska because they'd been allocated, even though the project was done. Saying she killed it is a 'misstatement of fact'. (ref. see Reuters, Bush asks Congress for 'line-item veto' power', March 7, 2006, China Daily News) Jolly momma (talk) 01:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support As a simple neutral and notable statement of fact. She claimed to turn down the funds, ("I said 'thanks, but no thanks on the Bridge to Nowhere'") when she lobbied for them, and didn't return them once it was given. This issue has gotten an enormous about of press coverage. I've seen copious television broadcasts and news articles investigating the issue and all concluding that her statement has "misleading" written all over it.--Loodog (talk) 02:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If she's misrepresenting herself on this issue, then it's certainly relevant. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

32 years as a Pentecostal

It is sourced; it is factually accurate; it is notable. Please do not delete factual, notable and well sourced information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be uncivil. It may be factual, but that does not mean that it needs to be in the article. So, how is the number of years (versus the currently stated history, that includes the years) necessary to the clarity of that section? Atom (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, on this. John McCain's article also mentions his own conversion to Baptism, so this seems not a big deal to include. rootology (C)(T) 16:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jossi, sorry but I reverted before posting in here. The dates given in the article makes it appear that she was there for closer to 34 years? Can you please post a link to the citation that says she attended that church for 32 years. I read the citations in the article but didn't see that fact, maybe I missed it. Thank you, --Tom 16:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources provided have the number of years and I do not see why is being kept deleted. It is factual, and it is undisputed, so what's the deal? Why should the length in years a person worshiped in a church be "uncivil"? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that people keep deleting or shifting the sources around. I have changed as per Newsweek reporting, page 15 issue Sept 15, 2008: "Palin was raised a devout Christian, attending an Assembly of God church from the age of 4 until the age of 38." Hope that settles this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jossi. --Tom 19:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She's still in the "assembly of God", otherwise known as the Republican Party, a.k.a "God's Own Party". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also - speaking in tongues - makes her different from other politicians how? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She is a member of a Pentecostal church. That is a point of pride. Include it--Rosebud999 (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bowdlerization of Bridge to Nowhere

Here we go again. Is it too much to ask someone to discuss it on the talk page before deleting relevant facts on the Bridge to Nowhere? An editor has deleted, among other things 1. Alaska's failure to return federal funds 2. Palin's support for second bridge to nowhere (Knik Arm)

These thing were discussed at length on the talk page and were agreed to. So I will revert back.GreekParadise (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GP - not deleting - adding that young procured the earmarks in 2005 to the topic sentence. Hope that's ok. Kaisershatner (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with me. I rarely object to people who add material. As for me, I always want more information  :-) But I should warn you I suspect others might object, in the interest of brevity. I ain't gonna touch it. I only get upset when people cut "bone." Still, you might want to keep this future likelihood in mind and trim as much fat as possible. Isn't there a shorter way to say "financed through Federal budget earmarks in 2005 by Alaska's Rep. Don Young while he was Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee"? Think about it. But no, no objection from me.GreekParadise (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, OK. One teensy thing. Given your changes, the amount of the earmark ($442 million) does not appear until deep into the article in the talk of Alaska not returning the money. I'd like to put it back up front.GreekParadise (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, Sources Problem That's what happens when you move stuff around. LOL. The Congressional reversal was in 2005, not in 2007. Please correct and pay attention to original sources.GreekParadise (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the careless deletions on "hot" articles, are an issue on wikipedia as they discourage to contribute. It should be included in the policy that when one adds an information that is properly referenced, nobody should delete it without a proper discussion.--Sum (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, policy is, and will continue to be, that it is the responsibility of those who want material included to find support, whether that be sources or consensus of other editors. "When in doubt, out" is a sound editorial rule of thumb, especially for a biography of a living person. GRBerry 21:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such policy. The only case is for libelous material, which is not the case for the Bridge topic.--Sum (talk) 10:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High Approval Ratings

This section was removed along with this information:

In July 2007, Palin had an approval rating often in the 90s.[45]

A poll published by Hays Research on July 28, 2008 showed Palin's approval rating at 80%. [46]

Why were the actual figures removed and replaced with "her approval ratings remain high"?

The approval ratings are remarkably high, and I believe it is necessary to show this detail. 1platoonabe (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)1platoonabe[reply]

I agree that the numbers are remarkable and should be provided; she may well be the most popular Governor in Alaskan history. However, if those references are to the Hays Poll results, that is original research and may be the reason they were removed. We need reliable secondary sources for this data before it can be included.--Paul (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a source that might be useful: Alask's governor tops the approval rating charts. --Paul (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I am new to this, I don't know what happens next? Paul.h has added this source. Do we now add the approval rating detail or do we need to put this to a vote? 1platoonabe (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)1platoonabe[reply]

Be bold. Add it and see what happens.--Paul (talk) 02:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rape kits -- victims made to pay for them in Wasilla

Today brings a new scandal--Rapegate. Basically, as Mayor of Wasilla, the town was the only city in Alaska that made rape victims pay for their own rape exams, which led the state legislature to pass a bill outlawing the practice which was signed into law by the former governor. Obviously, such an important scandal will need to be mentioned somewhere in this Wikipedia entry as the news begins to circulate and as it becomes widely-known public knowledge. Here is a link to one of the references, Critics: Under Palin, Wasilla charged rape victims for exam. USA Today is also reporting it now. Palin's town used to bill victims for rape kits. If anyone can come up with more links to articles about it or some sort of a cite of Palin saying something to the effect that she thinks women bring rape upon themselves (perhaps by dressing provocatively or by encouraging men by talking to them and being friendly or inviting them on dates) please post it here.

Here is my proposed entry:

Under Pailn, Wasilla was the only town in Alaska to make rape victims pay for their own rape exams, which led the state legislature to pass a bill signed by the previous governor banning the practice statewide.WhipperSnapper (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Bobble said when he/she rightly excised the text, 'minor issue so far'. Nothing ties this policy directly to Palin, no indication she was even aware of it. Tone it down please. Ronnotel (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I unconditionally oppose addition, unless a reliable source indicates that she publicly supported the policy and/or opposed the legislation banning it. I also object to the unfounded insinuation that there is any evidence she thinks women bring rape upon themselves. I'm tempted to remove your entire post as a WP:BLP violation. --Elliskev 20:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've had to re-remove this from the article. It had looked like there was some pretty clear agenda-pushing behind it (the term "Rapegate" is not in the original source), but seeing the way the argument is being framed here by this contributor, I now think this whole topic could be removed for BLP violation. » S0CO (talk•contribs) 20:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see how the story develops in the next couple of days. Right now it's still breaking news that hasn't been thoroughly investigated yet by the national media. Note that a credible national news source is reporting this--USA Today--and that according to that article I linked to, the Wasilla policy even contributed to national legislation on the subject. Here on this discussion page I didn't mean to insinuate that Palin thinks that women bring rape upon themselves, just that if anyone finds a credible source for that to please post it here on the discussion page. Note that that viewpoint, while very unpopular, is still common today and was at one time very common, so it is possible that she might harbor it. My apologies to those who are bothered by the term "Rapegate", but in our national political discourse, very often scandals take on the "-gate" name tag. At various political discussion forums people are referring to the librarian scandal as "Librariangate" and the state trooper scandal as "Troopergate", hence the term "Rapegate". Why do you have such a huge problem with that term? WhipperSnapper (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your neologism is troubling because Wikipedia should not be in the business of inventing scandals or names for them. If reliable sources call it that, then so be it. Until then, let's stick to the facts. Coemgenus 21:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs and forums are not reliable sources, we don't use them or care what they are saying. GRBerry 21:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-10-rape-exams_N.htm says

Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella said in an e-mail that the governor "does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test."
Comella would not answer other questions, including when Palin learned of Wasilla's policy or whether she tried to change it.

It also says that Wasilla was not the only town in Alaska with that policy.

Given the amount of space given to bookburngate ;-) I think that this is worth a _very_ carefully worded mention. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rape kits are mentioned in the sub-article Mayoralty of Sarah Palin, and that is plenty. Not everything in the sub-article needs to be covered here. See WP:Summary style.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was suggesting it be in "Political positions", not in Mayoralty. But I agree, she ought to be given a chance to say that she didn't know before we go using it as evidence of her attitudes to rape. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not relevant to the article unless it can be demonstrated that she supported it, in which case it would be especially helpful to know why she supported it. That could qualify as a "political position". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much of this is using the Talk page to show personal political bias. No connection between the policies of the Police Chief and the Mayor has been shown. The "charging rape victims" is still found in North Carolina, and was also in Illinois until at least 2004. http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/archive/2008/09/vetting_sarah.shtml?refid=0 and http://www.mountainx.com/news/2008/080308making_noise_about_a_silent_crime among others. Collect (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here are some sources some-what close to the issue:

http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt http://progressillinois.com/node/3032 (a second-hand report of what the police chief said) http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/52266.html (Knowles's response) http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1118416&srvc=2008campaign&position=9 (Boston Herald on Knowles and on an attempt to get a Palin response)

@ Collect...The following is from your first source...According to a 2004 summary by the group, in Illinois, Obama's state, there is "no charge to a victim who is ineligible for services under Illinois Public Aid Code and who has no insurance." Obama filed legislation to change state law so that the victims don't pay. It was signed by the governor of Illinois in 2001. The following is from your second source...This summer, the North Carolina General Assembly approved more than $1 million for a program that covers both the cost of the exam and an initial visit to a mental-health provider.. The charging of rape victims is no longer found in North Carolina (as of this Summer) and "no charge to rape victims" has been law in Illinois since 2001. Unfortunately, your sources contradict you--Buster7 (talk) 03:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Collect's charge of "personal political bias" is unjustified. As to whether there's a "connection" between the policy and Palin herself, her spokeswoman had a chance to clarify that, but refused to do so. According to the cited story in USA Today: "Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella ... would not answer other questions, including when Palin learned of Wasilla's policy or whether she tried to change it."
At this point, we don't know whether the Palin defense is that (a) she thinks charging the rape victims for their own examinations was a good idea, or (b) she had no idea this was occurring on her watch. I suppose her handlers are trying to decide which confession would be less politically damaging. In the meantime, I don't think she can, simply by stonewalling, preclude us from presenting the available facts on this issue. If Collect is concerned about the "connection" issue, we can include the report that Palin's spokeswoman would not address that issue. JamesMLane t c 18:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be rediculous. That is like asking "when did you stop beating your kids." Arzel (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contridiction..?

"Overall, the choice of Palin was well received by potential voters..."

(A couple paragraph's down)

"In the days following the decision, the choice of Palin generated mixed opinions among potential voters..."

So, was her nomination 'well received' or 'mixed' by potential voters? --98.112.158.127 (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Mixed opinions" is not supported by any reference... Hmmm... later in the same sentence with "mixed opinions" it also says that McCain's choice "had energized the Republican base. Results from the first few polls after the Republican convention gave indications that the McCain campaign had overcome its deficit and that Palin may have boosted support among white women." - and that statement is supported by three different sources. I'd suggest that the "mixed opinion" - possiby a result of massive edit warring - be deleted from the text. --213.50.111.114 (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The word I'd use is polarising. Some people really love her, because of her views, the same reason for which some people really hate and fear her. Those that strongly agree with her have to date been underwhelmed by McCain (too moderate) so putting her on the ticket has been a big boost; it activated 'the base'. And if they all stay home, McCain loses. So a big spike for McCain, and that means he no longer looks like a certain loser, and Palin gets credit for that, and that makes people love and hate Palin even more than they did before which is circular. The excitement feeds on itself, at least for a while. The question will be how the center behaves. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear or Nucular???

Bold text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.82.241 (talk) 02:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tomato or Tomahto? Kelly hi! 03:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The apparently-true story is that they phonetically spelled the word on her teleprompter. Better to get it right than to sound like some kind of ignoranimous - not to name any names, of course. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And who really cares? Only a snob, I suppose. —Mike 05:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or someone who doesn't like the President sounding like an idiot. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Palin

Since it has been a major topic of media coverage ,and as of now Bristol Palin redirects to this article, shouldn't Bristol have her own section? Not that it should be necissary but here are some references: [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] . Sorry to say, I don't have the time or the ability to write up this section myself, and I didn't want to step on anyone's toes, the talk page at Bristol Palin seemed pretty contentious... 76.15.184.122 (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so - at least not yet. Perhaps she will eventually have the same notability as Mary Cheney or Jenna Bush, but the sources aren't there yet. Kelly hi! 03:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Kelly at this time. Bristol only gets mentioned in the news as the daughter of a political candidate. In the future, she might do things (other than getting pregnant) which would support an article or section of her own. The offspring of world leaders often write books, lead charitabl eor cultural efforts, or at least get intereeting job opportunities which lead to substantial news coverage satisfying WP:BIO. Bristol and the other Palin offspring are just not there yet. Edison (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original poster, I am just using a different IP address: I understand that she doesn't qualify under the notability guidelines for biographies but I thought that the intention of the "relationships do not confer notability" rule was that they should deserve a section under that article if they had significant news coverage. six credible news sources really isn't enough for her pregnancy to have at least a sub-section? I can pull up more in seconds if you need me to, I am just not much of a writer nor do I feel I am an experienced enough wikipedian to write up such a contentious section in an NPOV manner. She is notable only as Sarah's daughter, but she is extremely notable for that. I would contend that a poll would show that more people know who Bristol Palin is than Mary Cheney not that google searches are definitive by any means but "Bristol Palin" turns up about 1.2 million more hits than "Mary Cheney." I don't think Mary merits an article under the BIO guidelines either, but she certainly deserves a major section or sub-section under her father's article. Bristol has already had a huge impact on the race, in the rumors that she is trigg's mother and in her newly announced pregnancy. I would point to Willie Horton as someone whose notoriety is due entirely to his relationship to a presidential candidate and yet obviously deserves an extensive bio. Hell I think Levi, the self-proclaimed "redneck" deserves his own sub-section but that's just me. 24.239.177.202 (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palin's "Lincoln" answer to Gibson's "task from God" question

Maybe this only would find place in a subarticle, if at all -- but, according to Contentions, in Gibson's interview he asked Palin: "You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war?"

Yet Palen's actual original quote had been: "[P]ray…that our leaders…are sending [American armed services members] out on a task that is from God."

And in her answer to Gibson, Palin alluded to Lincoln's having said: "Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right."   Justmeherenow (  ) 03:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me to be the same sentiment as Lincoln's...however, it's not up to our interpretation, but the historical sources. Kelly hi! 03:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second term section

I restored material that was deleted with the edit summary of None of this is reliably sourced. It's from an email written by someone who says Palin hates her. I'll leave it in the sub-article for now, but it needs better sourcing. The email is widely reported in reliable sources. Added The Atlantic and The Washington Independent. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are opinion pieces, not straight news stories. Kelly hi! 03:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Opinions can be attributed. And the material is notable. Rather than delete, you ought to find ways to incorporate the material and attribute the opinion to those that hold them: NPOV 101. ~~
Jossi, where in this source of yours is there any mention of taxes or expenditures? And your other source is merely an opinion piece that quotes an email from a local Wasilla citizen who says that Palin hates her. (Kilkenny: "she has hated me since back in 1996, when I was one of the 100 or so people who rallied to support the city librarian against Sarah's attempt at censorship.") I have left this material in the sub-article, but I don't see why material that is not reliably sourced belongs in this main article.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The source I added had the content of the email by Kilkenny, but seems to have been removed now. In any case, I do not think that the tax increase and expenditure increase during her second term are disputed. Are they? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like bland info that ultimately may be confirmed by reliable sources. Or not. Factcheck.org says they're in the process of analyzing Kilkenny's claims.[11] I suggest we just wait until there's a reliable source to cite. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Ferrylodge...in any event, more suited to the spinout article than the main article. Kelly hi! 04:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to figures provided by the city of Wasilla, the operating budget for Wasilla went from $6,050,160 in fiscal year 1996 to $9,393,768 in 2002. That’s a 55 percent increase. But adjusted for inflation, it’s a 35 percent increase.
  • According to a review of Wasilla’s financial reports, the amount of revenue taken in during 1996 was $6,070,806; and rose to $8,710,166 in 2002. That’s a 43 percent increase. Adjusted for inflation, that comes to a 25 percent increase.
  • From Politifact @ St. Petersburg Times. "PolitiFact: Palin "inherited a city with zero debt, but left it with indebtedness of over $22-million."". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved 2008-09-11. {{cite web}}: Text "Numbers right, context missing" ignored (help)

Counterpoints can be added as per the source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a very good find, Jossi. I would suggest an extended write-up in the sub-article, including counterpoints, and then a brief summary in this article if it turns out to look okay in the sub-article.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Kelly should give it a go... Are you up to the task, Kelly? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
I'll try to get to it in the next couple days, if no one else does.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How much did the population change during this time? Saying expenditures rose by X% without further analysis can be very misleading in the case of towns, people can move in, move out at will. Hobartimus (talk) 06:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked the poltifact "article" and it contains things like "And if voters okayed the bond issues...", which is pretty embarassing for a purpurted "fact checker", writing a speculative statement instead of researching this simple question if there was a vote on it or not. Or "The U.S. Census does not provide yearly population estimates before 2000..." it seems that there is no actual research and fact checking beyond looking up publicly available data on the net. There is no estimate on the net by the Census bureu? Better to leave the matter alone then, there is no way to get any information from anywhere else. Another article I saw did "investigative journalism" from back home with the reporter never setting foot in Alaska in his "research" I strongly suspect this was the case here, fact checking from Florida without ever being to Alaska. I suggest in light of the above that we treat these articles as any other news article without assigning any extra credibility for their self appointed, self proclaimed "fact checker" status. Hobartimus (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since about 80–90% of the claims being made recently can be falsified simply by "looking up publicly available data", that's actually a reasonable start. :) It's a review of a claim by a reasonably reputable, non-partisan source. That said, its conclusion is that the email's claim is "mostly true" - that is, its fundamentals are correct but it omits some significant context. If we use this source, we should capture that ambiguity. MastCell Talk 20:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and wrote a section for the sub-article using that source. See Mayoralty_of_Sarah_Palin#Taxes.2C_borrowing_and_spending.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest adding NATO-Russia comments from Gibson interview

Another item from the Gibson interview: I think it's extremely relevant and should be added to her Political Positions section that she supports Georgia and Ukraine's admittance into NATO and that she fully clarified that NATO (and thus the US) should defend those countries even if it means war with Russia. IMHO this is a significantly radical worldview that deserves attention.

Radical? You do realize this is the exact same position as advocated by John McCain, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, right? And that Article V of the NATO treaty requires that members come to defense of each other? Radical how? Kelly hi! 03:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a reference to substantiate the claim that Obama and Biden have said they would defend Georgia at the cost of going to war with Russia. Edison (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Georgia and Ukraine aren't in NATO right now, so was she saying they should be admitted? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, Palin never said that either. She said "Perhaps, so" and proceeded to explain the treaty to Gibson, who I guess doesn't understand it. Kelly hi! 04:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting Georgia's admission to NATO (which other politicians do) is relevant and probably important enough to include in Wikipedia, but perhaps in the separate political positions article. NATO members have a mutual defense treaty, that's part of the deal. Palin's getting cornered on it and saying something that the media picked up on may be a campaign issue but for her bio article it's just the news of the day, and I doubt it's anything that by itself will rise to notability.Wikidemon (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cornered? She went to that interview, they didn't ask her while she was getting into a car or something. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong in quoting Palin on her support for Georgia and Ukraine's admittance into NATO. What would be the problem in stating a fact? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing really, but it's probably more suitable for Political positions of Sarah Palin than for her biography, since it's really a pretty unremarkable statement. Kelly hi! 04:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see anything "unremarkable" about the first statement ever made by Palin related to foreign policy in public televison. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be best to get consensus in the daughter article (since this is really a political position, and actually identical to that of the McCain campaign) and bring a summary here. Kelly hi! 04:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as it was the defining moment of her foreign policy position, it's got every right to be stated here. Grsztalk 04:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is restating a talking point of the McCain campaign (and incidentally the Obama campaign) a "defining moment"? Kelly hi! 04:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's the only foreign policy statement she's ever made! Grsztalk 04:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She said it, and it must be worth including. If she had waxed poetic and stated some positions on Georgia and Ukraine, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Tibet, Cyprus and Burma, we might have to find a secondary source that summarized her philosophy for us. But if this is the only thing she volunteered, we should include it here. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She did say a lot of other stuff, so I will now opine that there is too much to include here. It may fit in the Political Positions article. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless that is the McCain campaign's only foreign policy postion too. Then I'll change my mind. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"She said it, and it must be worth including." Yes let's include everything she ever said. I propose "Small town mayor is sort of like a communitiy organizer except you have actual responsibilities (huge cheer from the crowd)", but seriously though other statements made by her are 100 times more 'notable' (or rather noted by the media) if you will like the "what's the difference between a hockey-mom and a pitbull" line and others. Hobartimus (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter, she said a lot of other foreign policy stuff, I did not watch the interview and so I change my opinion above. As for those quotes above, they weren't written by her, and aren't policies. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pledge

Tznkai (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC) says: Because of the contentious nature of this article as well as history between the editors, I was hoping that all the content editors would sign up for the following pledge:[reply]

"I, being dedicated to the high quality and neutrality of this article,

editing in good faith in cooperation with my fellow editors,

will not in my talk page comments or my edit summaries mention other editors except to complement them.

I will voluntary restrict myself to one revert a day.

I will ask for help during disputes, rather than protect the article alone."

Agree

  1. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support  :) --Hapsala (talk) 04:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agreed..--Buster7 (talk) 06:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Can we have Felonious Monk or SlimVirgin for a referee instead? Kelly hi! 04:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was really low, Kelly and very unhelpful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Low? How so? Kelly hi! 04:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a "no" to line 3 of the pledge, at least. MastCell Talk 20:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those who agree should go ahead and take the pledge. There's no need to make it conditional on other people taking the pledge. As for myself, I am wary of pledges. Fear of commitment maybe.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree. There are too many new editors, and editors arriving as a result of off-wiki POV-pushing campaigns[12] for a "pledge" to have any real meaning. Kelly hi! 04:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Under God? --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least outside the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, I belive... --Hapsala (talk)
A pledge is a personal stand, in front of witnesses...--Buster7 (talk) 06:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't pledge to complement other editors, though I am willing to compliment them when appropriate. Otherwise, I think these are excellent general principles which would probably improve the editing environment. That said, I feel like a "pledge" is a bit... gimmicky? Let's just do our best to set a good example, which includes a) not edit-warring, b) asking for help, and c) avoiding commentary on other editors where possible. MastCell Talk 20:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

18 archives in 10 days

Is the Sarah Palin talk possibly one of the most active talkpages in Wikipedia's history? --Hapsala (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference in Time Magazine

I noticed on top of this talk page about this article being referenced in various media outlets. One that you might add is Nathan Thornburgh, "Call Of the Wild: Plucked from obscurity by John McCain, Sarah Palin has scrambled the presidential race," TIME 172.11 (September 15, 2008): 27, which states: "Everyone can agree that Palin is no beltway creature, but in less than a week, the country has uncovered at least half a dozen new Palin personas that are competing to share top billing on her Wikipedia entry." --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 04:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh - actually Rudy Giuliani mentioned Wikipedia in an interview about Palin tonight, though I think he was talking about the Bush Doctrine article. Kelly hi! 05:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have noted that on the talk page of "Bush Doctrine" as it was discussed on Countdown with Keith Olbermann on Friday night. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 04:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless Obama plug in the "Personal life" section...

"Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama declared the subject of candidates' families off limits in the coming campaign.[161]"

Exactly what is the relevance here? I'm sure we can come up with 150 million other people that said the same thing. Levinite (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those 150 million aren't running for President, though. It's also a hint to the POV-pushers on this article that they should follow his example. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

elope or Marriage

Currently the article states that Sarah and Tom were married. Very true. But, isn't the reader left with the impression that there was a big Church wedding ceremony with a huge cake, and all their friends and family around, presents and dancing afterwards. Is that what happened ...or did Sarah and Tom elope? Elope paints a different picture in the readers mind. Nothing wrong...just different and more accurate than marriage. I have informed the editor that changed to marriage that I would be reverting to "elope"...in about 1 hour--Buster7 (talk) 05:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I may be new to this but, I'm afraid that marriage is marriage. If you want to play semantecs, I would say that 'elope' conjures up imagery of something impulsive and/or "quick and dirty". Where is the evidence that this was the case? Levinite (talk) 05:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LA Times article, 30 August,2008...referenced..--Buster7 (talk) 07:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For Palin, using the word "elope" would paint a negative picture - because it would make a hypocrite of her. Let's stick to what we know, no speculation. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They eloped...thats a fact. If elope is too "quick and dirty' then provide another word, semantically appropriate. "Married' is too "bright and clean"...and like I said, it conjurs images in the reader that are inaccurate. Sarah's BLV should be truthful.--Buster7 (talk) 06:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just find a reliable cite. If we're going to say she eloped while pregnant we need a real good cite. But how much do you think people really care if her personal life doesn't always match her ideals? What should matters is what she wants to do for other people's families with the vice-presidency and perhaps the presidency? Can't we focus on the changes to people's lives that she wants to make? That's what matters to voters, that's what we should be focusing on. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of focusing on eloping is part of laying the groundwork for infering that she was already pregnant at the time - which can't be proven, so they have to resort to inference. However, it is important, if provable, because it (along with her daughter's unwed pregnancy) shows how little value her so-called "Christian principles" actually have in her and her family's lives, and people might actually care about that. The story about charging rape victims for rape kits is another highly questionable policy. Instead of "doing for [or 'to'] other people's families", she ought to focus on her own problems - the biblical principle of removing the log from your own eye before removing the speck from someone else's eye. It's amazing how politicians who would criticize others' behavior are remarkably tolerant about their own misbehavior. But without evidence demonstrating the value of the fact (and as far as I know, there ain't any), the "eloping" part doesn't belong in the article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There ought to be evidence. I've seen references to a 'town hall wedding' because, apparently, they didn't want to put their parents to the expense of a 'real' wedding. We can't know the motive, but the where and when, that can be checked. And I've seen claims that that wedding was 8 months before the first child - which presumably was not >1 month prem. All those dates could be checked. But it doesn't matter. Maybe she 'didn't wait' and , certainly her daughter didn't wait. But Sarah doesn't back down - knowing what she knows, she still backs the same horse. She's been there, and it hasn't changed her mind about whether it's a good place to be. You can't score points by attacking her for that. Not unless you can show that her beliefs are going to be bad for ordinary people. There isn't going to be a knockout blow. If she's going to be taken down it'll be inch by inch, policy by policy. She's reignited the culture wars with a flamethrower and everything, everthing, is up for grabs. She has the guts to say how little she thinks of some people, and that appeals to a lot of people. McCain's old, and the presidency is a tough job, a killer job. She's damn likely to end up as President, and if she does, you know pretty much what to expect. That's what you ought to focus on. Cheers, Ben Aveling 09:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That "ordinary people" comment betrays serious elitism - and having children out of wedlock is about as "ordinary" as it gets. She's in no position to be copping anything resembling a "holier than thou" attitude. She needs to clean up her own house before daring to criticize anyone else's house. She's a lightweight, and anyone with half a brain can see that. She's a "trophy VP" candidate. Do you think this frenzy would be occurring if it were Condi Rice? Not hardly, and Condi is about 50 times better qualified for the job. The GOP is counting on this celebrity-frenzy to get people voting as stupidly as they did in 2000 and 2004. And if they do, they deserve what they get - Just as they did in 2000 and 2004. The article, though, is a different story. It has to be kept as "fair and balanced" as it can be, an especially daunting task since she's such an unknown quantity even now. Every tabloid rumor is finding its way here, and those have to be choked off unless good sources can be found, which is seldom the case. The GOP spent 6 months doing a background check, and they decided that her failure in bringing her daughter up the right way was something they could live with; so unless she's got some other skeletons that she's hidden very well, this is probably about all there is, and the rest is persistent attempts to infer things that can't be proven. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You keep thinking that she's a lightweight, and you'll be left wondering how she won the election. Obama has his vision of what America could be. Palin has her vision of what America should be. The tabloids are there to present the world for the viewer's titillation. We're here to present the world so it can be understood: What's being said, what it means. Who has said the same things before and who has tried the same things, and when, and what happened when they did. We're here to strip away the fluff. Did she answer a question about the 'Bush Doctrine'? Or did she answer a question about 'punching back, first'? Does she support "the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq"? If so, is it because she understands and agrees with the policies, or does she just support the Bush Administration? A bit like the Democrats perhaps, these articles are drowning in fluff. I'm signing off for now. Best of luck, Ben Aveling 13:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bush is a lightweight, and he won twice. Never underestimate the gullibility of the voting public. Look at how the GOP lackeys are "Rush"ing to her defense, like "gentlemen". They wouldn't need to do that if it were a candidate of substance. This does not bode well. And so-called tabloid stuff is relevant if it can be proven, which is the slippery part. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is a very unproductive line of argument and is fraught with all sorts of Wikipedia policy problems. Best to focus on her policy positions (and contradictions therein), gaffes, and ethical issues. Arjuna (talk) 09:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Along with the eloping is the inference due to her first child being born 8 months later. As they say, "The first one can come any time, the second one always takes 9 months." But as was proven with her latest one, children can come after only 7 months. So, again, there's no evidence, just inference, and it doesn't belong. It is funny, though, how people ragged Clinton about his supposedly low moral standards, yet the Palin apologists are just fine with her behavior - yet which family produced the out-of-wedlock pregnancy or pregnancies? A great role model, yah. But without evidence, her own marriage and pregnancy have to adhere to strict standards in the article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Facts They had to rassle up two witnesses from the old folks home for the wedding. Their parents weren't present. This February article has the story, and a lot of other interesting stuff. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion further down on the talk page about this also. They did elope, she describes in numerous places when campaigning for governor that they eloped to save money. There should be no problem with describing that they eloped, as that is factual. Trying to speculate on why they may have eloped is not appropriate for the article. The article should be factual, and state that they eloped because they could not afford a big wedding, as that is what she is quoted as having said, and what citations can support. Atom (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bush doctrine

I've just removed "When asked about the Bush Doctrine she did not seem to know what he was talking about.[13]" [14]. It's sourced, but it's unbalanced, and I dislike the vagueness of the word "seem". Thoughts? Regards, Ben Aveling 05:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If anything, this is John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, not material for her biography.JoeyCG (talk) 06:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to having something discussing that interview, but this particular attempt had too many issues for me to like it. Regarding her biography, remember that she may be the next president but one. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's someone's interpretation of an interview, hence it's editorializing. If someone told me that a doctrine meant "the right of 'anticipatory self-defense'," I would have to say I don't understand it either. But it sounds like a fancy way of saying, "I thought he was going to hit me, so I hit him back first." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look, the woman was obviously completely clueless about the Bush Doctrine. But that is an intangible, subjective assessment (collective consensus to that effect though there may well emerge) and so it would be impossible to put in the article as far as I can tell. But if so, it would go into the campaign article, not here. Arjuna (talk) 10:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to say something about it, I understand that it was her first real interview and I think a lot of people were counting on her making a mess of it. But it sounds more like, not much happened. That's hard to get excited about. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno -- it was a pretty embarassing performance... I just don't see how any intelligent person could have seen it and not come away with the conclusion that the woman is completely and utterly unqualified for the position. So I find that pretty exciting (not in a good way)! But that's my opinion; it's not an encyclopedia-relevant claim. Arjuna (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors have repeatedly deleted the post-interview reference I added (NY Times, 9/12/08) and substituted a pre-interview AP reference. Then they deleted the whole text and claimed that the reference didn't substantiate the text. This is really not in the spirit of Wikipedia. For a controversial figure it is Wikipedia policy to present controversial issues, both sides. If the antis have some alternative view with references to support it, it should go in, but it is not reasonable that something that is controversial should stay out just because the antis don't have a reference to their views. --Zeamays (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least Charlie didn't ask her about "cool-down blocks". — CharlotteWebb 15:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a great source on the Bush Doctrine question http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/the_palin_interview.php

And the funniest thing about her performance in the Gibson interview is that she NEVER actually answers his question, even when he spells out for her what The Bush Doctrine means!

It's as if she'd read every job-interviewing tip book on Amazon and had become the world's most upwardly mobile, positive-thinkin' hockey mom, but she finally got stumped.

I'm sure she looked up The Bush Doctrine on Wikipedia right after the interview and teared up and started slapping herself... "Oh Sarah, you fool, you foooool. Waaaaa"

Young Trigg had better open a new Wiki account. Sarah's gonna need some help with this one. (Peeing myself laughing.) --Ohaohashingo (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I opened up this article, hit "Ctrl + F", and looked for "Bush Doctrine", and it hit 0 results. Come on folks, whether you're for Palin or against her, it is all the news right now. If its notable enough to merit so many news articles on all the major publications, it should be enough to have at least a blurb on here. Whether she does not actually know what the bush doctrine is or not, she certainly gave the clear impression she did not on her interview, and that is the gaffe that is in the news. Can someone please insert an unbiased reference to the current goings-on, or does Sarah Palin need her separate own controversy page now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.19.106 (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Troopergate Back in the NEWS again read all about it

May need to update the troopergate sections in the various articles. This referenced material refers to information gleaned from the Wall Street Journal, CNN, The Seattle Times , The New York Times.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/11/1377812.aspx --207.232.97.13 (talk) 05:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)fred[reply]

The source material above is drawing from other news sources


The source you bring is MSNBC, weren't MSNBC-s election anchors just fired for extreme bias? Hobartimus (talk) 06:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes , the two were squabbling and fighting on air with each other here is the story. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/business/media/08msnbc.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin --207.232.97.13 (talk) 06:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)fred[reply]

  • MSNBC is a reliable source, even if it has a bias. This article, however, is just a compilation of other sources and is useless. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I saw a news story on a Pew research that showed CNN as most trusted, followed by NPR, then CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC and FOX in last place. No surprises there. Essentially it shows all of them as less trusted than in the past polls. Atom (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Pew article referred to appears to be http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1353 . It states "Roughly a quarter of the public (24%) regularly watches CNN and about an equal percentage (23%) regularly watches the Fox News Channel." Nielsen ratings indicate that Fox has more long-term viewers, while CNN has many viewers who look in for a few minutes at a time, possibly only once or twice in a month. As Pew does not have a criterion for "regular," it may be comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. Nor does this cite refer to "trust." Moreover http://people-press.org/report/348/internet-news-audience-highly-critical-of-news-organizations "The ratings for Fox and CNN, individually, are comparable to those for cable news networks collectively; 75% of those able to rate Fox have a favorable impression of the network, while 72% say the same about CNN. Positive views of CNN have fallen substantially over the past two decades." Meaning? A lot of people do not trust any single news source. Collect (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dinosaurs and other unorthodox beliefs

There is a lot of speculation on the blogosphere about palin believing that humans and dinosaurs once co-existed, that the earth is only a few thousand years old and other odd things. Is there any actual verifiable evidence of all this and if so would it be appropriate on wikipedia? Coolug (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be appropriate, if adequately sourced material can be found. Speculative articles and blogs won't do; it has to be pretty well-documented. Speaking personally, it would be very interesting if you are able to locate that material (my guess is that there are lots of people now in Alaska looking for such material), and I would support its inclusion. Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 10:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NO, that was from a humorous blog posting that went viral because it seemed plausible to some people. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are many fundamentalist Christians that do believe all of that stuff. But unless there's a reliable quote of her saying that, it's not relevant. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Matt Damon says she said it, then it must be true.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Matt Damon has suddenly left the country for a cultural event in Pyongyang. Kelly hi! 17:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reception section creep

There will be no end to it, mark my words. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eloped vs married

I recently change eloped with to married which was subsequently reverted to eloped and married. Is there a pressing need to describe her elopement? As per WP:BLP, we are obliged to offer Gov. Palin basic human dignity. That she married Todd Palin is clearly relevant to her bio. That she did not do so in front of 200 guests is not. People elope for many reasons and using that term in her bio seems, IMHO, somewhat petty. Especially when the perfectly neutral term married is available. Thoughts? Ronnotel (talk) 11:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "married" is a more WP:NPOV term. From what I recall, the paragraph used to go into more detail about the reasons for the elopement (the family couldn't afford a big wedding) - I think this was someone's attempt at a "human interest" angle. That's been appropriately pared down, but "eloped" remains. It should simply say "married". Kelly hi! 12:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could accept "married" or even other descriptions "Her husband of 20 years, Todd is a ..." "Her marriage with Todd Palin was ..." etc. Hobartimus (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to discussion above, elope or marriage. As you know, since you were the editor that removed a previously verified edit (from eloped with to married), in good faith I contacted YOU hours before I made any edit to this section. My reasons for changing are as I state. I have no subversive intentions. "married" paints a less than complete picture in the readers mind about what happened. I have no intention of adding any mention of pregnancy. I believe the cited article will inform the reader that it was an economic decision (to elope). Feel free to add more congenial reasons, if you like.
This broad jump to "basic human dignity" is a stretch. We edit what we find. It so happens that 42 years ago, my first wife and I eloped. If someone was writing my bio, I would certainly want that fact included. Its Romantic.--Buster7 (talk) 12:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I somehow gave the sense that your edits were not made in good faith - that was not my intent. I accept that some may be happy with describing their own marriage as an elopement. However, it would be incorrect to assume that everyone would prefer that term over the more general, and less-value laden, married. You refer to painting a picture in the reader's mind. On the contrary, WP must strive to avoid painting anything but instead choose the most neutral language possible. It's the term elope that paints a picture. Ronnotel (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The term/word "elope" is the best word possible to describe what happened. The term/word "marriage" is NOT specific enough to describe the facts. --Buster7 (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the "facts" that are imparted by the term elope, i.e. that the ceremony was private, civil, and not attended by guests, etc., are simply not relevant to her bio. In fact, because these "facts" have a largely negative connotation, they have no place in the article. Ronnotel (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The term/word "marriage" is NOT specific enough" you claim that there is no legal "marriage" between Todd and Sarah Palin? I could understand questioning phrases "they married on x day y year" but to deny that there is an actual marriage existing between them is weird. Hobartimus (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Elope" doesn't mean they were Not Married. They certainly WERE married. Don't put words in my mouth or put your POV onto my simple edit--Buster7 (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"They certainly WERE married." So what's the problem with writing this in the article? You yourself say that "They certainly WERE married." Hobartimus (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with saying "eloped". It's factually correct (I assume that's not in dispute). Maybe that fact can be interpreted as having negative connotations, though I don't think everyone reads it that way, but this is her biography. Interesting and well-documented facts about her life should be included even if some are marginably negative. Our goal shouldn't be to make the history look better (or more "neutral") than it actually was any more than our goal should be to make it look worse than it was. An elopement is the kind of fact that I would expect a public figure's biography to mention. Dragons flight (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I believe most serious biographies would prefer to avoid the value-laden and tabloid-esque term 'elope'. How about "married Todd Palin in a private civil ceremony". Ronnotel (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm - the problem is that "eloped" carries all kinds of connotations, both positive (some people think it's romantic) or negative (assumptions that families disapproved of the match, or that they "had to get married"). The word "elope" by itself is either too much information or not enough. I could see using it if it explained that the reasons for the elopement were economic in this case. Kelly hi! 12:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to elaborating on it. This is her biography, not just the political history of Sarah Palin. Right now, this article has substantially less discussion of her personal history and development than any of the other candidates. Dragons flight (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If she had eloped and her first child were born a year later, no one would care. It's the inference that she "had to get married" which is why editors are pushing for it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd expect the elopement to be mentioned even if she never had kids. I know that some people are pushing it to foster to pregnancy meme. For my part, I've actually removed references to that first pregnancy more than once. I simply consider the elopement as the kind of biographical background that is natural to include in a biography. Dragons flight (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well Track was born in April 20th 1989, and they were married in August 29th of 1988. That means he was conceived in July of 1988. I suppose they chose to get married, and I don't see the relevance of any connection between getting married and having a child. This isn't the 1950's. No one cares about whether someone is married before they have a child or not anymore. Regardless, they chose to elope, so we should just be honest about it. Atom (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have never considered eloped to have any negative connotations. IN any event, they did elope to get married. It applies. If there were, for some people, negative connotations, then those would seem to be applicable if they did elope. This is Wikipedia, not a marketing document or a job resume. Also, if eloped were somewhat negative for some people, well, we have NPOV that allows expression of differeng views. How could we have a neutral article if every fact that could remotely be considered to be negative in any way is prohibited in the article, (even if true)? If she uses the term eloped herself, well then she must be okay with other people describing it that way. Atom (talk) 13:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If she herself says she eloped, then it's not a problem. Where's the citation? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Let me look. Atom (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence has two sources - one is the Johnson book, which I know one of the editors of the article now has in hand. The other is here, which says in relevant part

Sarah eloped with Todd, her childhood sweetheart, in 1988. Her mother said: ‘It was a shock but she did it because she knew we couldn’t afford a big white wedding. They have been together ever since. He is her rock.’

GRBerry 13:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still fail to see why "married Todd Palin in a private civil ceremony" is not a preferable alternative. Anyone? Ronnotel (talk) 13:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If she herself says she eloped, you can link the word elope to its definition if you want to. It's not appropriate to spin the article either direction. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the suggestion "married Todd Palin in a private civil ceremony." Please make the change. Eloped is a loaded, pejorative term intended to make Governor Palin look bad. SnapCount (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Describing the facts isn't spin. "Eloped" is more descriptive on a major life event and we aim to present relevant biographical details. It sounds like a classic elopement. It has all the elements. You know, getting married without telling the parents in advance so as to spare the fuss of a formal wedding. Calling it a "private ceremony" sounds like 1950s euphemism - that is definitely spin. We all know why this is an issue, something having to do with the apparent disconnect between conservative religious values and her family's history vis-a-vis sex and pregnancy outside of marriage. But that's a judgment people are making, not one the article supports. We can just present important biographical facts - we cannot control what people make of them. It looks like most of the major sources say that they eloped. To avoid the negative implications we can follow the lead of the Telegraph and many others which explain why they eloped: "the couple eloped to save the cost of a wedding."[15]Wikidemon (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If she eloped, and she apparently says in numerous places when she was running for governor that she eloped to save money, then saying she eloped, because she did elope, should not be an issue. Elopement is not negative, it is merely factual. If someone wants to attach negative connotations to elopement, then that is their prerogative. Also, the article must be NPOV. Avoiding saying something that someone may think is negative (even though factual) is hardly NPOV, but an attempt to spin the article to be only positive, rather than factual.
The pregnancy outside of marriage thing is entirely different. From what I can tell she is not on the record for discussing this, and so it should not be in the article. It is not notable anyway. This isn't the 1950's, 30% of parents in the U.S. have children without being married. Marriage is not a requirement for having children. Why would her being pregnant before getting married even be an issue? Atom (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Good Christians" aren't supposed to conceive children out of wedlock, especially if they're putting themselves in position to tell other women how to behave. However, there is no concrete evidence that she herself was pregnant when married. She herself has apparently used "eloped" freely, so there's no reason for the article not to. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've hit on the problem with using the word eloped. It is meant to suggest, connote, and imply -- falsely -- that Governor Palin conceived a child out of wedlock. SnapCount (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, eloped does not imply or mean that. Secondly, it has not been established that she did not conceive before marriage. Using the word elope in the article is firstly factual, and secondly true to how she described it when she was campaining for Governor. Atom (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've seen that at least one source (a UK newspaper) uses "eloped", and enough sourcing to understand that it is accurate in the sense of "getting married without the knowledge of the parents", which is a large part of the original meaning. We also know that "married" is accurate. To my mind, WP:NPOV implies that we should use the wording that is more commonly used by reliable biographic sources. So which wording is used more often? I think that is "married". GRBerry 14:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Well, hypocrisy is the hallmark of Christianity. Millions of "Good Christians" have and do have sex before marriage, and conceive out of wedlock, she would hardly be the first. Also, as far as I know, the Vice president is a public servant, and not someone who is in a position to "tell us how to behave". Also, as I understand the teachings of Christ, the religion is about grace, forgiveness, charity and hope, and a personal relationship with God, not about telling other Christians how they should behave. But, back on topic. The topic is not whether we want to put that she eloped, or not. The question is "Did she elope, or not"? Can we cite that this is accurate? Does it violate BLP policies? Is it notable? (That she uses "crest" to brush her teeth may be factual, but not notable.) In my opinion, clearly she did elope, and that can be thoroughly cited, including her own description of the event as an elopment. As for BLP, since it is accurate, and cited it does not violate BLP. As for notability, given that she described hersels as eloping answering questions from the press in numerous interviews running for governor, and that was reported, it seems notable. Atom (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Accuracy is already established, BLP isn't the issue. The issue is WP:NPOV, which says that if we are going to use only one word as a decription, it should be the most common usage in the reliable sources. If most reliable sources describe her as marrying, we should use that wording. If most describe her as eloping, we should use that wording. GRBerry 14:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see your view. I believe though that "eloped" and "married" are not synonyms, and therefore interchangeable. "Eloped" is more specific and "married" less specific, which is why "eloped" should be preferred. Also, NPOV does not mean the article should only state neutral facts. Atom (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it seems clear we're not going to get a concensus on using loaded, disputed terms like "eloped." It should be removed until there is a clearer consensus on this issue among participating editors. SnapCount (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All marriages are "marriages." I was a J.P. for fifteen years or so, and performed weddings which were "elopements" if one chose to use such a deceptive word in context. Collect (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If two people elope, how is it deceptive to call it an elopement? Atom (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest something like "In 1988, Sarah Heath, at age 24, eloped with Todd Palin, who had been her high-school boyfriend." This would alleviate any unintended notion that she 'needed' her parents' permission. Pingku (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like this. It is concise, agrees with Palin's public statements and implies nothing other than the facts. Atom (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's good. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC) (Atom, I fixed the dates in your above comment, trust you don't mind.)[reply]

Arbitrary break

I've changed it to "married" for now, as that is undisputed, while "eloped with" seems controversial. Kelly hi! 16:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny that you're removing "elope" as being controversial. Apparently Palin is not allowed to call it what it is, as that would violate WP:BLP about herself. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is, they're worried about "negative connotations", but if Palin herself doesn't think that's a concern, then it puts wikipedia in the position of being nannies and spin-doctors. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just changed it for now, until consensus emerges one way or the other. If consensus says "eloped", I have no problem with that. Kelly hi! 16:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having problems seeing why some have their knickers in a twist over the word "eloped". All it means is that instead of pre-planning their marriage in detail then went off to Vegas and got married without notifying family members that they were doing so... The word by itself does not impart any sense of POV or any state of mind that may or may not have driven the Palins to elope versus having a formal ceremony. Heck, as noted above, Palin herself uses the term eloped to describe how she and Todd got married... --Bobblehead (rants) 17:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it should be "eloped". That's how she described it. To change it to "married" is POV-pushing because it is a less specific term than what she uses. Would you change "marijuana" to "drugs?" No! Reducing the specificity changes the meaning. I concur with Pingku's suggestion above.--Appraiser (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, and not counting the article page edits 9 editors (Buster7, Baseball Bugs, Atomaton, Dragons flight, Wikidemo, GRBerry, Pingku, Bobblehead, Appraiser) have sounded in here with arguments that it is preferable to describe the marriage as an elopement, while 5 (Levinite, BenAveling, Ronnotel, Kelley, SnapCount) feel otherwise. It's not clear this makes consensus so take that for what it is. I am a little concerned that here, and with the discussion of religion, what we've gone beyond patrolling the article for poorly sourced, inaccurate, triial, and POV facts and are now deleting well-sourced notable facts acknowledged by Palin herself that happen to (in some people's opinion) reflect negatively on her. I don't see how her religious practices or her strong will and spontaneity towards her marriage are derogatory. I'm trying to get my arms around this, but it seems like we're applying a standard that would deny facts in favor of euphemism. Wikidemon (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Atom on this, "eloped and marry" is balanced. It's not enough that facts be true, they have to be balanced as well - and by balanced, I mean of equal importance. If we just ran the good facts, or the bad facts, or even if we tried to run an equal number of good and bad facts, we'd be distorting. It's not always easy to agree on what to include, but the guiding principle has to be that we start by including the most important facts and work our way down, regardless of good or bad. We may disagree on what's important, but at least we agree that important is the principle, not good or bad. In this case, neither elope nor marry is enough on their own - each leaves out part of the story. But together, it works nicely. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree, per Ben above. Kelly hi! 21:35, 12 September

2008 (UTC)

Good...When the change is made please also reconsider returning the date to the article. As it stands now it merely says .."In 1988, Sara and Todd were married......" Before it included the date...August 20, I believe. Thank you--Buster7 (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it never said..."eloped with" as stated above. It was, and should be, per consensus, "eloped and married". --Buster7 (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, someone is misreading what I wrote. I've written that each word is accurate and sourcable. I've written that we should, per WP:NPOV, go with what the most common usage in reliable sources is. I've speculated that the more common usage is married, though that is more a gut feel than a scientific study. I certainly have not argued that we should use eloped instead of married; I have not done that. GRBerry 21:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned before, since "eloped" and "married" are not synonyms, the most common of the two would not be the correct standard. One is more specific and one less specific (and so one is more accurate). All people who elope are married, but not all people who marry eloped. We have a citation that she eloped, and since that is the better choice of the two, being more specific (more accurate) it would be preferred. Atom (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@ GRBerry...not instead of married,,,but WITH married...Do you agree to that?--Buster7 (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AGREE with change to "eloped to marry" by Atom.--Buster7 (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of factually accurate material

This is the third day that I see factually accurate material [16]that is well sourced being deleted from this article. Please discuss such deletions and provide a substantive rationale for these deletions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jossi, factually accurate material that is well sourced does not mean that material has to be included in any article. The rationale should be why this material should be included, my opinion of course :). I actually liked how Palin's religious beliefs read before you reverted, but I am a minimal/deletionist so go figure. I won't revert this since I have reverted other parts of the article. Thank you, --Tom 15:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should be included because (a) it is factually accurate; (b) it is notable; (c) it describes facts that are published in reliable sources. Let's avoid using this article to promote a specific political viewpoint: the facts speaks for themselves and let the readers make their own opinions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not every fact that is factually accurate and backed up by sources needs to be included in this article. The basics belong in this article; everything else belongs in the subarticles. Otherwise we end up with an incomprehensible article. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What will make the article incomprehensible? Stating that Palin was a Pentecostal for 38 years is most certainly a notable aspect (if not the notable aspect) of her religious formation/convictions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Tom and Julian above. Kelly hi! 16:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Sorry to jump in here. There are many things about her that are doubtless irrelevant. But biographies should be tied to what people will find relevant about a person. Why include so much about music in Bach's biography? Because most people who are interested in Bach are so because of music. Since Palin is a candidate for vice president, since so much of her party's support comes from religious people, and since she was an appropriate running mate for McCain precisely because they are working to establish a regime based on faith, it seems to me that her religious background is one of the most relevant possible pieces of information to most readers. Isn't it? --fugue137

(outdent) Jossi, I really hope the comment about promoting a specific political viewpoint wasn't directed at me, since I to don't want that to happen either. My point was that the religious material had seemed to be getting out of hand as far as how specific it was reading and appeared muddled, while the reverted version was pretty consise and presented the material accurately. Again, this perticular section and material doesn't really rub me the wrong way either way. --Tom 16:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem with that section is "Although initial press reports described her as Pentecostal..." ... if the press reports were mistaken, why include that line? Kelly hi! 16:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The article should say what she was and is, not what some news reports mistakenly thought she was or is. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, --Tom 17:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a useful change. But deletion of the other material is not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The National Catholic Reporter describes her as a "post-denominational" Christian. Is this incorrect? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this previous section of this talk page, where it was discussed that the journal of one religion is not an adequate source regarding the religious views of a person of another religion.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with jossi here, at least as far as saying that she attended the Wasilla Assembly of God for a significant amount of time, shall we say "for over 30 years" since there seems to be some uncertainty. I also think the information that she and her children were baptised at this church is a significant life event. The fact that she declared herself to be "saved" here is even more relevant. I'm sure it will be a deciding factor for many Americans of who they will vote for in this election. I don't see why it was removed by User:Atomaton here. I will be restoring that information.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and beat you to it.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You did. Do we have a solid cite on how many years she attended the church?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed one of the two footnotes for that section. Does that solve the problem?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how her baptism, her childrens baptism, and where they were baptized, has any relevance to the article or section. Of course if she is a Christian, then she was saved. The part about baptism and being saved is non-notable. The section mentions her religious background in detail already. Also, who cares if she was a member of a pentocastal church for more than 30 years? She was a Catholic, and then a Pentocostal, and now she is non-denomonational. Does someone have some vested interest in indicating that she was Pentocostal for longer than she was Catholic, or non-denominational. Is that somehow notable in some way that I am missing? Atom (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may not see that as important, but others disagree with you. Why are you deleting material without discussion, Atomaton?[17] Where is the compromise, and how this is "unimportant text" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It takes consensus for it to be in the article, removing what people don't have consensus for is not "deleting material without discussion". I respect that you don't agree. That's why we are trying to reach consensus. Atom (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
who cares if she was a member of a pentocastal[sic] church for more than 30 years - Our readers, Atom, our readers. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I said was who cares that it was for 30 years. She isn't pentacostal now. I didn't say that we should not put what religion, or what sect, or even what church she has gone to -- I just pointed out that trying to dilineate that she was a Catholic for four years, a Pentcaostal for 34 years, and non-denominational for three years is not really relevant to this section -- more detail than needed -- nit picking -- may POV pushing. It smacks of someone trying to spin the view that she is basically Pentecostal in philosophy and not really one of those Catholics. Do we have quotes of her saying "I'm proud that I was Pentacostal for 34 years!" No. Why should we try to say something that she is not interested in saying. What is the hidden agendum here? Atom (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems our "readers" don't care about Black_liberation_theology or Liberation_theology though in relationship to bio's on politicians and how long they've been associated with it? Theosis4u (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know what you refer to, as this is a biography of a person that has no black liberation theology past. It is a fact that the person was a Pentecostal for 30 years, and that is indeed notable. Also, is there any thing wrong in being a Pentecostal? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or a Catholic????--Buster7 (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disingenuous and invalidates assumption of good faith [your edit history shows as much]. The other referenced "theology" is also "Pentecostal" in it's belief - the "other" bio is free of the confession of "bein born again" and the implied references to the belief of "speaking in tongues" because of their church being "Pentecostal". Theosis4u (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[refuse to engage in discussions not related to the edit in question] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

BTW, the current version "Palin was born into a Catholic family.[171] When she was 4 years old, her family joined the Wasilla Assembly of God, affiliated with the fundamentalist Pentecostal movement; Palin attended the Wasilla Assembly of God until age 38. When in Juneau, she attends the Juneau Christian Center.[172] Her current home church is the Wasilla Bible Church, an independent congregation.[173]Palin described herself in an interview as a "Bible-believing" Christian.[171]" IUs something I could live with, it is a good edit, whoever did it. Atom (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

affiliated with the fundamentalist Pentecostal movement is factually incorrect. I have corrected and provided source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baptisms and "Getting Saved"

So Atom removed the reference to baptisms and being saved again, twice, here and here. I'm sort of amazed at this since Palin identifies so strongly as a Christian, It seems to me it should be helpful information to determining what kind of Christian she is, but maybe that's just me. First, I suggest getting a consensus on whether the following events that took place at Wasilla Assembly of God should be included in this article:(1) Palin's baptism, (2) Palin's children being baptised (3) Palin being saved.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I am in favor of (1), (2) and (3) being included for the above reason stated, and also because Palin recently on June 8, 2008 appeared to make a political point out of it when she gave a speech at the church in her capacity as governor. See video here and feel free to ignore opinion article.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need, the discussion has moved beyond that, see the rest of the talk page below. I won't detail it all over again, but in a nutshell, the personal section is not the place for her religious background, beliefs and such. It is intended for high-level, low detail background about her marriage, hobbies, religion and church, etc -- not details on any of those. There is a need for that information, and there is a new section specifically for discussing her religious history, background, opinions expressed and such. (See Sarah_Palin#Religious_perspective Her baptism and the baptism of her children are religious issues, not general (low detail) information about her background, as intended by the personal section. The new section, currently "Religious perspective" (although talk of renaming it, perhaps to "Religion" is the place for that kind of detailed information. Please see extensive discussionms below (Talk:Sarah_Palin#Palin_and_Religion for details. It was not my intent to try to block mentioning details of her religious experience, but to say that the 'personal section is not the right place for that. Atom (talk) 06:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I take it you are also in favor of including the information in the article (whether it's in the personal history section or the religious views section doesn't matter to me). Since you've been the one repeatedly removing the information Atom, perhaps you wouldn't mind replacing it and moving it to whichever section you see fit.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 06:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I already have actually. I am sure that it needs much polishing. Please feel free to do that. Atom (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1.6 Billion Alaska Budget: Cut by or Reduced to?

It is stated under budget and spending as Alaska's Govenor that Palin reduced the budget by 1.6 Billion USD. Under political positions it indicates she cut 1.6 Billion from the budget. Both items have the same citation. The citation seems to indicate "reduced to 1.6 billion" is the correct statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.86.202.33 (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gibson interview

I'd suggest that some of Palin's views be eleborated in a small passage. In the interview she was notably forceful in discussing Russia, saying its incursion into Georgia was "unprovoked" (possibly a position some foreign policy analysts might argued with); and that "We’ve got to keep an eye on Russia", which she repeated twice. --Hapsala (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you should be raising this discussion at Talk:Political positions of Sarah Palin or Talk:John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. This is her biography, and we'll have no more than summaries of the most important parts of those pages here. GRBerry 16:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, seeing as this was her very first interview in a national scale, it goes towards establishing her notability and should not be banished to a side article. Grsztalk 16:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current short summary seems appropriate. Ronnotel (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree a brief, neutrally worded summary is appropriate. SnapCount (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably appropriate to note that she still thinks Iraq has a connection with 9/11, per that same source. Grsztalk 17:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that she thinks Al Qaeda is in Iraq? If they're not, then who are those people that have been claiming to be Al Qaeda in Iraq? Kelly hi! 17:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean that she thinks Iraq/Saddam was responsible:

"At a separate event on Thursday, a deployment ceremony for her son Track and thousands of other soldiers heading to Iraq from Fort Wainwright, Alaska, Ms. Palin told them they would be fighting 'the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans'.

"The comments sounded reminiscent of the disputed connections the Bush administration once made, but no longer does, between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks. But a senior McCain campaign aide said Ms. Palin did not believe Saddam Hussein played a role in the attacks."

A McCain aide had to cover for her. Grsztalk 20:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current 'short summary' of her 'Political Positions' on foreign policy is no longer accurate and needs to be updated. It presently states: "Palin's foreign policy positions remain unclear". In the Gibson interview, she clearly expressed her foreign policy positions on various issues that should be included per WP:SS.75.36.70.205 (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this sentence is no longer accurate. How about:
"Palin supports an assertive foreign policy that includes NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine, and as well as support for the Bush Doctrine".
Ronnotel (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember hearing an answer from her once Gibson told her what the Bush Doctrine was. The NATO part is fine.--Appraiser (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The best I can make out of that interview is that she: a) didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was; b) believes Israel has the right to defend itself from supposed threats from Iran; c) supports military operations in Pakistan without Pakistani approval; d) supports Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO. This is brief enough that it can all be included. Grsztalk 20:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like it Grsz - it briefly covers the major issues including her not knowing what the Bush Doctrine was. IP 75 75.36.70.205 (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)After asking Gibson to clarify what he meant by "support for the Bush Doctrine", she replied "Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.". Sounds like support to me. Ronnotel (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added the details from the interview under political positions. It's very brief. I left out mention of the Bush Doctrine until consensus determines what to put. Grsztalk 20:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

looks good. Ronnotel (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photos from junket to Kuwait

At various times in this article's history, there have been between zero and six photographs from Palin's visit to Kuwait. When there were six photos included, which was soon after the announcement that she would be the GOP candidate for Vice President of the United States of America, there was no mention of her trip in the body of the article. Thus, the inclusion of the pictures, and so many of them, smacked of non-NPOV and bias. Whoever added them was clearly trying to bolster her foreign policy credentials in the eyes of uncritical GOP party members and others. A few days later, zero pictures from the trip still existed on the article. Currently, there are two photos from the trip included on the article. I believe that there should be one photograph from the trip, with a brief mention of it in the body of the article. If there is no mention of the trip in the article, then there should not be any pictures from the trip.

The trip is mentioned in the article. I think two photos is fine, I'm not sure how they supposedly "boost her credentials". The last I checked, Barack Obama, with a similar amount of foreign policy experience, had two photos taken on military junkets in his article. Kelly hi! 17:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(reply to original post) For the sake of your argument I really hope that there are long discussions in the body of the article about "Obama playing basketball with the troops" in the Obama article one of the prominent photographs there. Obama's basketball game against members of the military is hardly notable event in it's own right and it doesn't have to be. It's still there. Hobartimus (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking it is less an issue with trying to insert POV into the article, but more an issue with trying to get free images of Palin that are at least marginally decent. One of the problems of living in the hinter regions of the US is that there aren't that many non-copyrighted images out there and her trip to Kuwait was photographed by federalized ANG members, thus making the photos public domain. So if you want to replace the pictures from that trip, then please feel free to go find some other free ones that are better. On a side note... Kelly, is it really necessary to compare the Obama article to this one? Additionally, last I checked Obama had quite a bit more foreign policy experience than Palin. He's actually met with foreign leaders. *grin* --Bobblehead (rants) 17:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bobblehead. Govt. photos are always PD and available to us. I think two "military" shots is a reasonable number, but we shouldn't let that grow.--Appraiser (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The National Enquirer as BLP per Wiki Policy

A little confused , read earlier on , on this discussion page, a topic discussing the National Enguirer. The Enguirer has broken stories about John Edwards, Palins daughter pregnancy that turn out to be factual. However I gather on the Wiki this is not a reliable source.

Please expand on this and BlP --MisterAlbert (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In order to be a reliable source, it's not sufficient that a publication sometimes contain stories that turn out to be true. The question is what its methods are and what proportion of its stories are true, and whether people generally consider it a reliable source. —KCinDC (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like someone else pointed out, a broken watch is still right twice a day. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Transcripts of the Palin Interview on ABC

http://theblogs.thetimes.co.za/minor/2008/09/12/the-palin-interview-on-abc/

--MisterAlbert (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That link doesn't work for me. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another link.

http://marklevinshow.com/gibson-interview/

International experience

Does she have any? Has she ever travelled outside the United States? It would be useful to those of us in the rest of the world if the article answered these questions. So far as I can see, she bases her world view on the Book of Revelation, which is pretty terrifying. Honbicot (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"In 2007 Palin obtained a passport and traveled for the first time outside of North America to Kuwait and Germany to visit with members of the Alaska National Guard.[29][30]" She also had traveled to Mexico and Canada when a passport was not required to do so.--Appraiser (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • She traveled once overseas to Kuwait to visit Alaska troops. In her return trip to America, she stopped in Germany to see troops at the hospital base, and a refueling (like that counts as experience) in Ireland. Her first Passport was issued in 2007. She also claims to have made a personal road trip across Alaskan border to Canada, woohoo.[31] And hey, if you live "close to Russia", you must know everything about Putin, eh? /sarcasm Duuude007 (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: doh, you beat be. Duuude007 (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe she also touts negotiations with Canadian officials and industry heads as international experience, when she was trying to catalyze the Alaska Gas Pipeline[18]--Appraiser (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember this page is for discussions about the improvement of the article, and not personal opinions. Grsztalk 21:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's time we lock this page - there are too many Palin fanatics and haters around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VivinNath (talk • contribs) 02:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lock the page? There's a novel idea. Oh, wait... it was locked, for an entire week. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete McCain spokesperson clarification of Palin statements

I'd like to recommend deleting "A McCain spokesperson clarified the governor's comments saying that she was "speaking generally of jihads" and not specifically of the Iraqi government". My concern is with third parties clarifying Governor Palin's (or any person's) statements. What's wikipedia's BLP position on this? Does McCain speak for Palin?--Nowa (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, however for now I just changed it to "spokesperson stated" because obviously they can't say exactly what she meant. Grsztalk 20:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That has to go; the way it is written it looks like a clarification of the "have an exit plan" quote from a while back. It's confusing, and I don't see how it relates to jihads. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, plus I gave the foreign policy section a major haircut.--Nowa (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "minor edit" button and insertion of subsubheadings

These recent edits were all marked as "minor". Please do not mark non-trivial edits as minor. See this policy. "A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." Some of these exact edits were already reverted, so the editor must have known that they were controversial.

I will repeat once more only: I only marked as minor those edits which involved "rearranging of text without modifying content." I do not believe I marked the revert as minor, or if I did, I did not intend to.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, inserting sub-sub-headings is unnecessary in the section on her mayoralty. This is just a summary section, and subsubheadings clutter it up. Subheadings are enough. Additionally, these subsubheadings do not follow the subheadings in the subarticle. See WP:SS.

Additionally, a "restructuring" subsubsection should not include hiring and firing that occurs without eliminating or creating positions. It also should not cover discussion about censorship. And, there's no reason to expand the censorship material in order to try to justify a subsubheading. The details of conversations from 1996 are in the subarticle, and that's adequate. Ferrylodge (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ferrylodge. I would like to reiterate this point: Do not mark edits as minor unless they are, indeed, minor. Some users may have an incorrect setting in their preferences. To check, go to the “Editing” tab of your preferences and make sure that the “Mark all edits as minor by default” setting is disabled. Thank you. —Travistalk 20:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They were minors edits in that they involved editing for flow, and did not impact the content. I did not erase anything factual. The two additions I made I did not mark as 'minor' edits. When I say the other edits were 'flow edits', what I mean is that the section was nearly incomprehensible to the non-expert reader. Although they followed a chronological order, the information about hiring and firing appeared to be random (i.e. who cares who a mayor hires and fires, that's every mayor's prerogative) and needed to be grouped in a manner which would show that they were not indeed random details but impacted this tiny little town.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're simply not going to say anything about insertion of subsubheadings? It is very obvious that these edits were not all minor.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify a bit more, the hiring and firing section previously seemed irrelevant, mostly because the relevant contexts of the firings had been omitted. Thus I inserted two brief points to elucidate the relevance of mentioning the firing of a librarian and police chief. It is true that these points are expanded upon in the mayoralty article, but the most important thing is that this article make sense on its own, and that facts herein included are not so utterly stripped of context that they lose their relevance entirely. The point of subarticles is not to allow for deletion of points from main articles, but to allow expansion of the context.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get back to you about the subheading in a minute.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, thanks for bringing this to the talk page. I do see those edits as minor, actually, as I did not alter the content, only moved the first sentence of the conclusion up, moved a few sentences within a paragraph, and added a subheading, all of which qualify as "rearranging of text without modifying content." (as I mentioned earlier, I did not marked content changes as minor). But I understand if you see things differently - point taken - and I will try to be less casual about makring such edits as minor in the future. As far as the "restructuring" and "taxes and spending" heading, can you explain why you feel there should be no subheadings? I think it helps the reader to scan the article more quickly for points of interest.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) For the record, your edits do not constitute minor edits. Please mark edits as minor only if they meet these guidelines. Thanks —Travistalk 21:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not against subheadings here. I am against subsubheadings here. This is merely a summary of a subarticle, and subsubheadings clutter this article up.
Even if I did not have any problems with subsubheadings, these ones you have chosen don't work. For one thing, they do not follow the subheadings in the subarticle.
Additionally, a "restructuring" subsubsection should not include hiring and firing that occurs without eliminating or creating positions. It also should not cover discussion about censorship.
I do not follow your first point. According to whom? Please explain why you feel this way - I am not familiar with any policy that states anything like this, and if there were one, I would say Wiki is getting far too bureaucratized. As far as your second point, I'll get back to you in a minute.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to me. I said that I feel this way because it causes clutter.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Please explain: "a "restructuring" subsubsection should not include hiring and firing that occurs without eliminating or creating positions."LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restructuring means to change the structure of government, such as by creating a new position, or eliminating an existing position. It does not mean replacing one person with another in an identical position. Incidentally, if you are responding to a comment here, please make your reponse more indented than the comment you're responding to (I've fixed your indentation).Ferrylodge (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you tried to expand the censorship material here, you were reverted here, and you reverted back here. Please let's keep in mind that this is a summary section, and that controversial expansions should at least be discussed here at the talk page. Thanks. I disagree with including the additional details that you inserted, because it's adequately covered by the sub-article.
Yes, I reverted back. I will repeat and slightly rephrase: the point of subarticles such as the mayoralty article, is not to allow for omission of the relevance of information included in main articles. In other words, the main article included this information, but deleted its relevance entirely. This is not proper. When information is present, its relevance should always be evident (the reader should not ever have to guess why the info was included). It is always possible to express relevance concisely, to edit the language so that it is tight and clear. If you wish to edit the relevance down, I will not oppose it, so long as the essential message remains.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The material in question now reads: "According to librarian Mary Emmons, Palin asked whether she would object to library censorship in October 1996.[29] Palin later spoke publicly about the issue, saying she had no particular books or other material in mind for removal.[29] No books were removed from the library.[30][31][32] Emmons recalls Palin raising the possibility of people circling the library in protest, to which Emmons replied that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) would get involved.[29] The italicized part is what you edit-warred about, and I do not see how it is needed here to establish relevance. Are you saying that it is, or are you just trying to expand the censorship material so that it will justify a separate subsubcategory section header?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please see WP:ACCESSIBILITY: "Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this can disconnect the heading from the text it precedes, when read with larger fonts. Instead, either right-align the image, remove it, or move it to another relevant location."Ferrylodge (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I'll just say this once. You are POV-pushing and edit-warring at this article, and repeatedly bypassing discussion at this talk page. Please stop. This is also a WP:3RR warning, LamaLoLeshLa.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I reverted, I did not know it was you who added the headings: "Lowered mayor's salary", "relations with reporters," "fired librarian", etc., but these edits were not constructive and in good conscience I could not let them sit. Indeed, they were, not only a rather "cynical move" shall we say, but perhaps even close to vandalism, because there can be no justification for the inclusion of a heading reading "lowered mayor's salary" to head a single sentence reading, "she lowered her salary from x to x". The only reason to insert such a heading would be to make the point that there are too many petty headings, not to contribute in good faith to the quality of the article and to contribute to the relevance and readability of the information included.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to have subsubheadings, then they should be accurate, don't you think?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the heading to "reorganization". Now that you've explained a bit I understand that restructuring connotes something very specific.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to describe the interview

I tried to change this

"Her first interview with the press, with Charles Gibson of ABC News, aired on September 12. In the interview, Palin answered questions about her experience, national security, and Iraq."

To

"... In the interview, Palin endorsed the current Republican party position on national security, and Iraq."

To me, the article doesn't say that she answered the question of her experience.

I quote from the NYTimes piece:

"At times visibly nervous, at others appearing to hew so closely to prepared answers that she used the exact same phrases repeatedly"

But no major blunders either. So I think that question is still open.

She did take questions on national security and Iraq. But I don't think she really gave answers:

"You have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we’re on"

That's a commitment to the platform, but it's not an answer. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really think discussion of this interview is too "newsy". Two months (or six months if they win) from now no one will remember this one interview. I think it's fine to cite the interview and/or news sources talking about it to glean policy positions and whatever else she said, but the interview itself is not currently biographical. On the other hand, if they lose, and sources say it was because of this interview, then perhaps it will become noteworthy. For now, I'd remove that sentence.--Appraiser (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the Daily News reports, interviews, subordinates comments, etc. only add to the already fractured quality of the article. Not meant as a critique. It is what it is. It may become too multi-faceted. Imagine how the article will develope when the debates start. And that may be a better time to evaluate positions...when they come right from the candidates. This article is not a typical biography of a living person. Millions of readers are coming here to get information about a previously unknown person that is seeking the next to the Highest Political office in the World. We are obligated to remain as balanced and as non-political as possible while providing as much information as we can to our visitors. --Buster7 (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, Sarah, Sarah

Corwin8 for some reason introduced a bunch of occurrences of her first name. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Subsequent uses of names says these should be simply "Palin". —KCinDC (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content

A bunch of content has just been removed, with this edit summary: "rm. not in the source provided. Tagged before but ignored. Now deleted." However, there was no tag as far as I can tell. Am I missing something here?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the tag, but someone deleted it. Check the history.Diff The reason I tagged it is that the source does not support the claims made in the text. Feel free to re-add once you find a source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found a good ref and put it back.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palin the fundamentalist

This edit helpfully explains that her religion was "commonly regarded as a fundamentalist movement". Only thing is, the cited source does not say so, and this is therefore Original research. Please remove it, and simply follow reliable sources that discuss Palin. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free speech

The heading “Free speech matters” is problematic. According to the cited source, the librarian Emmons did not object to challenges to books, and did not object to removal of books, if her preferred procedure is followed. Instead, she merely suspected that Palin had a different procedure in mind, which Palin denied. Any chance we could select an NPOV heading that doesn’t suggest free speech was in jeopardy here? Like maybe the heading in the sub-article? See WP:SS. Also, the heading "Free speech matters" has a double-meaning, and so has additional POV problems (one meaning is "free speech is important" and the other meaning is "free speech issues").Ferrylodge (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I updated the subarticle in a way that is hopefully clearer and more neutral. Pls let me know if it works. Duuude007 (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My reading on the source is entirely different. Emmons explicitly defined what Palin was asking as a request to censor the library's selection of books and she expressed absolute objected to any such form of censorship. Censorship is a "free speech matter," period, no bones about it. If you want a more specific heading, you can revert it to the heading I originally added, "censorship matters". LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 01:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
your reading on the matter is not considering that "matters" means both "means something to people" and "subject of". It can be easily misinterpreted. That is why I proposed "On the topic of the Freedom of Speech". Duuude007 (talk) 02:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just change it to "Issues" or "Controversy"? --Kickstart70-T-C 02:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LamaLoLeshLa has changed it to "Library Matters". Does that convey the right message? There is a Freedom of Speech controversy even if "rhetorical" as the Wasilla news quote says, why cover it up? The citations clearly say that she requested at least 3 times what the process of banning books would be. Duuude007 (talk) 03:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to "Library Matters" which matches the subsection title in the daughter article. "Free Speech" does not convey a neutral point of view. Besides, these library matters, if they weren't just a personality clash between two people, were about freedom of the press, not freedom of speech.--Paul (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Library matters" is okay, if there must be all these subsubheadings. Ironically, the only free speech issue was whether Palin was free to open her mouth and ask a legitimate question about what the library's censorship policies were.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


basketball

Wasilla High currently has a boys and a girls basketball team. I assume (but don't know) that it was the same way when Sarah Heath played there. The way the Wik article on Palin now reads, one could fairly, but probably incorrectly, infer that there was only one team. Kdammers (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undue Weight

Sarah Palin is one of the most popular governors in Alaskan or U.S. history having a popularity rating of over 90% in her first year, and 80% for the majority of her second year. She campaigned on fiscal responsibility, ethics reform, getting a getting a pipeline deal passed, and reforming the taxes paid by big oil companies. She got the ethics bill passed with a big bi-partisan majority. She dumped the state jet airplane and vetoed over $750M from the budget. She got a new pipeline negotiated and approved. And, she reformed the tax system for big oil.

However, the Governor section in our article spends about 600 words on her promises and actual performance as a governor, and almost 800 words on things like Troopergate, the Bridge to Nowhere, and how much she charges on her expense account. This is not a well-balanced article.--Paul (talk) 02:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why don't you propose what you have in mind regarding your concerns in specifics (here on the talk page) so we can make changes to this issue(s) w/consensus? Just an advise: Be careful about things like "She got a new pipeline negotiated and approved", since it might backfire and making it less appealing to you than you intended. Check on sources first ;). --Floridianed (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the fact that she is popular in Alaska does not mean her positions will be popular outside of Alaska.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well stated. There is no WP:UNDUE issue here -- she doesn't "belong" just to Alaska anymore. (Alas! some might say.) Arjuna (talk) 03:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There certainly is a problem of undue weight here.

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.

The emphasis on opposition talking points over substantial narrative is obvious. If you can count words, or measure column inches it jumps out. If other political articles were written like this one, the majority of John F. Kennedy's article would speculate on his affairs; the majority of Ronald Reagan's article would be devoted to Irangate, and most of Dwight Eisenhower's article would consist of comments on his garbled syntax at press conferences and speculation whether or not he had an affair with his army chauffeur. Saying she doesn't "belong" just to Alaska anymore does not justify completely reversing what the wikipedia policy of undue weight means.--Paul (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one way to measure "weight" is to count the words. Another way, a better way, is to read the words. Do the words make sentences that are ref by credible sources? Do the sentences make ref. to significate, notable, important point? This is not a baseball game, with each side getting 9 at bats. If you have objections to the content, state them. If you have your own content, add it. 98.234.65.214 (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced info

This was removed, and I restored it: "The London Times has called attention to her pastor's apocalyptic religious perspective, and cited a recent sermon attended by Palin in which the Jews for Jesus head "suggested that terrorism in Israel was God’s judgment against the Jews for failing to accept Christ as the Messiah;" the McCain campaign responded that Palin “would not have been sitting in the pews of the church if those remarks were remotely typical”, although Palin's pastor has already invited Jews for Jesus' founder to return.[32] In October of 2007, she signed the "Christian Heritage Week" Proclamation[33] which exalts the role that Christianity has played shaping the United States heritage.[34] After the RNC, the McCain campaign told CNN that Palin "doesn't consider herself Pentecostal," raising questions in the media about the reasons for downplaying her faith.[35][36]" Insertion of new sourced info does not have to be run by everyone - deletion of sourced facts does. If you do not like the way things are phrased, or feel it is unbalanced, feel free to edit in additional countering info or to tone down language, so long as you do not delete relevant facts that cite sources such as the Times, one of the most reputable papers on earth. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's very good that you've come to the talk page to discuss your proposal to insert additional material. Wikipedia works by consensus, and it is especially important in a biography of a living person to not insert stuff that is unsupported by consensus. Edit-warring is not helpful.
I find that your proposed material advances a particular point of view, which is contrary to Wikipedia neutrality principles. You know very well that the London Times did not call "attention to her pastor's apocalyptic religious perspective", don't you? You must realize that the person in question has not been her pastor for many years, right? And you must know that sometimes people go to church not knowing exactly what they are going to hear, and that her spokesperson has said that she “would not have been sitting in the pews of the church if those remarks were remotely typical”. Why have you tried to paint such a slanted picture?
The edit includes the McCain campaign response, don't know if you noticed.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the Times article is headed: "Sarah Palin, the pastor and the prophecy: judgment day is not far away" I would say that draws attention to an apocalyptic perspective.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LamaLoLeshLa, can you please tell me the last name of her current pastor? Is it Kalnins (the subject of the article you cite) or Kroons?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You say that she signed a document "which exalts the role [of] Christianity" but why do you choose such a description? The cited source used the word "reminds" instead of "exalts". I must say that I do not agree with your proposed material for this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't write "exalts." Someone else edited it that way. Actually, I wrote that the organization "Argues that the United States should be recognized as a Christian nation" since when you google "America's Christian Heritage Week", that's what the subheading to www.achw.org says.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yes, you did.[19]Ferrylodge (talk) 04:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have officially stepped into accusation territory. I was copy-pasting something someone else wrote.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent)Ah, I see that you have now created an entire subsection titled "Palin and Religion", within the "Political positions" section. You really should try to build consensus here at the talk page. This will save you the trouble of being reverted.

Creating such a subsection is unacceptable, because it implies that the apocalyptic views of her long-ago pastor are identical with her own present political views. But you know that, right? You're just spinning your wheels trying to make this into an anti-Palin screed. Please, please, save us all some time and trouble, and read WP:NPOV. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LamaLoLeshla, would you please kindly stop posting comments in the middle of my comments? It makes it very difficult for other people to understand who said what. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, on other pages, that is quite common. But if you would prefer I not respond point for point, I will cordially comply:) As far as the creation of a new subsection, this was actually suggested by an editor below, and I agreed with his/her rationale that the info does not as much belong in the personal section as elsewhere. As far as POV-pushing - we are talking about a potential national leader, and every bit of information dealing with such fundamental matters as separation of church and state is highly relevant. Also, as a Jew, I think I do represent a major portion of the non-Christian American citizenry/readership of wikipedia who are very interested in knowing about her approach to religious questions. As far as wheel-spinning - nope, more like changing a tire. Finally, your point about her previous versus present pastor is well-taken, I made the necessary edits. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then, as one Jew to another, I urge you to respect the religious freedom of others, and not try to imply that other people's religious views make them unacceptable as political leaders. The same intolerance that you show toward other religions may some day be shown to you. Thanks. Even if those are your views, you ought not try to jam them into a Wikipedia article. Incidentally, I still hope you will tell me the last name of her current pastor. Is it Kalnins (the subject of the article you cite) or Kroons?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with Palin as a born-again Christian. Some of my best friends are born-again Christians (not kidding). I think it is vital that no politician mix religion with politics, and this is what she has been doing. The information I have added has dealt explicitly with Palin's politics-religion mish-mashing, not judged her as a believer. I know these issues get very emotional at times, but please avoid making character judgments, such as that I am showing "intolerance to other religions." This is a personal comment, and no one here should have to contest such accusations, I am sure you are aware. Thanks.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did suggest a new section. I think the section he has created isa good idea as it can be a landing place for religious perspective, views, criticism, rather than other unrelated sections. Now, the content of the new section is the more difficult part. NPOV does not mean that the section should be neutral, but that is must be balanced with the spectrum of views. Also, the text still needs to be cited from reliable sources. There will probably be some controversy until editors work out what kinds of things are well within BLP. Atom (talk) 04:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I very much disagree with devoting a special section to her religious views, and certainly not a subsection like that in the political positions section. Is there any other biography of a politician on Wikipedia that gives such weight to personal religious views?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how notable the views of her controversial pastor are. I think that the text should remain focused on citations where Palin has expressed her viewpoints. Even saying that she was "heavily influenced" during her 28 years at the church by pastor (name), whose viewpoints and preaching has been controversial, might not be appropriate unless she can be quoted as having said that this person "heavily influenced" her views, etc. Atom (talk) 04:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I took a look, and I think this has to go: "The London Times has called attention to her former pastor's apocalyptic religious perspective, and cited a recent sermon attended by Palin in which the Jews for Jesus head "suggested that terrorism in Israel was God’s judgment against the Jews for failing to accept Christ as the Messiah;" the McCain campaign responded that Palin “would not have been sitting in the pews of the church if those remarks were remotely typical”, although Palin's current pastor has already invited Jews for Jesus' founder to return." As it discusses the controversy of her former pastor, and nothing about her personal viewpoints. Atom (talk) 04:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole subsection is bogus. It starts from the premise that her religious views are fair game in the political arena, because "Questions have been raised in the media regarding Palin's views on the separation of church and state, given ... her comments that soldiers in the Iraq war are 'out on a task that is from God.'" But she did not say that. What she actually said was: "Pray our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country — that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God...." What the heck is wrong with that? And how does that justify turning her personal religious views into a target for a Wikipedia attack?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update the quote so that it is accurate then. Discussing viewpoints she has expressed, and opinions or statements she has made (if cited from reliable sources) is fair game. Citations to where people criticize her, or ponder what her viewpoint and beliefs may be is not fair game. Atom (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're saying it's fine to have a huge part of the Political Positions section detail her religious views? This does not belong in that section, much less in the article as a whole. I am moving it out of that section. We could write 10,000 accurate words about her religious beliefs, but that does not mean they would belong in this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a section on her religious views is appropriate, I'm not an advocate of it being in the secton on her political views. Atom (talk) 05:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted the Christian Heritage week exactly, rather than paraphrasing using exalted. Atom (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think "After the RNC, the McCain campaign told CNN that Palin "doesn't consider herself Pentecostal," raising questions in the media about the reasons for downplaying her faith" should be in the Mcain article. I don't see anything in the article that quoted Palin, or her position. Atom (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as what the Mccain campaign says of her - I am sure that they run their statements by her. They are her spokespeople. Thus that info is highly relevant here.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ferrylodge, to clarify, the section does not deal with her religious views. It deals with her religious-political views.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as whether or not she said these things, see, the CBS interview, in which Gibson corners her and and she acts confused but does not deny that these are her verbatim words.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of added text to Personal Section -- Christian Heritage Week, Mcain says She is not Pentacostal

We should discuss this newly added text to the personal section. There has been alot of debate over two of the elemtns in that section already (Eloped, Pentacostalism detail) to get to a consensus, and now this new text is pushed into the section and disrupts the balance and consensus.

Text reads:

The London Times has called attention to her pastor's apocalyptic religious perspective, and cited a recent sermon attended by Palin in which the Jews for Jesus head "suggested that terrorism in Israel was God’s judgment against the Jews for failing to accept Christ as the Messiah."[37] In October of 2007, she signed the "Christian Heritage Week" Proclamation[38] which exalts the role that Christianity has played shaping the United States heritage.[34] After the RNC, the McCain campaign told CNN that Palin "doesn't consider herself Pentecostal," raising questions in the media about the reasons for downplaying her faith.[39][40]

This section, personal, has been about personal life detail of Governor Palin. The text added seems controversial to me, and some kind if effort to push a religious view into this section, not an appropriate place -- as it is not directly related to her personal information (marriage, family, church, etc). A different section called "religious views of Palin" or "religious perspective" might be more appropriate than in this section.

This new para distracts from the section, and if included should be in a different section. Just mentioning the churches she has attended should not open the door for a detailed list of her past and present religious views, accomplishments, issues, and whatever. It should remain focused on the basics of her "public" personal life. Atom (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created a "Palin on religion" section and moved the info there. I put it under "political positions" because of the questions raised about her views on separation of church and state, although it could also stand on its own. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the reasons that I described above, I disagree with adding that material. Also, it gives WP:Undue weight to her personal religious views.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't thing this has anything to to do with WP:UNDUE. The religious beliefs of this person are notable and a summary of her views, presented in a neutral manner, is needed. I have restored the previous version, which believe (no pun intended) to be factually accurate and neutral. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Approval rating over 80%

It says in the article that Sarah Palin "has maintained a high approval rating throughout her term (as Governor of Alaska)". According to this video (0.34) her approval rating is "over 80%"... and that "it is videly seen as something of a phenomena". If that is true, I'd suggest the percentage figure also be included in the article. --Hapsala (talk) 03:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Youtube videos are not considered a reliable source but if you'd like to include it you can find reliable sources. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 04:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The part seems to be from a CBS News show, and that should be rather reliable. The question is from where CBS News got the statistics. --Hapsala (talk) 04:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again: Youtube is not considered a reliable source! You need to back it up with a (reliable) 3rd party source to incl. a video as add on, otherwise it is WP:OR. --Floridianed (talk) 04:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Population Density for the State of Alaska is 1.1%. For All of the U.S. it is 79.6% (which, of course, includes the low Alaskan figure). Also, her approval rating her first term was 90%...so, it declined 12%. You might reconsider your effort to include.--Buster7 (talk) 04:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What does population density have to do with anything? Are you suggesting a sentence like: Palin has maintained a remarkable popularity with the electorate, over 90% in her first year and 80% for most of her second year as governor, but there aren't as many people in Alaska as Manhattan so it really doesn't matter? Further, are you suggesting that a favorable percentage of 80% means she isn't popular because it is down from 92%?--Paul (talk) 12:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, I never suggested using the Youtube video as a source. Second, I have no "efforts" to include anything in the article. But approval ratings of 80-90% seem notable enough to be included. If the ratings are true, it shouldn't be hard to could come up with relevant sources. --Hapsala (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Error discovered and fixed

Wasilla is a city, not a town. See http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=82 In contrast, Clarksville, Indiana is a town. See http://town.clarksville.in.us/ BLP requires accuracy about living people. BLP requires that editors be blocked for BLP violations. Please, let's all be accurate! 903M (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Town' vs. 'city'

Interesting, Clarksville has 22,000 residents, while Wasilla only has 7-9,000. Yet Wasilla is a city and Clarksville is a town?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the US census, villages in Alaska of 43 people are designated cities; the definition is merely: "Incorporated place." I think we can all agree that a locale of 6,000 is a town, not a city, and a locale of 43 is a village, not a city, by media and encyclopedia and academic standards. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry...The US census refers to Wasilla as "Wasilla city" (lower case "c" intentional). Also, to 903M, it is not civil to jump into a discussion threatening to block fellow good faith editors. ASSUME GOOD FAITH, please!--Buster7 (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your link doesn't work. Could you fix it, please? Thanks.
If it's true we would have to work on this [20](and source it). And yes, always assume good faith! --Floridianed (talk) 04:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
God that's annoying - don't know what happened to the link but I just spent a really long time trying to find it for the third time. You should be able to download the excel chart by scrolling down to "Places in Alaska listed alphabetically". If you feel like it, go to the Montana official website and you'll see that they do distinguish between cities and towns. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That works now and indeed the "City" is in lower cases. Got to get further into that.... when I have time. --Floridianed (talk) 05:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I'm with you on that and I don't think I'll change my mind. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 05:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heading cleanup and misc

This page needs a heading clean up. First, the main information on her life should be standardized. Put the biographical information under one second level header (called Biography, preferably), which includes education and personal life. Second, 3.1.1 Police matters, 3.1.2 Library matters, and 3.1.3 Taxes and spending do not warrant their own subheadings and should be combined into one larger section (3.1 Election and first term). "Palin and religion" does not warrant its own subheading as such. If it is political, then it should be integrated as political. If it is not, it should be separated from the section. The phrase "Questions have been raised in the media regarding Palin's views on the separation of church and state, given her support for the injection of religion into public education" is not encyclopedic. I recommend - "Reporters have questioned Palin over her views on the separation of church and state: (insert view here)".

Also, the "Johnson, Kaylene (2008), Sarah:How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down, Epicenter Press, ISBN 0979047080 ." has faulty harvnb templates related to it and should be corrected. This one (" (Johnson 2008, p. 65)") lacks a Harvnb template. Question - What is "http://www.haysresearch.com/" linking to? There is nothing on the main page to suggest this information. This link should be corrected. Did "Newsweek, commenting on Palin's "astonishing pivot,"" Did Newsweek say this, or was it really, as the final page says, "written by Jeffrey Bartholet and Breslau"? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the 'Palin and religion' section, go ahead and make whatever edits you think would make the info more encyclopedic, so long as you retain factual information. As far as the 'police matters' and 'library matters' section - I agree that these headings are quite silly. Before, it read 'reorganization' and 'free speech matters', both much more relevant headings than 'library matters and police matters'. The censorship issue has got to be addressed here, and highlighted, yes. It is not in the same category as local Alaskan roadbuilding, or even cuts to museum funding, etc. This has to do with the Constitution. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palin and Religion

The "Palin and religion" section is bluntly partisan and full of double-speak and weasel words. It must be made NPOV. TuckerResearch (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%. Unfortunately, there are editors who believe that material can be jammed into this biography of a living person, regardless of whether there is consensus. This edit seems particularly misguided to me. A section is entitled "Palin and Religion" despite that the entire article is about Palin, and therefore "Palin" should not be in any of the section headers. A more appropriate heading would be "religious background" as in the Mitt Romney article. And to top it off, this edit moves religion material out of this new section on "Palin and religion", and into another section. We may as well sprinkle some religious stuff in all the section of this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now I see that we have a "Religious viewpoints" section, which is a somewhat improved title, except that the section is placed before we are informed what her religion is.[21]Ferrylodge (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the previous format/formulation, that is closer to the sources and neutral. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I see you got reverted. It seems that two editors are determined to insert a separate section on religious views, regardless of the objections of several other editors, while also including religious stuff in the "Personal life" section.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See below, and previous discussions about this. Religious viewpoints don't go in the personal section. I ask you to work towards consensus. Just because you and Jossi did not participate in previous discussions does not mean that "two editors are determined to insert a separate section". We discussed it, as the religious stuff he wanted to add (as well as other people) don't go in the personal section. Atom (talk) 05:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See earlier discussions working through building that new section, including on talk pages. We need a general landing place for her religious viewpoints and issues. The personal section should be short, tight and talk about the basics of her "public" personal life, such as marriage, family, hobbies, churches she attends. Discussion of her church is not meant to open that section to detail about the history of the churches, religious viewpoints she has, etc. but should be kept on topic. Discussion related to other topics should go into other sections, including religious viewpoints and expressions (such as the Christian Heritage proclamation") in appropriate sections. The new, appropriate section for that is "Religious viewpoints", although a similar title could be more suitable. You seemed earlier to weant to discuss the nature of her Fundamentalism as well as her Pentacostalism. These don't belong in the personal section. The new section is appropriate for you to talk about those topics. Atom (talk) 05:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the personal section upward, so that discussion of her religion preceded the viewpoints section. Atom (talk) 05:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You said: "You seemed earlier to want to discuss the nature of her Fundamentalism as well as her Pentacostalism. These don't belong in the personal section." That puizzles me. I would think that alleged religious fundamentalism and Pentacostalism are personal religious viewpoints, no? And even if they were not, it is far from clear that she is either fundamentalist or Pentacostal.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, look, this is the way I see it. There are alot of people whit a range of views who want to talk about Palin and her religion. This includes the churches she went to, how long she went there, why she changed, what the pastor may or may not have said, etc. Also, what are her current viewpoints, and how does that affect her capability to be VP? OR and discussion is not on topic, of course, but we needed a general landing pad for religious issues. Religion keeps popping up in other sections in the article, especially in the "personal" section, since many people took the brief reference to her attending church and establishing what religion she was to be an invitation to write other things about her religion in that section. We want to keep other sections on topic, and not discussing other things, such as religion. A landing pad such as this new section gives people a chance to express these things appropriately. Sure, uncited opinion will end up ther, and be reverted, but in time it will fill out to express cited reliable sources for what her religious background, opinions and perspectives (as expressed) have been in the past, and are determined as time goes forward. Without this section, continued attempts to express those things will keep popping up in other sections creating controversy. That's how I see it. Atom (talk) 06:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see that you've given any persuausive reason to have details about her religious views in two separate sections of this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't tried to. If you read what I said, we need to have a section for her religious views. The personal section is not for details of her religious views. So, no one has suggested having two sections. The confuson is exactly what you indicate -- People are confused and think that because the personal section mentions her religion, and the church she goes to, that it is also for her religious views. It isn't. We also mention her hobbies there, but it is not a section for going into details about her hobbies either. I just want to keep the personal section short, tight, on topic, and not have it diverge off into unrelated information. The details you have previously wanted to add to the personal section, which were removed, were removed because they were not about her personal life, but were attempts at detailing her religious background and viewpoints -- not on topic. The religious section is a section for you to do just that. Atom (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Atom took pains to make clear that in the personal section, the discussion is not of her views, it is more logistical in a way, details of her church membership. A religious perspective section would not deal with her private religious life, but rather, her public life. Atomaton - what do you think about "Religious perspective: Public matters" or something that expresses that distinction more eloquently?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus for these insertions of extra section and excessive detail in the personal life section and these additions should be reverted as such. Hobartimus (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to a different title. My main thoguht is that it needs to be able to fit a wide range of perspective about her religion. Perhaps her past history, or t:he churches she has attended in more detail, or opinions she has given regarding religion, etc. So -- the title needs to be general enough to still provide a landing pad for any religious based discussion. That keeps that information out of other sections in the article. So, the more specific the title is, the less flexible it is for that purpose. Your suggested title is more specific. "Religion" would be a good title, IMO. Atom (talk) 06:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure other editors will weigh in tomorrow. However, my opinion remains that creating a section like you're suggesting conveys a POV that her peculiar religious views will somehow control her public policy positions, and conveys a POV that she does not know how to keep her personal religious views out of her public decisionmaking. If you're looking for a landing place for this kind of POV, there are a lot of Wikipedia articles about Sarah Palin besides this one. Having her religion covered in two separate sections of this article seems very excessive. Good night.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Omitting this conveys a POV that her peculiar religious views about church in school, god's role in expanding the oil industry in Alaska, etc., will not somehow control her public policy positions.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above discussion seeking consensus regarding inclusion of info on baptisms and "getting saved" here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 06:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

second religion section

I move the first part of that to personal life. It is basically a reasonable summary of her religious upbringing, which is part of her biography. What's below has major POV and NOTNEWS problems: Kaisershatner (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In October of 2007, she signed the "Christian Heritage Week" Proclamation[41] which "reminds Alaskans of the role Christianity has played in our rich heritage."[34] She also declared the week of November 18-25, 2007 as Bible Week in Alaska.[42]

Questions have been raised by some in the media regarding Palin's views on the separation of church and state, given her support for the inclusion of creationism into public education,[43] and an address to graduating ministry students at her former church where she urged them to pray "that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God",[44] and in the same remarks, her assertion that "God's will" was responsible for the Alaskan national gas pipeline project.[45][46] Left-wing bloggers have characterized her remarks as having "painted the current war in Iraq as a messianic affair"[47] or reported that she told the students "that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a 'task that is from God.'"[48]

Problems include the passive "questions have been raised" - by whom? Also NB the very same cited source includes Palin's statement ""I won't have religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism," Palin said." Also, "left wing bloggers" are not a WP:RS. Kaisershatner (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the footnotes for the answer to your question, "raised by who." Utne Reader, Salon, Huffington Post, Anchorage Daily News, Times, etc. The phrase "left-wing bloggers" is from the Huntington Post, not a wiki editor.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kaisershatner, I WP:AGF but if you read previous sections a number of editos worked through a consensus on that section. Ir probably does need some copyediting, and some of the materrial no doubt will be discussed by other editors. The sections purpose is to act as a landing pad for religious issues. We specifically are trying to keep all of that out of the personal section. The personal section is mean't to be high-level, tight and informative about various aspects of her private life, and not details about those things. I suspect the religious section will have some controversy until it gets stabilized, but that is the point, ther is a place to put that material and work it out, rather than having disruptions in other sections of the article every time religion is mentioned in some small way. Atom (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Atomaton, thanks for AGF. My interest is in improving the article. I do disagree with your view above that her views on religion should not go into the "Personal life" section. I'm not sure I understand why her philosophy and religion should be seen differently. And it isn't clear to me that there is a firm consensus on having a second section at all. I'm sure at minimum we can agree on the copyediting. Why her biography has to address the concerns of "left wing bloggers" is beyond my understanding, for one thing. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Hi, also, checked the Barack Obama article - there is no separate section about his religious views. I ask in complete good faith and with genuine curiosity if you think there should be such a section there, perhaps it will help me see what the differences are in why you think there should be one here - Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Atom argued at length that it should go into the personal life section, for hours, yesterday, so it's somewhat ironic that you say that. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And again, not one single left-wing blogger here - please check the citations, they are all for ABC, Utne Reader, the Times, etc.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Atom, do you support inclusion of three sources for "69% of voters did not know her views about Creationism?" What is this doing in the bio article? Lama, please add your comments at the end of the section, it makes the chronology very confusing when you reply in between other people's comments. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the "questions have been raised" part and the POV tag - best not to use POV tags as a tool on either side of any simple content dispute and folks, please do try to work together. If there are issues with the separation of church and state that is a distinct issue from her views on teaching creationism even if the two are related. That would need some direct sourcing and ought to be discussed for what it is. If it's merely an inference that is implicit in favoring teaching creationism then it's merely a criticism and doesn't add anything to the article. Wikidemon (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Population of Wasilla

LamaLoLeshLa, I see that you have edited the article to say that Wasilla is the fourth largest city in Alaska.[22] The cited source (which discusses Palin) says: "Wasilla is the fifth-largest city in Alaska."[23] On the other hand, you have not cited any source. If you want to make changes to Wikipedia articles, it really is highly preferable to cite reliable sources, and to also look at what the existing cited sources say before you contradict them.

The Wikipedia article about Wasilla says that a "census estimate makes Wasilla the fourth largest city in Alaska, after Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau, but the city's own figure would put it sixth, after the these three and Sitka and Ketchikan." So, we have three different figures: 4, 5, and 6. Can we please just go with 5, since it's in a cited source that addresses Palin? Otherwise, we run into original research. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. --Floridianed (talk) 05:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section for deposit of controversial religious issues that have been deleted

  • "The London Times has called attention to her pastor's apocalyptic religious perspective, and cited a recent sermon attended by Palin in which the Jews for Jesus head "suggested that terrorism in Israel was God’s judgment against the Jews for failing to accept Christ as the Messiah;" the McCain campaign responded that Palin “would not have been sitting in the pews of the church if those remarks were remotely typical”, although Palin's pastor has already invited Jews for Jesus' founder to return.[49]LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the RNC, the McCain campaign told CNN that Palin "doesn't consider herself Pentecostal," raising questions in the media about the reasons for downplaying her faith.[50][51] LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much of this info was deleted but has now been restored and will stick as it represents a significant debate: "After the RNC, Palin's religious views came under increasing scrutiny in the media.[52][53][54] A widely-circulated widely-circulated opinion piece calls Palin a theocrat and says that her values "more resemble those of Muslim fundamentalists than they do those of the Founding Fathers."[55] Palin spoke to a group of graduating ministry students at her former church, where she urged them to pray "that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God",[56] and in the same remarks asserted that "God's will" was responsible for the Alaskan national gas pipeline project.[57][58] In light of these comments, a Washington Post Monthly opinion piece asked, "Palin, given her public comments, should answer a few reasonable questions: Does she believe in the separation of church and state? Is she comfortable with a government that remains entirely neutral on matters of faith?"[59]" LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political possitions edit

Instead of rephrasing you can also add on in her favor. No problem with that from my side. --Floridianed (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Separation of church and state

"Questions have been raised by some in the media regarding Palin's views on the separation of church and state, given her support for the inclusion of creationism into public education,[180] and an address to graduating ministry students at her former church where she urged them to pray "that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God",[181] and in the same remarks, her assertion that "God's will" was responsible for the Alaskan national gas pipeline project.[182][183] Left-wing bloggers have characterized her remarks as having "painted the current war in Iraq as a messianic affair"[184] or reported that she told the students "that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a 'task that is from God."

Why are opinions of left-wing bloggers considered facts worth adding to Palin's page? Instead, why isn't there any mention of the blatant witchhunt the mainstream has subjected her to? Enough of the liberal bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.173.46 (talk) 09:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this section of the article is a complete disgrace and reflects nothing more than POV-pushers continual attempts to paint Palin as a religious loony. For example, "her support for inclusion of creationism into public education" is intentionally misleading; her record shows she never attempted to do so from her position of authority. The selective snippets from her discussion of the Iraq war *to a theology class at her church* are taken entirely out-of-context and have never been affirmed either by her words or her actions. In fact, she clarified that statement as analogous to Lincoln's position during the interview with Gibson, and that fact is intentionally omitted. The last line about left-wing bloggers painting her as a zealot leading a holy war (and cited to Huffington Post!) is intended purely to embarrass her. Frankly, if WP allows this POV to stand without question simply because the most persistent editors refuse to recognize their own bias, it only reflects very poorly on the credibility of the community process that supports WP itself. Personally, I've given up on this... utter waste of time. Fcreid (talk) 10:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Sarah_Palin#Palin and Religion Kaisershatner (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Times of London, ABC News, etc.- left-wing bloggers? You're stretching things, a lot. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lama, I'm not saying the times is a left wing blog, thanks, just pointing out the text of the article asserts "left wing bloggers." See the difference? Kaisershatner (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and if you could cite a reliable source talking about your 'blatant witch-hunt', go ahead and insert it. By the way, this is wikipedia, not the Sarah Palin support club, or the Mccain campaign website. That means that the good and the bad will be represented here. Get used to it. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lama, are your above remarks directed at me? I have no idea what you mean by "witch hunt," and the personal attacks are not really helpful. I objected to the fact that the article anonymously sourced questions about Palin's view of church and state to "left wing bloggers." I feel I am on pretty sold ground there, stating that the article shouldn't read that way. FWIW I have worked productively with GreekParadise on the bridge section, which is hardly favorable to Palin. Please desist with your personal attacks. Thanks. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NO. S/he wasn't talking about you. See IP comment above: "...of the blatant witchhunt..."! --Floridianed (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Publication of her signature, is it fair?

Do you think that publicating the signature is legal, fair, and do you have permission from Sarah Palin to do that? If not then you should immediately remove that! I'm just can't imagine this, because the signature is something that can be used to verify lots of things, and this is also regarded as a proof on juries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.41.33 (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why The Removal Of Energy Subsection & Confirmed Lawsuit Info?

Dear all,

Forgive me if I'm doing this wrong. I've never written anything in a Wikipedia discussion before. I'm just curious as to why the Energy subsection of the Wikipedia article on Sarah Palin was altogether removed, along with any text reference to the very public decision by Palin to file a lawsuit re: the polar bear listing. I saved the original text, here it is:

"In May 2008, Palin objected to the decision of Dirk Kempthorne, the Republican United States Secretary of the Interior, to list polar bears as an endangered species. She filed a lawsuit to stop the listing amid fears that it would hurt oil and gas development in the bears' habitat off Alaska's northern and northwestern coasts.

Palin is considered to have similar policy positions to John McCain in some respects. One exception is drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), which Palin strongly supports. Another exception is her belief that global warming is not caused by humans."

The above text is now completely missing from the Wikipedia article on Sarah Palin, though a little bit of it seems to have survived, albeit it appears to have been re-edited in a biased, heavily censored form that is now much shorter than the original.

If there is a legitimate reason why the above text has been removed & should not be included in the Wikipedia article on Sarah Palin, in this form, I would appreciate someone stating why in this discussion thread. It is a matter of unbiased public record that Palin filed the suit, and it is certainly newsworthy. Tag number 163 and 165 (currently) are both citations for the text that I presented here in italics.

Sincerely,

SolesGirlRachel

SolesGirlRachel (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)09:13AM, 13 September 2008[reply]

Hi, I imagine it was removed as too detailed for a summary section on her views. You will find a lot more detail here: Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Endangered_species. Kaisershatner (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kaisershatner, thank you for the response & please edit the formatting of this if it's out of order somehow, I'm still a total noob at Wikipedia-discussions etc.

I looked at the section of the article you directed me to, which was not the main Sarah Palin article. It's worth nothing that there is a Political Positions subsection in the main Sarah Palin article as well, and that in this subsection of the main article, there is a deliberately omissive reference to her position on the ANWR, as follows:

"She has opposed federal listing of the polar bear as an endangered species, warning that it would adversely affect energy development in Alaska."

This carefully re-worded statement omits the unbiased fact that Palin did indeed file the lawsuit against the Bush administration re: the listing of the polar bears as an endangered species. The main Wikipedia article on Sarah Palin currently contains no mention of the lawsuit. And the alternate Wikipedia article that you referred me to, Kaisershatner, merely states that "Palin threatened to sue", omitting the fact that she did sue. The alternate article is therefore, unnecessarily misleading by omission.

My original question re: the two paragraphs I included in italics from an earlier version of the main Wikipedia article on Sarah Palin are therefore still valid, I believe. I hope that someone will either answer my question, or re-include that information in the appropriate area of the main Wikipedia article on Palin. Thank you.

SolesGirlRachel (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)10:15AM, 13 September 2008[reply]

The following link is yet another relevant citation regarding the lawsuit (along with Tag 163 and 165 that are already currently included in the main Wikipedia article on Sarah Palin):

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5689165&page=1

SolesGirlRachel (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)10:26AM, 13 September 2008[reply]

Hi - if there is a factual error in the subarticle, feel free to correct it with an appopriate citation (see WP:BOLD) since you are new (and welcome to WP). If you're looking for my opinion on the other stuff, I'm not sure I would agree that the info about the lawsuit must necessarily be mentioned in a summary section on her political views but I would welcome further discussion. Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason I can think of for the removal of the info. Please put it back in, slightly more concise and with less details, if you haven't already. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstinence only AND contraception education

72.86.7.161 (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC) I'm not authorized to edit, so I'll put it here.[reply]

This line contains a mistake.

Palin opposes sex education and endorses the teaching of abstinence-only sex education in schools.

This would be correct:

Palin supports contraception education, and also endorses the teaching of abstinence-only sex education in schools.

Here is the reference:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-sexed6-2008sep06,0,3119305.story

I am not so sure that is a mistake. The current GOP platform, which she has endorsed as a whole, makes clear opposition to teaching about contraception.--Dstern1 (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would think anything she says on her own overrides anything in the platform. I made this change but retained the current well-source claim that she opposed explicit sex-education in schools.--Paul (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand - it said clearly that she supported contraception (though in a different word order conveying less of a focus on 'support,' 'support', 'support') prior to your edit. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trig's birth / Proposed edit

Section 3.2 above contains my proposed edit.

I am asking for comments from more experienced WP editors. I am not asking for political commentary.

I am referencing my proposal because I want to open about my intent and wish to avoid an edit war.--Dstern1 (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To say she "supports Israel's right to defend itself" is a biased statement, implying that Israel's occupation of Palestine is purely self defense. Of course the international community as a whole supports Israel's right to self defense, however the legality of the occupation is a fiercely debated issue - and so, in my opinion, it is more accurate to say that Sarah Palin supports Israels occupation of Palestine (the West Bank and the Gaza Strip." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajlozier (talk • contribs) 15:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religion/Personal Life

This sentences in the religious perspective section are about her uprbringing, parents, family life. How is this not "personal life?":

Palin was baptized in the Catholic church as an infant. Palin's family joined the Pentecostal Wasilla Assembly of God when she was 4 years of age, a church where Palin attended for 34 years.[170][171] In a speech before the church, she described herself as having been saved and baptized at that church.[172] Palin's children were also baptized at that church.[173] When she is in Juneau, she attends the Juneau Christian Center,[174] another Assemblies of God church. Her current home church is now the Wasilla Bible Church, an independent congregation.[175] Palin describes herself as a "Bible-believing" Christian.[148]

Kaisershatner (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bridges to Nowhere - Redux

Well, we've done pretty good. The version that's there has stood, with minor stylistic changes, for almost a week now. Every now and then when someone deletes content, I bring it here to the talk page and the consensus is that the original version should stand. So for the, I dunno, seventh time? eighth? I ask you please do NOT delete content from the Bridges to Nowhere section unless you come to the talk page and give a reason why. The reason the Congressional earmark and reversal in 2005 is there is because it's relevant and notable and gives important history to explain the pre-history of the bridge. Further, there's no POV there, just fact. Why would anyone remove it? The reason why Newsweek quote is there is because it explains the criticism. It is only one quote, a compromise between the anti-Palins who wanted several newspapers quoted (and then at least just their names mentioned) and the pro-Palins who wanted no mention of the criticism at all. If you disagree with the consensus, come to the talk page and try to get your own consensus before willy-nilly deleting content that, thus far, has stood the test of time. Thank you.GreekParadise (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a big fan of the change of this sentence:

In 2005, Congress earmarked $442 million to build the two bridges but later reversed itself under strong criticism and gave the transportation money to Alaska with no strings attached.[90]

to this one (modified a short time ago):

In 2005, Congress passed the 2006 National Department of Transportation appropriations bill 93 to 1 [95] which included $442 million earmarks to build the two bridges, but later removed the earmarks under strong criticism tied to Ted Stevens' strong disapproval of the Coburn Amendment, which gave the earmarks national media exposure.[96][97] Congress still sent the money to the state for other transportation projects.[98]

Usually, I like detail, but I'm not sure what this one adds. That Congress made the earmark and reversed it is relevant to the story of Palin and the Bridge, but the details of why Congress reversed it and the adding of an unexplained detail (what the heck is the Coburn Amendment?, asks the reader) raises more questions than it answers. Obviously this belongs in an article on the Gravina Bridge, possibly one on earmarks, or even on Stevens, but I don't think it belongs in an article on Palin. So I will revert back. I know if I don't then someone's going to again complain this section is too long. Please let me know if you support or oppose this decision. And if opposition is strong, then obviously, put it back in.GreekParadise (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Party Platform

Starting a new section: I disagree w/inclusion of the Republican Party platform unless it is linked by citation to Palin. Yes, I realize she is likely to support the RPP and the plank itself regarding creationism - but I think adding this fact doesn't add to her biography, which already explicitly makes the point that she supports adding creationism discussion in schools. (Thanks User:Atomation for opening debate on this.) Kaisershatner (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I can see both views. One the one hand it seems that currently the McCain campaign is trying to distance itself from her earlier viewpoints on some things, including this. In November of 2006, she would have wanted to emphasize this aspect, not de-emphasize it. As she was part of the party, helped develop the platform, and ran and won on that platform, it seems strange to hear someone suggest at this point that the two are non-sequituir's (one wholly unrelated to the other). Just this discussion indicates the desire to spin her viewpoint one way or the other. We should (here in Wikipedia) focus on citeable and verifiable facts, and not speculation for a number of reasons. I think that ideal would be to stick to reliable sources that have quoted her. The statement about the Alaskan Replublican Party does not strictly stick to that, I agree.

"A point I tried to make on your talk page is that her views on Creationism, consistent with the Alaskan Republican Party, should not be viewed as negative as large numbers of people (like the voters who elected her in Alaska) would view that positively.

"The section would be rather dry if we only allowed quotations from Palin. Other sections enhance the edit by suggesting how or why she has a particular position, and within tight limits, we should try to do that here to make it readable. Atom (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Atom, thanks. I agree with you about NPOV - we should report her view on Creationism neutrally, let the reader decide if that is a positive or negative. I'm totally fine with that, objectively, her view is what her view is, right? I just think this can be established with direct citations: "Palin thinks X about Creationism." and without indirect ones, which IMO are nonsequiturs: "the Alaska Republican Party thinks X about Creationism." The latter is unnecessary if the former is present. Kaisershatner (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, thinking about it, I'm not totally against, "Palin thinks X about Creationism"(cite), which is consistent with the views of the ARP Platform (cite), even though I still think it is an un-needed addition. Would that be ok? Kaisershatner (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that sounds like that could work. Atom (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newsweek poll

This sentence: "A recent newseek poll discovered that of voters, "Sixty-nine percent did not know that she favors teaching creationism in public schools."[60][61][62]" is about the public's lack of information about Palin's views. It MIGHT belong in the article about the 2008 campaign, but it doesn't belong in her biography. It is about the public, not about Palin. The section already lists her views on religion. Please discuss. Kaisershatner (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should be moved to such a page. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religious perspective on public and private life

This is a good way of separating her personal life aspects and her perspectives on religion. It needs additional material, which is abundantly available. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The first half of this section is "personal life", her upbringing and history of church membership. The second half is "political views" such as her view on the iraq war and her view on teaching creationism in schools. I think this section should be moved into the main article. Kaisershatner (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW Jossi, does this paragraph have to appear twice in this article, under personal life and religious background? Kaisershatner (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palin was born into a Catholic family.[147] When she was 4 years old, her family joined the Wasilla Assembly of God, which belongs to a Protestant, Pentecostal association of churches.[148] ; Palin attended the Wasilla Assembly of God until age 38. When in Juneau, she attends the Juneau Christian Center.[149] Her current home church is the Wasilla Bible Church, an independent congregation.[150] Palin described herself in an interview as a "Bible-believing" Christian.[147] In October of 2007, she signed the "Christian Heritage Week" Proclamation[151] which exalts the role that Christianity has played shaping the United States heritage.[152] After the RNC, the McCain campaign told CNN that Palin "doesn't consider herself Pentecostal," raising questions in the media about the reasons for downplaying her faith.[153][154]

As far as the repetition of the above paragraph, I am sure that was a mistake, feel free to remove the duplicate. I don't want to muddle matters, but I actually originally put the political religion info under 'politics,' and was happy to see the personal religion info under 'personal'. I would be satisfied with a sub-section under political positions readiing "Religious perspective on public life". LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I think we should be able to agree that this article should not turn into a billboard that says "Palin is a religious fanatic". Can we agree about that? If so, then perhaps we can also agree that her personal religious background should not be repeated twice (AS IT IS NOW!) in two different sections of the article, and her religion-related positions on things like creationism should not be repeated twice (AS THEY ARE NOW!) in two different sections of the article. Can we agree about this, please?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean you agree with the proposal to create a section called "Religious perspective on public life" under "political positions"? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we need to present the facts. People can decide for themselves. It is not our job to spin the facts so keep people from getitng the impression that she is not a religious fanatic. Trying to say that no, she does not support teaching Creationism in the schools (when in fact she campaigned for governor on that platform) and no she is not a fundamentalist Christian (when she is), are just not factual. Atom (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that we should not duplicate religion material. As far as the possible influence of religion on her political positions, I do not understand why that cannot be handled one issue at a time, rather than pre-judging the outcome by stating that religion does influence her political positions, which is what creation of such a subsection would imply.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because we all know from out own lives that our values 'do influence the decisions we make. By accurately detailing that she believes in creationism and the teaching of creationism we let people decide for themselves. Some view that politively, and some negatively. Editors and readers want to know what she believes, not so that they can "pre-judge" her actions, but so that they can determine if she has values more like theirs, or different from theirs. Allowing only the mention in the political views section that she supports teasching of creationism in the schools doesn't give a complete picture. Haivng a section on religious views allows a more in depth look at what she really believes instead of a one sentence reference. Atom (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the duplicated para - I left it in personal life, otherwise that section is about 3 sentences. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

===Private background===

Palin was born to Catholic parents. She received the sacrament of baptism while an infant, but her parents left the Church shortly thereafter.[63] Palin's family joined the Pentecostal Wasilla Assembly of God when she was 4 years of age, a church Palin attended for 34 years.[64][65] In a speech before the church, she described herself as having been saved and baptized at that church[66] at age 13.[67] Palin's children were also baptized at that church.[68] When she is in Juneau, the State Capital, she attends the Juneau Christian Center[24],[69] another Assemblies of God church. Her current home church is now the Wasilla Bible Church, an independent congregation.[70] Palin describes herself as a "Bible-believing" Christian.[71] Although the Juneau Christian Center does not endorse any candidate for any office, they do say "We do believe that she is a woman of integrity - a strong leader with the heart of a servant. "[25]

Given that Gibson misquoted Palin about her remarks on the war in Iraq I have removed that section. She at no time said that the war was a "Task from God". In addition the YouTube video is being used for OR. Now, I don't know the best way to proceed with this section, but we must be careful to not put soo much opinion into this section when the opinion is from a purely political point of view. Arzel (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He did not misquote her. He cited her words on Anchorage radio. Please stop removing this. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was a blatant misquote - the first part of her statement was cut off, so as to change the context. Kelly hi! 18:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This does not exist in George_W._Bush , Biden , Mccain , Obama. And I'm sure they all had talk pages debating the issue as well. I would just recommend everyone take a deep breath and start referencing the other related bio pages for comparatives. This should give use guidance on material that should be here and stands the test of time. I know my patience is wore thin and I'm on the edge of taking the action of turning the tables and applying the standards of the Palin page elsewhere. Theosis4u (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the other articles contain useful guidance. I'll try to integrate this stuff into the political positions section, where some of it is already mentioned.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Jeremiah_Wright_controversy was/is irrelevant to Obama's political career and if you use that story and how removed it is from the actual Obama page I think that will guide how these matters can be handle. That was a huge story and one that has been reported on for years. Sometimes, it seems we are trying to get every little bit of information on the Palin page without a consideration if the tidbit, rumor, trivia will stand the test of time for relevance [most fail the 24hr news cycle]. Theosis4u (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've attempted to provide a neutral summary. See the new quotes from Steven Waldman that I put at the end of the "Political positions" section.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was a process by which relevant info got added, culled, deleted, and yes, tested by time. And by the way, the controversy is in the article, summarized briefly; and it was about what his preacher said, not what he said. These cited facts, just removed by Ferry, who has now violated 3RRR, are about what Palin herself said. As a side this was a very very very very very sloppy edit please fix it. I'll be back, don;t think this will stand.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LLLL, please don't go away. Let's discuss it. I asked above whether people really wanted information to be repeated twice in two sections of the article, such as the creationism stuff. You didn't say that you wanted to duplicate it, so I removed the duplicative stuff. I removed other duplicative stuff too. What's wrong with that? And what do you think of the Waldman quotes?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good summary and quotes. Kelly hi! 19:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The_Golden_Rule , that's all I'm saying. Theosis4u (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


We don't want informatin repeated twice. We do want a section for more detailed discussion of religious issues. This means that it is sometimes necessary to mention an issue, say in the political views section, briefly, and then go into detail in the religious section. The political views section, or the personal section are not places for the detail, but the high level. The solution is good editing to make them not appear idential, but to discuss the same issues. Removing the section after hours of people negotiating to deal with the problems previouslt was not appropriate in my opinion. What we need to do is clean up and reformat the religious section so that it stands better on its own. I believe that as other religious issues surface, rather than being placed insome other section inappropriately, they will find a landing pad in the religious section. Atom (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That said, the "opinion" stuff should be removed. Kelly hi! 19:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Atom, while I was happy to work on the language in the interim, I am among the users who think an additional section on religious beliefs/perspectives/whatever is superfluous (with all due respect). You have proposed it as a "landing area" or catch-all area above, for discussion of Palin's religious beliefs. I have disagreed and continue to disagree with this: I think religious items are very likely to be divisible into personal life (ie, what church she attends, where she was baptised), and political positions or views (ie, that she is pro-life [due to her religious views], or pro-Iraq war [with her religion leading her to pray "that that plan is God's plan"]. I think a separate section that culls items into "religious perspective" artifically separates those items from her personal life and political views. Kaisershatner (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) We have some very determined POV-pushers here. Automaton, I see that you are now in a revert war.[26] You say, “religious section has previously found consensus, discussion by two editors is not consensus to remove.”

The idea that there was previous consensus for inserting this stuff is incorrect. Today alone, TuckerResearch, Hobartumius, Kaisershatner, Fcreid, 66.214.173.46, Ferrylodge, and Kelly have all objected to this new section of yours. I can give you diffs if you want.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is where it gets tough. You took my apparent willingness to see compromise and see a heading called 'religious positions' under 'political positions' as an excuse to delete almost all the content I've added, and did not insert the heading 'religious positions' under 'political positions', which was my condition for compromising on the move. The process is getting a little contorted at this point. I'm sorry for Atom that he's been put in this position. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, try to add that material into any of the sections now and see what the result it. Thge reason it got removed by me or others (and will again) is not because of the section it is in but because those bashed Palin indirectly, without stating her position, but what someone else said. WIthout any incluence from me, go add that to the personal section now and see how long it stays there before someone else removes it. The portions that you added that had good citations, and directly addressed things she said remained in that section. Atom (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Atom, maybe you misunderstood? that comment was intended for ferry. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that, as far as POV-pushing, I'm happy to see pro-Palin info of substance added in. I have not removed anything which speaks well of her in concrete terms (about her positions or her actions), and will never do so. The same cannot be said for the info which I have been trying to insert which rounds out the picture of this woman who does indeed cross the line between private and public religious rights.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am all for a neutral POV also, lbalancing her views. People should see an accurate picture of who she is, including her religious views that could influence decisions she makes in the future, and judge for themselves if that affects them positively or negatively. These attempt so remove any material that is not completely and enirely faorable (and in alignment with the curent Mccain platform) is outrageous. Atom (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to discuss it in more detail -- but I discussed it with many editors early this morning and got what I consider to be a consensus, even if you don't. I apologize if I have not kept up with the conversation. I was working on it until 2am this morning. People keep wanting to add material about her religious perspectives. It keeps creeping into other sections, such as the personal section and the political views section. Instead of repeatedly telling them that details about her baptism, and details of her views on creationism are not appropriate, it is better to give a section that discussed her religious views. Are her religious viewpoints notable? I believe they are, and the people who have wanted to put the aforementioned information in the have said they believe that as well. If there is a section on religion, it allows for those people to put those views. Sure, some controversial stuff will end up there -- which means there is not controversy elsewhere in the article. And in the wash, the non-notable and non-cited stuff will get removed and eventually a stable section with cited and verifiable information that satisfies the editors, and the readers desires to know what she has said about her religious perspective. The alternative to that is to continue to revert every religious oriented edit that someone tries to add (as I have had to do numerous times in the personal section) telling them that it is not notable, ot not relevant to the topic of that section.

I understand that there was some repetition caused by that and I had began, and completed a number of edits making the sections distinct. We need more editors working on improving the section so that it is distinctly about citable and notable religious aspects of the candidate. Atom (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me --- and correct if I'm wrong --- that you're happy to talk more at this talk page, but unwilling to undo this revert of yours. If that is correct, then it seems to me that your position is "my way or the highway". Many other editors have explained at this talk page TODAY that they disagree with what you have done and/or agree that the separate section on religious perspective is inappropriate. See TuckerResearch,[27] Hobartimus,[28] Kaisershatner, [29] Fcreid,[30] 66.214.173.46,[31] Kelly,[32] and myself. I really am offended by the massive amount of time that you are consuming by your evasion of consensus. Some people have weekends, and lives to lead, but you are tying things up by refusing to abide by consensus, not to mention 3RR, NPOV, and a host of other guidelines and policies. Additionally, including duplicative paragraphs in separate sections of this article on creationism is plainly an outrage, and something that has been repeatedly mentioned on this talk page. But you just keep on jamming it in. Will you go for triplicate next? Ferrylodge (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your comment on creationism. I am not sure what you mean. I think that having it mentioned (as it is now) in the political views section briefly is fair game. (I did not place that there BTW, my only edit to it has been to clarify, per the quote, that she does not feel that teaching it should be required, only that it should be allowed if the discussion comes up.) The second place, in the religious section, is where the full detail of what her current view is can be expressed. The political views section should only mention, in brief, her position. I think we should completely and accurately state what her view is, quoting her with reliable citations, not trying to spin it one way or the other. It should be as neutral and accurate as possible. Atom (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your opinion. Strangely, I am offended that given the clear and detailed discussions that took place before you got here supporting a different section, that you are wasting massive amounts of mine and others times also, and trying to make me look like I, personally am the obstacle. 3RR btw is when someone reverts three times. I made two edits to returnb the section previously established by consensus to undo the two seperate pieces that you reverted. (removing the section entirely, edited by a number of people), and then secondly to take out the duplicated stuff from you adding stuff back in to the personal section. TWO distinct and different edits to reverse a previosly standing consensus is not what I consider to be 3RR. NPOV is when someone tries to enforece one POV, and not allow mutiple POV's. Given my edit history that would be hard to do, my editing has been very balanced. So, I take your suggestion that I have violated those, and a "host of guidelines and policies" as a lack of good faith. Obviously you and I see this issue differently. But, removing hours worth of work after I worked to get a consensus was not the way to do it. Those were good edits, ones that kept the personal section clean and concise, while allowing people with religious views on both sides of the issue to express the detail that they wanted.
Maybe if would be good if you were to express some reasoning as to why people should not document Palin's religious experience, or her religious viewpoints? It seems to me that providing for allowing that pserpective is NPOV, and trying to limit and reject showing her viewpoints on those issues would not be NPOV. Atom (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the same absence of such nonsense in other related bio's. These are POV pushes to build religious correlations and hopefully political causations for the readers. It would be the same if someone pushed Obama > Obama#Cultural_and_political_image > Cultural_and_political_image_of_Barack_Obama > Cultural_and_political_image_of_Barack_Obama#Religion > Jeremiah_Wright_controversy > Jeremiah_Wright > Black_liberation_theology > Liberation_Theology > Marxism correlations into one off pages from Obama. It's a long road to get to the grounding of the theology that Obama has been participating in the last 20+ years and I'm on better ground to show his theology equals political realties [ though I don't really believe it by his personal motives - though we could interject "community organizer" here ]. Theosis4u (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that we leave the religious section for the short range, to allow people with religious perspective to express that, and make a survey that asks the editors to sumamrize their viewpoints on this. If there is a consensus to remove the section and reverse the previous consensus to have a seperate section, I will abide by that consensus. We could have (given the nature of this article changing so much) 48 hours to close the survey?? Does that sound fair? Atom (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NO, it does not sound fair. The vast majority of editors have objected to it. Please take it out. It contains redundnat material. The creationsim stuff is already covered in political positions, and the last paragraph of political positions already summarizes (see Waldman quotes). Why not try putting the material that you like into the political positions sub-article? I'm not an editor of that sub-article, and I express no opinion about whether the material would be appropriate there, but that would probably be the best place for you to try to put it.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a second. You claim that a majority of editors object to it. So, why not take a poll and ask? I don't think you are being objective. Is the time period too long? We can adjust that. I am seekign overall consensus, not discord. How is asking people an issue? Atom (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again about creationism. The political viewpoint only allows for a very small and limited (possibly innacurate) mention of her view on creationism. If we tried to put two paragraphs on that topic, it would be cut as off topic on that section. Atom (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me spell this out as clearly as possible. The inclusion of the additional religion section has been discussed at this talk page for many hours. Many editors have already weighed in against it. I have provided diffs above. Please read this carefully: "the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material."[33] I am not participating in any further poll or further discussion about this, until the disputed material is removed as required by BLP guidelines, and I advise other editors to do the same.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me spell it out. I respect your view, and I don't get the feeling you respect mine. A variety of editors discussed adding the section and came to a consensus. A new consensus, such as that the section should not be there, needs to be formed to remove that. We have already gone through the phase of adding, disputing, discussion and forming a consensus. I resent your attitude to not work towards a consensus, and instead insist on your own way. I have been very patient and accomodating with you. If you don't like a 48 hour, we could try 36. or 34 to gather opinions. It isn't like we are in some huge hurry to work this out. The article will be here a week, a mint, a year, ten years from now. Is 24-48 hours in order to clarify, rather than two editors with opposite perspectives, that much time? Atom (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I invite you to list all of the members of that alleged "consensus" in the following section.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the fact that Obama and McCain and Biden do not have a religious section does not matter here. The reason that they do not is that they have not made controversial religious statements or crossed the private-public line. Bush, on the other hand, should have such a section - the fact that his entry does not have a religious perspective sectio reflects badly on the Bush entry, not well on efforts to omit relevant info about Palin's views on the religious rights in the private versus public sphere.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few things - first of all, Ferry, I realize you are frustrated but you're not alone (on either side) in that. Specifically, Atom has proved at least to me that he is editing in good faith. Try to tone it down a bit, we can all work together, and this is unlike many far worse arguments on politics pages here. Most of the active editors here have shown willingness to compromise and collaborate. Let's work on areas where there is agreement. Atom, I agree with your points - you have left in material that is well-sourced AND that describes Palin's views in her own words. Lama, the fact that you expressly state you don't object to sourced pro-Palin information being added is a good and welcome thing to hear. Truly, I think everyone at least believes they are trying to write the best Palin bio article, while we may differ on the road to get there. Atom - consensus changes, I can appreciate how much work you put into your section but there are many today who feel it is superfluous. And Lama, I hope to have time to reply more at length, but basically, I just disagree that Palin is a special case because of her views - my succinct view is that her bio article should resemble those of other governors/politicians. Kaisershatner (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

remove section titled "Religious perspective on public and private life"

remove all related information from all related pages at this time and recommend editors and admin review other related bio's so we don't reinvent the wheel about this topical issue. Within a week, some of these items very well might build into a legitimate story that has legs, but right now I don't see that. I believe we are just witnessing media in general throwing "stuff" on the wall to see what sticks. Theosis4u (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following have already supported removal: TuckerResearch,[34] Hobartimus,[35] Kaisershatner, [36] Fcreid,[37] 66.214.173.46,[38] Kelly,[39] and myself.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's not a topical issue - it all relates to a speech she gave at her former church years ago. I might as well add that Sarah Palin herself is a topical issue though - who cared about her before, unless it had to do with oil-drilling, none of this affected the rest of us before. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per nom. WTucker (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Monthly

I read this citation just now. It is a blog/opinion columnist at the Washington Monthly, not their editorial opinion. If this is to be included at all, can it be changed to reflect that? Kaisershatner (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! NB I think this should be removed totally on the grounds of insignificance, but I appreciate you making it factually accurate at least. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Family photo

I have come across some nice family photos from the Anchorage newspaper for the personal life section. What do I need to do to add the photo? I am new to editing.--Rosebud999 (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that if they're copyrighted we can't use them here - see WP:NFC. Kelly hi! 18:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can only accept photos here that have been donated by the owner to the public for whatever use the public desires (see Wikipedia:PD). There are some rare exceptions (called "fair use"), but generally speaking you would have to get permission from the owner of the photos. The permission would have to use some technical legal language.[40]Ferrylodge (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First term chronology

I would change this as it does not make chronological sense, but don't want to violate 3RR:
  • "Despite the rocky start, by the end of her first term, Palin had gained favor with Wasilla voters. She kept a jar with the names of Wasilla residents on her desk, and once a week she pulled a name from it and picked up the phone; she would ask: "How's the city doing?"[72] Term limits prevented Palin from running for a third term as mayor in 2002.[73] Using income generated by a 2% sales tax that was enacted prior to her election, Palin cut property taxes by 75% and eliminated personal property and business inventory taxes.[74] Tapping municipal bonds, she made improvements to the roads and sewers[75] and increased funding to the Police Department.[76] She also oversaw new bike paths and procured funding for storm-water treatment to protect freshwater resources.[74] At the same time she reduced spending on the town museum and blocked construction of a new library and city hall.[74] Palin ran for re-election against Stein in 1999 and won;[77][78] with a plurality of 74%.[79] Palin was also elected president of the Alaska Conference of Mayors.[75]"
The 2002-related bolded sentence does not fit here chronologically, before her first term tax moves and her race in 1999. It fits under "second term." Also, I don't understand why her policy on taxes would come after the first sentence. Please comment.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lama, you are spot on about the term limits sentence being out of place; I've moved it to the end of the 2nd term section. The reason that the the tax cut stuff belongs after the names in the jar sentence is because it is telling a story. Clearly the first few months of her tenure were rocky, but when she ran for re-election she got 74% of the vote. What happened? The apparent answer is that she had a hands on service-oriented approach to city government (the jar with the names) and she cut taxes, and made a lot of city improvements. Then it goes to her running again and being re-elected overwhelmingly. This is essentially the same story told in the provided cites.--Paul (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understood the implication that the sentence order was trying to get across, but conflating the turn-around in her public perception with her tax policy is WP:OR, original research. If you can find a reference which makes the connection, and begin the sentence with something like, "The Anchorage daily news says that the turn-around is due to her tax policy", that would be great. Otherwise, I don't think it will stand.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see, you are suggesting that "Despite the rocky start, by the end of her first term, Palin had gained favor with Wasilla voters" is original research? It just seems to be writing to me. She had a rocky start, she did a bunch of stuff, she won reelection from 74% of the voters. I really don't understand the objection to this, and it seems a really insignificant thing to argue about. If we are going to argue over every sentence, this article is never going to achieve any kind of consensus. Have fun, all: I'm off to play in real-life for a few days.--Paul (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it looks to violate WP:OR. The terms 'rocky' and 'gained favor' are both supposition that are "assumed" by the writer, not quoted by a reliable news source. They have no place in the biography of a living person, even if partially accurate, because that in itself constitutes a violation of WP:SYNTH. Duuude007 (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of paragraph and calls it a "slight reword" in edit summary

This was deleted, and the edit summary said, "slight reword": "Palin is on the record saying "I'm not one...who would attribute it to being man-made," after saying that global warming would affect Alaska more than any other state.[80] Salon notes that in her interview on ABC, she said, "Show me where I have ever said that there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect or no effect on climate change. I have not said that."[81][82]" I will be restoring it in 24 hours, though I would prefer someone else would do so. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chill out please. It was a mistake delete, and I restored it. Grsztalk 19:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear it. Sorry if my tone was frustrating.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Leonard Doyle. "Palin 'hid her pregnancy from aides'". New Zealand Herald. Retrieved 2008-09-09.
  2. ^ a b Jodi Kantor. "Fusing Politics and Motherhood in a New Way". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-09-09.
  3. ^ http://www.knikbridgefacts.org/invrpt07.pdf, Page 2
  4. ^ "'Bridge to nowhere' abandoned". CNN. 2007-09-22. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference Tumble was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/politics2944951
  7. ^ Dilanian, Ken (2008-08-31). "Palin backed 'bridge to nowhere' in 2006". Gannett News Service. Retrieved 2008-09-08.
  8. ^ a b c Tom Kizzia (2008-08-31). "Palin touts stance on 'Bridge to Nowhere,' doesn't note flip-flop". Anchorage Daily News. Retrieved 2008-09-08.
  9. ^ "Palin's maverick trail goes from city hall to gov's mansion". CNN. 2008-09-02. Retrieved 2008-09-02.
  10. ^ State of Alaska (2007-09-21) Governor's office press release.
  11. ^ Rosen, Yereth (2008-09-01). "Palin "bridge to nowhere" line angers many Alaskans". Reuters. Reuters. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  12. ^ http://www.observer.com/2008/politics/fairy-tale-palin-reformer
  13. ^ "Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Alaska Governor Sarah Palin". 2008 Republican National Convention. 2008-09-03. Retrieved 2008-09-08.
  14. ^ http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/09/palin_defends_bridge_to_nowher.html
  15. ^ Romano, Andrew (2008-09-08). "The Politics of the 'Bridge to Nowhere'". Stumper. Newsweek. Retrieved 2008=09-08. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  16. ^ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122090791901411709.html?mod=loomia&loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r4:c0.0766691
  17. ^ Fact Check: Palin and the Bridge to Nowhere. Published by the Associated Press, 8 September 2008; accessed 10 September 2008.
  18. ^ Account of a Bridge’s Death Slightly Exaggerated, by David D. Kirkpatrick and Larry Rohter. Published in the New York Times on 31 August 2008; accessed 10 September 2008.
  19. ^ "An Apostle of Alaska". Newsweek. 2008-09-06. Retrieved 2008-09-08.
  20. ^ As Campaign Heats Up, Untruths Can Become Facts Before They're Undone, by Jonathan Weisman. Published in The Washington Post on 10 September 2008; accessed 10 September 2008.
  21. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference wall was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  22. ^ Cite error: The named reference Sean was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  23. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/01/AR2008090102305.html
  24. ^ http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/09/bristol_palin_is_pregnant.html
  25. ^ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/01/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4405099.shtml
  26. ^ http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837862,00.html
  27. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7592636.stm
  28. ^ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/palin-confirms-daughters-pregnancy-915378.html
  29. ^ Bender, Bryan (2008-09-03). "Palin not well traveled outside US". Boston Globe. Retrieved 2008-09-03. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  30. ^ Cooper, Michael (2008-08-29). "McCain Chooses Palin as Running Mate". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-09-04. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  31. ^ http://greensboring.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=8798 Foren experience...?
  32. ^ Alexi Mostrous.Sarah Palin, the pastor and the prophecy: judgment day is not far away"; Times Online, September 10, 2008
  33. ^ David Brody."Sarah Palin Signed "Christian Heritage Week" Proclamation"; CBN, August 30, 2008
  34. ^ a b c "Alaska Governor Sarah Palin". 2007-09-14. Retrieved 2008-09-09.
  35. ^ Steve Benen."Palin's beliefs draw closer scrutiny" Washington Monthly, September 9, 2008
  36. ^ "Pastor: GOP may be downplaying Palin's religious beliefs"; CNN, September 12, 2008
  37. ^ Alexi Mostrous.Sarah Palin, the pastor and the prophecy: judgment day is not far away"; Times Online, September 10, 2008
  38. ^ David Brody."Sarah Palin Signed "Christian Heritage Week" Proclamation"; CBN, August 30, 2008
  39. ^ Steve Benen."Palin's beliefs draw closer scrutiny" Washington Monthly, September 9, 2008
  40. ^ "Pastor: GOP may be downplaying Palin's religious beliefs"; CNN, September 12, 2008
  41. ^ David Brody."Sarah Palin Signed "Christian Heritage Week" Proclamation"; CBN, August 30, 2008
  42. ^ "Sarah Palin on Principles & Values". On the Issues. Retrieved 2008-09-11. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  43. ^ Kizzia, Tom (2006-10-27). "'Creation science' enters the race". Anchorage Daily News..
  44. ^ [1] (video)
  45. ^ Steve Benen."Palin's beliefs draw closer scrutiny" Washington Monthly, September 9, 2008
  46. ^ Charlie Gibson."Republican VP Candidate Speaks with ABC News' Charlie Gibson in Exclusive Interview"; ABC, Sept. 11, 2008, Excerpt, p.1
  47. ^ [2]
  48. ^ [3]
  49. ^ Alexi Mostrous.Sarah Palin, the pastor and the prophecy: judgment day is not far away"; Times Online, September 10, 2008
  50. ^ Steve Benen."Palin's beliefs draw closer scrutiny" Washington Monthly, September 9, 2008
  51. ^ "Pastor: GOP may be downplaying Palin's religious beliefs"; CNN, September 12, 2008
  52. ^ Mostrous.Sarah Palin, the pastor and the prophecy: judgment day is not far away"; Times Online, September 10, 2008
  53. ^ "Pastor: GOP may be downplaying Palin's religious beliefs"; CNN, September 12, 2008
  54. ^ Steve Benen."Palin's beliefs draw closer scrutiny" Washington Monthly, September 9, 2008
  55. ^ Juan Cole."What's the difference between Palin and Muslim fundamentalists? Lipstick. A theocrat is a theocrat, whether Muslim or Christian." Salon, September 12, 2008
  56. ^ [4] (video)
  57. ^ Steve Benen."Palin's beliefs draw closer scrutiny" Washington Monthly, September 9, 2008
  58. ^ Charlie Gibson."Republican VP Candidate Speaks with ABC News' Charlie Gibson in Exclusive Interview"; ABC, Sept. 11, 2008, Excerpt, p.1
  59. ^ Steve Benen."Palin's beliefs draw closer scrutiny" Washington Monthly, September 9, 2008
  60. ^ http://www.newsweek.com/id/158627/output/print
  61. ^ http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html factcheck.org
  62. ^ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article4686925.ece A Class Act
  63. ^ http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2008/09/sarah-palins-religion.html
  64. ^ Newsweek, September 15, 2008. p. 30
  65. ^ Gorsk, Eric (2008-08-30). "Evangelicals energized by McCain-Palin ticket". Associated Press. Retrieved 2008-08-30.
  66. ^ "Political Punch". Blogs.abcnews.com. September 3, 2008 12:38 p.m. Retrieved 2008-09-10. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  67. ^ http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2008/09/sarah-palins-religion.html
  68. ^ "'This person loves Jesus' (The Guardian)".
  69. ^ "Statement Concerning Sarah Palin". Juneau Christian Center. 2008-09-03. Retrieved 2008-09-04.
  70. ^ Lisa Miller and Amanda Coyne. "A Visit to Palin's Church: Scripture and discretion on the program in Wasilla." Newsweek. Sept. 2, 2008.
  71. ^ Newton-Small, Jay (August 29, 2008). "Interview with Sarah Palin". Time.
  72. ^ Armstrong, Ken; Bernton, Hal (September 7), "Sarah Palin had turbulent first year as mayor of Alaska town", The Seattle Times {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
  73. ^ The Associated Press (2008-08-29). "Timeline of Gov. Palin's life and career". ABC News.
  74. ^ a b c Kizzia, Tom (October 23), "'Fresh face' launched Palin", Anchorage Daily News {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
  75. ^ a b "From Wasilla's basketball court to the national stage : Sarah Palin timeline". adn.com. Anchorage Daily News. 2008-08-29. Retrieved 2008-09-01.
  76. ^ Cite error: The named reference nytimes090208 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  77. ^ (Johnson 2008, p. 65)
  78. ^ "2006 Campaign Tip Sheets: Alaska Governor". National Journal. Retrieved 2008-08-30.
  79. ^ "October 5, 1999 Regular Election; Official Results" (PDF). cityofwasilla.com. City of Wasilla. 2005-10-11. Retrieved 2008-09-01.
  80. ^ Mike Coppock."Palin Speaks to Newsmax About McCain, Abortion"; Newsmax, August 29, 2008
  81. ^ Charlie Gibson."Republican VP Candidate Speaks with ABC News' Charlie Gibson in Exclusive Interview"; ABC, Sept. 11, 2008
  82. ^ Alex Koppelman."Palin flip-flops on global warming"; Salon, Sept. 12, 2008

Fake Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin's recent fame as Republican Vice Presidential nominee has spurred a number of Fake Sarah Palin material on the Internet. [41]

Most notably:

Whatssarahthinking blog [42] Palindrome blog [43] FakeSarahPalin on Twitter [44] Sarah_Palin on Twitter [45]

(Lamarguerite (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Fake Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin's recent fame as Republican Vice Presidential nominee has spurred a number of Fake Sarah Palin material on the Internet. [46]

Most notably:

Whatssarahthinking blog [47] Palindrome blog [48] FakeSarahPalin on Twitter [49] Sarah_Palin on Twitter [50]

(Lamarguerite (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Brief Survey -- Religious Perspective

I am asking for a survey to poll views on the section "Religious Perspective". Another editor insists that there exists a consensus to remove that section, I will let him or others express their reasoning for that. This is an attempt to respect his needs and ask for a consnesus to remove the section.

After having to repeatedly edit out religious based information that editors kept adding to the personal section on the basis that it was not relevent to that section, I discussed and created a section specifically for religious issues. I feel that this benefits the article in many ways.

  • As a matter of NPOV, allowing a place for the subject's religious perspectives to be expressed, rather than being not allowed in other sections on the basis that it is not on topic.
  • A brief mention of a view, such as her viewpoint on Creationism on the political views section, only gives a brief summary of what she has said. Attempts at longer explanations have been surpressed, on the basis that the one topic could dominate the section, intended as a bried summary of political positions. The religious perspectives section allows for a deatiled, and therefore less biased description as to what she actually has said, instead of a brief summary like "Palin supports teaching of Creationism in schools".
  • In the personal views section, it is intended to briefly give some pertinent facts about Palin, such as that she is married, her husbands and kids, hobbies, and churches she attends. Because the topic of church is mentioned, people take this as a convenient place to put quotes about her religious pserpective, opinions, when and where she was baptized, and a variety of other things that is more detailed than intended for the section. The religious perspective allows for those people to document (with cites) all of those things, and more in an appropriate place, dedicated to discussion of religious perspective.
  • In other sections the same phenomena occurs, people begin to put religious related data about Palin in those sections, and then complain that even though it is a true fact, notable and reliably cited that it has been removed. Usually this is because the information is off topic for that section. A religious perspective section acts as landing pad for that information, protecting the integrity of the other sections.
  • It is true that this section gives a place where strong bias can (temporarily) be placed. In the long run, non NPOV and incited information will be removed. In the meantime, the battle over whether it hsould be there or not is in one place, not spread thorughout the article.

Objections I have seen:

  • Information is put in the article twice. For instance, in the political views seciton it mentions Creationism. And in the religious view it mentiones creationism again.
This is by intention. The summary is in one section, and the detail in a more appropriate section. The fact that the first reference is one sentence, and the second one or more paragraphs is the purpose of the section.
  • We don't want to give out her religious viewpoints. Religion is a private matter, and not notable. We should not pre-judge her actions by assuming they are influenced by her religious viewpoints.
Although this is a valid opinion, there seem to be many people that think that her values, philosophy and integrity are notable, and something they want to know about.
  • Expressing all of these religious viewpoints in one place makes her look like a fundamentalist, or some religious nutcase.
We can't help what opinions people choose to form. We can only insure that all information is accurate, notable, and cited with reliable sources. Also, that it is expressed in an NPOV way.
  • Expressing her viewpoint on Creationism will bias people, and they will think negatively of her.
It is not our job spin an article. If we accurately express her viewpoint with reliable citations, some group of people will be positively influenced, and some of them negatively influenced, That is the nature of politics. We must endeavor to be accurate, fair and NPOV and let the cards fall where they may.


Please comment on whether you support that the religious section should be removed, or if you oppose deleting the section. This is not a vote, it is an attempt to gain consensus for removing the section. Your reasoning is more important that a specific agree or disagree vote. This survey is brief, and will end at midnight on 9/14/2008.

Please clearly state your position on removal of the video with *Support to remove it or *Oppose to keep it, then sign your comment with ~~~~.

    • Oppose We should allow people to express Palins religious viewpoints, as long as they are documented on a NPOV manner, and reliable citations are given for those viewpoints. Atom (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was already discussed for many hours, and the vast majority supported removal: TuckerResearch,[51] Hobartimus,[52] Kaisershatner, [53] Fcreid,[54] 66.214.173.46,[55] Kelly,[56] Theosis4u,[57] W Tucker,[58] and myself. Only three editors supported inclusion, as far as I recall. You have edit-warred to jam this material back into the article, where it currently remains, but "the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material."[59] You already created a section to poll about this.[60] Are you just going to keep creating these poll questions until you get the result you seek?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose While I have not participated in this discussion, I do monitor it. Our visitors come for information. "It's all part of the soup", said George Harrison.--Buster7 (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal. I was looking at Joe Biden, and don't see any "religious viewpoint" section. For example, Biden believes that life begins at conception, but that killing that life is just fine. But that's a personal belief that may not really belong in an overview of his life. I think a similar perspective should apply here. Kelly hi! 22:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal. The material in this section has many problems, the first being redundancy: the creationism stuff is already in the political positions section. Additionally, the material in this section is already summarized by the Waldman quotes in the last paragraph of the political positions section. See WP:SS.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal -- As above comments plus not very well sourced, many assertions in the section have been challenged. -- Dougie WII (talk) 22:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose removal -- As stated before, the most important thing is that some heading reading dealing with religious views on political issues, with content intact, occurs somewhere in the article. As far as the fact that Obama and McCain and Biden do not have a religious section does not matter here. The reason that they do not is that they have not made controversial religious statements or crossed the private-public line. Bush, on the other hand, should have such a section - the fact that his entry does not have a religious perspective sectio reflects badly on the Bush entry, not well on efforts to omit relevant info about Palin's views on the religious rights in the private versus public sphere.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(by the way, the way Ferry formatted things makes it difficult to respond to all of his charges (since he won't allow people to insert comments point for point), such as his constant and misleading repetition of the charge that a certain section was repeated twice, when apparently it was only an editing mistake and no one actually argued with him for 1 single split second with the removal of the duplicate paragraph.)LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop canvassing for votes.[61][62] See WP:Canvassing.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal as stated above x 5. Oppose "landing pad" perspective; AGREE with presenting full information on religious views in personal life and political perspectives sections and allowing people to enter cited material about her religious views. Kaisershatner (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC) (nb I will be afk until tomorrow so you'll have to muddle on w/o me.) :) Kaisershatner (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Removal - Religion is very important to Palin's political and personal life. Indeed it is the source of Palin's strong support among Christian evangelicals that are coming back to the McCain/Palin ticket, according to polls, precisely because of Palin's religious views. To exclude this section would exclude probably the most important part of Palin's draw to the ticket, as many of these evangelicals (e.g. Dobson) refused to support McCain until he put an evangelical on the ticket. Obviously, the section has to be NPOV. But it would be terribly wrong, I think, to remove the section, because it would hide the proverbial "elephant in the room": perhaps the single most powerful political draw of Palin and the primary reason why she was chosen to be put on the ticket. To hide Palin's religion would be like hiding Obama's race. Like it or not, these are the single greatest talked-about trait for both of them.GreekParadise (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Removal - Palin's religious beliefs are adequately and succinctly described in the paragraph within her Personal section in a manner appropriate for a biographical article. Further discussion would only be relevant if there were evidence her beliefs historically influenced her policy decisions. On the contrary, there are multiple obvious examples where she did not let her personal religious beliefs influence governance. Fcreid (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Removal.Her religious perspective is as much notable in her politics as in her personal life. This is an important and major issue in her life, now more than ever, and should not be omitted neither in her BIO nor in her/McCain's political sub-pages. There is just no question in my mind about it. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(add on): That's one of several reasons McCain picked here (to get the GOP base motivated). --Floridianed (talk) 23:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While it's no fault of Floridianed, I would like to point out that he has been canvassed.[63] Also, I don't think anyone is suggesting removing her religious perspective from the article. The issue is whether it needs an entire separate section repeating everything on this subject that is in the sub-article on political positions.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with telling the voting public that "It's Election Day"...no mention was made as to HOW to vote....only that an important canvassing was taking place.--Buster7 (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The intent of including this section is completely transparent. It's not to amplify her biography but rather to paint her as someone outside of the mainstream and, thus, give the reader pause to wonder whether this exaggerated (and improperly presented) religious perspective would be reason to reconsider her elected role. Unfortunately, you've provided no evidence that she is, in fact, outside of the mainstream. And, again, her record of governance provides no basis for such claims. Lose the section and take it back to your blogs. Fcreid (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One or two editors are not the same thing as the voting public. Floridianed was selectively canvassed. As I mentioned in my first comment in this section, many editors have already opposed inclusion of the section in question, but I have not canvassed them to express that opinion yet again. There has never been consensus to include this section, now the issue has been turned upside down into a search for consensus to remove, and editors are being canvassed to oppose removal. Wonderful.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thus my comments earlier today about how the accuracy of this article has become laughable. This is particularly frustrating after all the time that many of us put into making it accurate and NPOV for nearly ten days. It should have remained fully protected until after the election, as the dKos Kids and Moveon crowd clearly have tasking to sway it. Fcreid (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you assumed I'll vote to oppose? --Floridianed (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Incidentally, the canvasser in question has been warned about this before.[64]Ferrylodge (talk) 23:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right but also somehow wrong since I edited Palin's page yesterday and today and would've discovered this thread by my own in about 10 to 30 minutes since I was busy for a while editing another page. Check my contributions if you're not convinced. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Removal - It is fairly summarized elsewhere and seems to have to use opinion pieces to make its points -- very POV. WTucker (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removal: Basically, as long as she herself makes it a notable subtopic to the media, and the media finds it notable enough to discuss regularly, it's notable enough for here. We aren't to judge what we ourselves are supposed to find interesting, in the face of notability reactions outside wikipedia (as long as citations and reputable sources support inclusion, of course). --23:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASarah_Palin&diff=238248344&oldid=238247036

Leave a Reply