Talk:Sarah Palin

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

Confirmed?

It's obviously confirmed. It's sourced everywhere. Get over it. /me

CNBC says it's her, but I can't think how to fit this in color="blue">(talk) 13:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's only two hours until the official announcement, I think we can wait that long. Kelly ^hi! 13:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Make it two if you want to count this as a reliable source. Oroso (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Now the Chicago Tribune. Oroso (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Add CNN to that list too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.81.147.160 (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain advisers confirmed that she's the Veep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.77.70 (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.mccainpalin.com/ Seems to confirm this as well Cavafox (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Has different registration info to johnmccain.com, and... an insurance advert. Presumably not an official campaign site.--The Bruce (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I will give you the registration, its possible that they actually had people who were smart in trying to hide it. I am not seeing any advertisements when I load the site. Just a front page with an image and some text. It may be my security settings though. Cavafox (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The ad is still there when I look (it's for ICICI Lombard, though I don't think that's significant - it just seems to be a googlead). The whois info indicates it was registered by the proxy on January 29 (the day of the Florida primary). That's more than a month before McCain became the presumptive nominee. So if it is genuine, then unless his team registered a whole slew of sites for everyone they were considering (and did so before even Romney dropped out), the whole veepstake thing was a sham. If that's true, I wonder if he had to cut some kind of deal in return for one of the endorsements he got during the Flordia campaign. But as I say, I still think it's a fan site of some sort, not part of the McCain campaign.--The Bruce (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The ad I see is a "paid for by john mccain" one about who's the biggest celebrity. It's also been in the news lately that mccain has been quite active in internet based advertising, specifically noting higher bidding on key adwords terms related to issues in this election cycle. 171.159.192.10 (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"On August 29, 2008, presumptive GOP nominee John McCain chose Palin as his nominee for vice president." Actually, he announced her selection today. Presumably, he actually made that selection days or weeks ago. 66.218.190.100 (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

STOP EDITING IT. SHE IS THE NOMINEEE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.247.39 (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No, she is the presumptive nominee until she officially receives the nomination at the convention.--JayJasper (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You happy now? It's all over the major networks that she IS THE NOMINEE! --Krakaet (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No, she is still the presumptive nominee until she officially receives the nomination at the convention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.22.229.180 (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

L:earn some politics. McCain is currently the presumptive nominee officially, also. It's not official until the convention.

Someone please tell me this same conversation was on Biden's talk page! Strawberry Island (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

How can you keep saying this? John McCain has a website that confirms it now![1] --Krakaet (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you please stop talking and read our article on "presumptive nominee" first? She is not nominee until next week. F (talk) 07:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's how it works. Neither McCain's nor Palin's names have even been placed before the convention in nomination for President and Vice President. Presumably this will happen at the Convention which has not convened yet. Then there will be a vote which may happen by roll call or by proclamation. Then, they will both become nominees. So both McCain and Palin are now presumptive nominees. McCain is also a candidate. Palin is not technically a candidate, since in the US there is no process before the convention for people to officially declare themselves as candidate for VP. The fact that Palin's name is on McCain's website does not indicate that either she nor he are the nominees. It does not contradict anything we have said here about presumptive nominees. --Crunch (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean, "Get over it". Huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatemailname (talk • contribs) 13:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Miss Alaska in lead

I've removed it more than once now. I don't think a detail this minor belongs in the lead. It's already stated in the article. Comments? --Elliskev 15:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it's trivia, really. Kelly ^hi! 15:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree as well. Hobartimus (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. The reality is that beauty is important. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Miss Alaska is a big deal! It should be included and would be on someone else's page. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 03:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

considering it has been a major tactic of the republican party to label the opposition as a celebrity i think it is a valid and importand piece of information.

Plus pageants are great events for young women that show them how to be a proper lady. Palin is a great model for all young women, for pageants in general, and proves you can be smart and pretty. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the Palin for president page. Its a LIVING BIO page. Heck yes miss Alaska is important. This should recieve more prominence not less. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If she won Miss Alaska then maybe however as I understand it she was only runner up. That's not important enough to make the lead.Filceolaire (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added and had deleted the following:

The Governor's husband, Todd Palin, served as a judge in the 2008 Miss Alaska Scholarship Pageant. [2]

I find this relevant to her history of beauty pageants. Especially in light of her criticism of pageant judges. I will add again. Please discuss. Poggio (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That her husband was a judge in a year she did not compete is irrelevant to her article, trivial at best to his article. I think we should remove this, if consensus exists to do so. --Coemgenus 01:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Further, since the quotation in the article is not a direct quote from Palin, I'm not sure we shouldn't rephrase it to fit the flow of the paragraph better. --Coemgenus 01:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is it PAY-lin? Michael of Monty Python seems to say it differently. 216.179.123.111 (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You're correct - maybe someone with expertise at the IPA symbology can place that here. Kelly ^hi! 15:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Erm I thought Michael was also "PAY-lin". Can someone put the correct pronunciation in English, not IPA gibberish? Timrollpickering (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct, Michael Palin's Palin is pronounced "PAY-lin". – ukexpat (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "the correct pronunciation in English, not IPA gibberish"? IPA is universal and using IPA any English speaker (or non-English speaker) can accurately pronounce the name. If we write "PAY-lin" how does that help? The pronunciation of 'PAY' depends on which country you are living in. If you have a problem then learn IPA.--217.202.153.5 (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Please link

{{editprotected}} [ja:サラ・ペイリン] = Sarah Palin Japanese version.Please make a link.from japan219.106.52.108 (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

First, this was the wrong template, in the future use {{Editsemiprotected}}. Second, this has been added. Oren0 (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Election Results

Apologies if this question belongs elsewhere but how is it possible that the Margin of Error on the Election Results for Ms. Palin is 7.6%? That seems inordinately high for actual election results (as opposed to, say, exit polls). In fact, the contender with the next highest number of votes (Tony Knowles) is within that MoE. Furthermore, how can Ms. Palin's number be so unprecise when all of the other contenders have MoE within 1%? I'm not trying to suggest anything untoward, just curious how this sort of thing is possible and hoping somebody can shed some light. Cheers. Daqron (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Pro-death penalty in parantheses after the pro-life statement

I don't see that one has anything to do with the other, however they are placed in such a way as to imply a relationship. Being against abortion is unrelated to being for the death penalty for convicted criminals. Moreover it's pretty common for people who hold the former opinion to also hold the later, which leads me to suspect that whoever edited it that way did so for the sole purpose of suggesting some sort of conflict in logic between what are in reality two distinct issues. I suggest editing it to two seperate sentences. 199.133.19.254 (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is really poorly written and needs to be clarified. The parenthetical stands out as an absolute, and in some instances a person who truthfully calls herself pro-life may in fact support use of capital punishment. It would be better here to clearly state her stances, in detail, regarding abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment. 198.242.210.113 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes whoever wrote it was probably politically motivated but how can anyone not see the conflict of logic there? How can the American religious nutters who are so against abortion for religious reasons also be the same people who support the death penalty? I should also stress that I am against abortion but I don't feel its the place of a government to leglislate on this matter.--217.202.153.5 (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no conflict of logic. There is no fallacy of any sort, there is no error in reasoning for someone to hold bot those positions. Those positions are mutually exclusive and certainly not contradictory. Abortion is killing a human being who is exceedingly early in growth and development. Capitol Punishment is the killing of a human being who is developed and sapient as well as having been convicted of a serious crime against humanity like murder or treason. The former kills an undeveloped human being at the whim of anther's will. The latter kills a human being who has himself assaulted and destroyed another human beings life, or betrayed his country into the hands of the enemy. The moral implications of each position are radically different. Clear enough for you? Furthermore as a Christian (pro-life), an American, and an advocate of the death penalty please demonstrate some restrain and respect by not insulting a significant number of Americans, including myself, with the reprehensible attitude demonstrated in your use of the phrase "religious nutters". Thank you. Have a good day. -- An-Alteran

Except, of course, that previous studies have shown that any system which has employed the death penalty has made mistakes. While, in theory, the death penalty is about killing convicted criminals, the fact remains that the death penalty kills innocent people. Is it not on that same basic presumption of innocence that we object to the killing of an unborn child? For that matter, how can the United States ever seek a leadership role in the drive to convince countries like China to abandon their own death penalty (which is used, among other things, for murdering political dissidents) when it still clings to its own? 68.151.60.194 (talk) 10:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There absolutely is a conflict of logic here. The Catholic church is pro-life, and does not condone killing whether it is an unborn fetus or a convicted killer. the logical inconsistency is arguing that God's will says the life of the unborn is valuable but not acknowledging the same value in all lives. religious nutter is unfortunate, maybe religious extremist is the better phrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.249.86 (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The only accurate way to describe her is anti-abortion. She can't be classed as pro-life if she supports the death penalty.GiollaUidir (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: The BBC is describing her as anti-abortion rather than pro-life-see here.GiollaUidir (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Arguing over semantics? There is no error in logic. No paradox. It is only in the minds of those who judge anothers opinion to find the error in logic and that is unfortunate for us all. I have a personal problem with calling people pro-choice too. How can a person be called pro choice if they do not permit the right to choose ANY and ALL matters. I supoopse if we are to get THAT technical then we must say pro-abortion and anti-abortion. Yet the problem with that is that MOST people are a mixture of both and the silly labels we WANT to put on them are nothing more than our own fears and prejudices owning OUR logic. Neither do I buy that most people object to abortion to extreme religious reasons. Again, the flaws in our OWN abilities to comprehend are what drives us to label those with opposing view points. Get over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.42.13 (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Text moves

I tried to revert the text moves by Wayfarers43 (talk · contribs) but ended up blanking the section due to edit conflicts. Wayfarers43 moved the family/personal background information to the bottom of the article per "journalism standards". I think this should be moved back up, as we're not writing a news paper article. This is meant to be a bio. - auburnpilot talk 15:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither a candidate nor a nominee

Let's get the wording right. Palin is neither a candidate nor a nominee for vice president at this point. She is merely John McCain's pick to be the nominee. If nominated next week by the convention, she will be then be the nominee. --Crunch (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Terminology therefore should be corrected to "presumptive nominee" FatherStorm (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. --Crunch (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "presumptive" is right - it is the same convention we followed for Joe Biden last week. Kelly ^hi! 16:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Slightly different because Biden was at least a candidate for President at some point, but you've the point. --Crunch (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

To quote from the Presumptive nominee article: "In politics, the presumptive nominee is a political candidate who is all but assured of his party's nomination, but has not yet been formally nominated." Palin (McCain, too, for that matter) will not be formally nominated until the Republican convention is held.--JayJasper (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just saw McCain announcing her publicly as his VP pick on all the major cable news networks. That good enough? :) -- Atama^chat 16:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No. John McCain isn't a nominee either. See presumptive nominee. Oren0 (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct, she is the presumptive vice-presidential nominee. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between a "pick," a "candidate" and a "nominee." McCain is a candidate. Palin is a pick. She is technically not a candidate, though that term is used, incorrectly to describe her status. Neither are nominees and won't be until the convention nominates them. --Crunch (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Public domain video

We have some public domain video of Sarah Palin, shot by the Department of Defense, that can be found here. Do we have anyone with sufficient technical expertise to convert some of it into a Wikipedia-compatible OGG format? Kelly ^hi! 15:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's easy to convert videos without being technical, as there are even websites that do this (eg [3]). I could convert the video for you, but I would have to make absolutely sure that downloading and converting the video is legal (ie that it is really in the public domain). How can I make sure that the video is really public domain? NerdyNSK (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that the site claims to be operated by the army ARCENT. Trying to confirm this, I visited the army's page[4] and I see the site is linked from there, which I believe is sufficient confirmation to ensure the legality of the site. Now I need to make sure the videos are really public domain. I have a problem with this, as I see that the FAQ stays silent on the question of whether we are allowed to use the stuff. I chose one of the videos from the search results, the one about the visit to Kuwait, but I do not see any licensing terms being listed on the video's description page. That page says that the "submitting unit" is "50th Public Affairs Detachment". Where could I find confirmation that the stuff they produce is really public domain? A quick search on Google does not reveal any homepage of them, although I see that they probably belong to the US army which would make them a federal US source, and as far as I know all federal US sources are in the public domain... what I want, however, is an official webpage (eg their homepage) saying that they really belong to the federal government and that their stuff is public domain. NerdyNSK (talk) 10:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Info on Army son

link [54] "http://stage-v2.wtopnews.com/?nid=104&sid=1247586" no longer works. Can not find information about her son being deployed to Iraq. Lincoln F. Stern 16:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Back to the top of Army son, I can find no source that confirms or denies her son's deployment to Iraq. The source mentioned above does not apear to be open to the public. I see no reason to include the statement without a citation. At the very least the statement should be tagged as needing a citation. --Crunch (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone added a citation needed sticker. I added one as well for him being in the military (given link no longer works) Lincoln F. Stern 16:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Check the regulation on this sit about the qualification to be a recruiter http://www.usarec.army.mil/hq/recruiter/Index.htm

AKO is not a public site, and privacy act info should not be posted here. The contact information posted there is changed manually by individual members of the Army, and is not public access. New recruits are initially loaded in the AKO system with their recruiting station infomation. It is not reasonable to assume that is his actual assignment Eodmo (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Recruiters are not deployable and ther is no need for recruiters in a combat zone! Besides the fact that he is infantry on a special assignment as a recruiting station assistant and basically wasting the governments money spent to train him to do his job as infantry.Wesxpresswmb (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone visited the fact that he may be on TAD orders? That is very common in the military, he can just he on TAD orders for a month before going to Iraq. I know a few people in the Marines that did that. What I think is odd; he joined after Sept 11th, which was 7 years ago, correct? How is he still a PFC? That is an extremely low rank for someone one a second enlistment. I think that information must be in accurate. Chexmix53 (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I just re-read the bit about when he joined. it is appropriate for him to be a PFC with only a year in, and it is appropriate for him to be on TAD recruiters orders until he deploys. Chexmix53 (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he reportedly joined on 11 September 2007 - last year - not 11 September 2001. Akiracee (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Reference item 74, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/us/politics/29palin.html, redirects to a sign up page. This is for Palin's sons upcoming orders for Iraq. Can someone find a non-registration news site? Lincoln F. Stern 22:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why information about the son's deployment to Iraq, which was cited to a NYT article, was removed. Robert K S (talk) 09:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Something else

Sarah Palin was NOT the first Alaska governor to be sworn in at some place other than Juneau. She was the first governor since statehood, I believe. But before putting that you should check the inaugurations in the 1960s. Alaska has had 2 other capitals in the past, plenty of governors were sworn in in Sitka. I know, I lived there, I didn't just look up something on the internet.65.2.29.233 (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a forum for general discussion of her. Kaisershatner (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Reread this comment, it's a suggested change to the article. Shii (tock) 16:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

None has ever run for president

"She will be the first politician from Alaska to be nominated for Vice-President; none has ever run for president." What about Mike Gravel? I'm changing this to "none has ever been nominated for President."

Nevermind, someone already beat me to erasing the line.

Eric Rosenfield (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the whole line about first person from Alaska ever to be nominated for VP. It seems trivial, given the number of election cycles since Alaska became a state. --Crunch (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Not only did Gravel run for president in 2008, he ran for vice-president at the 1972 Democratic convention (and lost to McGovern's pick). But to say Palin's the first Alaskan to be nominated on either major party ticket does seem significant; it has been almost 50 years. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In 12 elections there are at most 48 major-party candidates on the tickets. It wouldn't even be possible for all 50 states to be represented. I don't think it's significant. —KCinDC (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

quote with no context

In the article, "In a CNBC interview about her ongoing ethics investigation, Palin stated that she was unsure about what a Vice President does every day."

She actually stated that, "As for that VP talk all the time, I'll tell ya, I still can't answer that question till someone answers for me - what is it exactly that the VP does everyday?". This was in July, so if she accepted, chances are she has this squared away in her mind.

With no context, I don't know if including this at all even is unbias or useful. Emesee (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. That type of writing is weaselly at best. Removing is right, in lieu of expanding to a paragraph or section on the trajectory of her VP considerations. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Update. I tried to incorporate the material better, by connecting it to the other content concerning her (presumtive) nomination being a surprise, and sending the actual quote to the footnotes. I think it reads much better now. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No one knows what a VP does every day. They really have few duties of any kind. Some are allowed to do important things. Others are allowed to go to funerals. --70.225.92.16 (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

A political science major with even a passing reading of newspapers over the past 8 years should be able to list out quite a few things the current vice president has accomplished.

if it is a direct quote from her it is valid especially in regards to her nomination as a vice president

Palin's ethnic heritage?

Any sources regarding Governor Palin's ethnic heritage, i.e. is she of German, Norwegian, English, Irish, Swedish, or even Native American descent? Or some mix of European ethnicities? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.170.226.46 (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears from this family tree [5] (which doesn't really track her father) that she is of mostly Colonial American (i.e. English) ancestry, with some German ancestors a few generations back too. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, her last name does sound to be Swedish.

Norum (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt Michael Palin is Swedish too. FunkMonk (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Her birth name is Heath. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Troopergate scandal?

Admittedly, I haven't done any outside research on the matter but the information in the "Commissioner Dismissal Scandal" section doesn't seem to reach the point of being a "scandal." I would describe it as a "controversy". I think scandal implies that *clearly* a wrong was committed. If the investigation turns up something that Palin did that was clearly wrong, then I think it should be called a "Scandal". How do newspapers in the area describe the matter? Lawyer2b (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree, and switched it. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that is should be "controversy" as it IS under Federal investigation. However it has been changed to "Public Safety Commissioner dismissal" (Aventari (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC))

Silly Americans, with your lax definitions of scandal. Up here in Canada, a sitting Prime Minister can be kicked out of office for the "scandal" of investigating corrupt policies set in place by a previous Prime Minister. 68.151.60.194 (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

They call it "Troopergate" and there are several sources that refer to it that way and even lampooned in cartoon editorials.

citation http://www.rogermaynard.com/images/p2008/brergov.gif

you will have to find the other news and Blog citations. But they are out there.

signed anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.81.223 (talk) 03:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Additional citation "Alaska Troopergate"

"From David Hulen in Anchorage --

The AP moved this story this afternoon under the title "Alaska Troopergate."

Investigation dogs Alaska governor By STEVE QUINN Associated Press Writer JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — Gov. Sarah Palin, a rising young GOP star mentioned as a possible running mate for John McCain, could see her clean-hands reputation damaged by a growing furor over whether she tried to get her former brother-in-law fired as a state trooper.

A legislative panel has launched a $100,000 investigation to determine if Palin dismissed Alaska's public safety commissioner because he would not fire the trooper, Mike Wooten. Wooten went through a messy divorce from Palin's sister." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.81.223 (talk) 03:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

citation http://community.adn.com/node/129030

signed anon

You may want to mention that she welcomes the investigation. source: http://partner.neopets.com/NewsArticle.aspx?catId=42&articleId=1609830&page=2 (and yes, I'm aware that it's odd to be getting news from Neopets; it gives the journalist's name at the end of the article, so that shouldn't matter)Sorator (talk) 04:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Grammar Edit Unsuccessful

I was attempting to edit the following line to address the grammar:

Palin is strongly pro-life, a supporter of capital punishment,[28] Also has stated she likes hunting mooses for a past time, and promotes rifles as collector's items.

I was unable to find this text in the edit section or edit page. I am confused unless the page is somehow protected now. The area of the edit window where this text should be now says something about promoting creationism in schools. --Tralfaz (Ralraz, yech) (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone had removed it earlier; that's why you didn't see it. It's back now in fixed up form. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that section looks much better now. I was cringing at the use of Mooses. --Tralfaz (Ralraz, yech) (talk) 00:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin said creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public classrooms

Palin's answer to a question from the moderator in a televised debate: 'Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.'

See http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2006/10/27/intelligent_design_and_the_ala/

This should go into a Political positions of Sarah Palin article, which will no doubt materialize at some point. It's definitely notable to include for a governor, who presumably has influence over state educational guidelines. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The statement in the article on this right now is patently unfair and does not represent her position at all. The article currently says: " While running for Governor of Alaska, Palin supported the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in schools"

I followed the link to the article cited for support of this, and I found her saying this:

"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

In light of that, the sentence the article includes is simply false. She doesn't support teaching them alongside each other. She just doesn't think it's bad for a teacher to discuss both views and the reasons people support both if students happen to bring it up. That's not what people reading the article are going to get. It needs to be removed or changed to reflect her position more accurately. Parableman (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried to fix this so it more closely resembles what the referenced source actually says. I think the key is the words "taught" versus "debated"; as they have different connotations. The source includes both an original direct quote as well as a followup clarification quote, so by the source it is clear her intent is not to introduce creationism into the curriculum; which just saying she supports teaching it would imply. -- Dmeranda (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's better. I'm still not satisfied. Her clarification says that she thought it was ok to discuss it if it came up, i.e. if it was raised by students. She thinks that's fair game, and a lot of people think it's inappropriate for a science teacher even to get into the issue, because they think it's religion. The Dover case made that even the law in the Third Circuit. So it's not an uncontroversial position, but it seems misleading to say she advocated the teaching of it but then say it doesn't have to be part of the curriculum. That sounds as if she thinks it can be part of the curriculum but isn't going to oppose it. Her position clarification doesn't give me that impression. It sounds more like she thought it was ok to have it discussed if students raised the issue. Parableman (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This 'debate' quote came after she had advocated for teaching creationism side by side with evolution (sorry I don't have the specific citation):

The volatile issue of teaching creation science in public schools popped up in the Alaska governor's race this week when Republican Sarah Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state's public classrooms.

Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, 'Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.128.56 (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, and then she clarified the next day that what she meant is that it's ok for a teacher to include both in a discussion, not that she expects teachers to include creationism in the curriculum side-by-side with evolution. The article states this in an extremely misleading way given what she clarified her view to be. It doesn't matter if she stated the view misleadingly. We have the information that she clarified it, and it's completely unconscionable to fail to include that if you're going to include the part that she says she needed to clarify. It would be better to remove the entire discussion of it than to include only her initial statement without acknowledging what she said in clarification the very next day. Parableman (talk) 03:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed it again. This time when I checked the article went so far as to say she advocated teaching creationism, which totally misrepresents what the cited source actually says if you read it. Being asked a question in an electoral debate and providing an answer is hardly advocating. And again she made timely clarifications that she didn't mean teaching as in being part of the curriculum. I've tried to just provide a straight summary of the source (and her quotes) and remove the misleading connotations; it may be a bit wordier but I hope it is more factual. -- Dmeranda (talk) 04:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I also made same fixes on Political positions of Sarah Palin#Education, which appears to be an in-progress fork of this section. If anybody makes further changes please check both articles. -- Dmeranda (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=235159027&oldid=235158932 <--- so many errors this should be scrapped or rewritten. I could tell the moment I read it that one person wrote those two paragraphs. They don't fit with the article at all. Methodical (talk) 10:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, now some distorer has come along and removed the careful clarifications we've made, replacing them with something almost as bad as the original line that needed clarification (but this time with "intelligent design" instead of "creationism"). They also removed the reference to the article where she clarifies herself, replacing it with a citation of a New York Times article from today that makes the same misrepresentation that the article now makes. This is getting ridiculous. Parableman (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

We are currently bending over backwards a bit far. Sarah Palin indeed first said, on camera, "I am a proponent of teaching both." ("Advocate" may therefore be the wrong word, but "proponent" is her own word, and should not be censored.) It is not unusual for a political figure to make one statement to indicate their personal preference, and then backtrack and soften the statement by clarifying. It is also quite possible that the change indicates her willingness to listen to feedback and integrate it. Thus, I think it would be highly appropriate and relevant to include both the original statement and the clarification. Otherwise, we blur the history of her political stance. It is not unusual to let both an original statement and a clarification stand (citations aplenty, on request). "According to The Anchorage Daily News, Palin answered a question about evolution and creationism by stating that she was a "proponent of teaching both," but emphasized, the next day, that she primarily wanted students to be able to discuss all ideas freely, and would not push to make creationism a required part of the official curriculum. [80]"

Please note that the term "discussion of the debate" is itself a politically-loaded construct. (It presumes that there exists a scientific debate that can be studied and discussed.) The neutral term would not be "discuss the debate" but rather, either "discuss" or "debate." I have gone with "discuss," as the more general term.

I also want to note that her revised language leaves open the possibility of teachers being allowed, requested or even encouraged to teach creationism, so long as doing so is not "required." It may not be our job to draw attention to this, but neither is it an ideological attack for someone to do so. Parsing rhetoric is a valid logical exercise.

I have not made any changes yet. (I have a new e-mail address, and it has been years since I have edited.) I will tweak the entry along these lines once (re)verified, unless I see a cogent answer against it, here, or unless someone beats me to it (my eyes are not what they used to be.) JFS Ph.D. (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability of family members

[initial part of this discussion was somehow lost in all the thousands of edits today]

...family is notable if for no other reason than historical fact. in regards to politics it is notable because it can indicate values or lack of values. family is also notable that in the event that any other member of her family makes it onto wikipedia there is a clear point of reference to go back to

Why are we including non notable references to the family? NonvocalScream (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is her family not notable? Tenho Karite (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course this is relevant. It's all well sourced. Don't think families are relevant? See the page of every major public figure ever. This removal is borderline vandalism. Oren0 (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You really need to read this for a definition of vandalism. Do you know the contribution I make to this project, calling me a vandal. Heavens. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that you are a vandal. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and all that, but show me the page of any public figure in the remote notability range that Palin is now in that goes as far as your edit (no mention of spouse or children). Oren0 (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I mean to say, did they contribute to the notability of the subject? What main contributions have they made? I would posit that the mention is incidental, and privacy interests remain until such contribution can be made. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course they do. Did you watch her acceptance speech and the coverage thereof? I can't tell you how many times I've heard about her husband, or the terms "mother of five"/"hockey mom"/"son going to Iraq". Both the coverage of her son in Iraq and her son with Down's syndrome have been quite significant. Oren0 (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Oren0. A description of her family is appropriate. Family appearance is a key part of American politics and elections. She began her appearance today by introducing each of them in turn, and talked about her absent Army son at some length. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

But *how* did they contribute to her notability? NonvocalScream (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"Contributes to the subject's notability" is not the criterion for inclusion of facts in an article. The criterion is attributability in reliable sources with proper weight. The family meets that bar. Serious question: do you believe that spouses should not be in articles such as Joe Biden and pages of other governors or senators? Oren0 (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I do, if the mention in incidental. This goes to the core of notability. Is it worth mentioning also, the aunts and uncles? NonvocalScream (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

From WP:N: "These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles." When she mentions her five kids and her husband as the first thing she says on the national stage, their mention becomes more than incidental. If she does the same for aunts an uncles, they'll merit mention as well. Oren0 (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Almost the first thing Palin did in the Dayton rally announcing her as Vice Preisdential nominee was to introduce/name all of her children and her husband, so I think it's definitely notable. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Note to American wikipedia editors

When mentioning someone's birthplace and US states, make it clear that the place is in the United States. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Is that really necessary? Is it not safe to assume in an article about a US figure that their birth place is in the US unless indicted otherwise? – ukexpat (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

As a foreigner, you may also be unaware that the US Constitution requires presidential and VP candidates to be born in the United States. Furthermore, the WP pages for Idaho and Alaska are only a click away. Oren0 (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That is not true. The Constitution requires the President and Vice President be "natural-born citizens". There are two ways one can be considered "natural born", jus soli and jus sanguinis. I have known people born while their parents lived in Europe while stationed at US military bases there, who are absolutely "natural born citizens". 72.128.16.243 (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Except for John McCain, who was born in Panama. However, I think it is valid to presume that a candidate for one of those offices was born in the US unless otherwise stated.Alanmjohnson (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Not true. Simply not true. Gross Wikipedian misinformation. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone which was U.S. Territory at the time. Also, McCain was born in a U.S. Naval Hospital, U.S. Government owned land. So it is false and misleading to state that McCain was born in Panama when he was born in the Panama Canal Zone which was a U.S. Territory in a U.S. Militar base hospital.

Governor Arnold_Schwarzenegger was not born in the US —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.5.54.199 (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

As such, his entry states his birth country. --oZ (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)True, and it says so right on his page. But he's not a presidential candidate. And his constitutional ineligibility for president has been a matter of interest (people are trying to amend the constitution for him). Oren0 (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

And he is not a candidate for president or VP and can never be without Amendment. --RossF18 (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the issue isnt simply about place of birth but in general. The first line now says that Palin is the governor of Alaska, how many ppl outside the US know what Alaska is ? WP has some rules and conventions, and they must be followed as far as possible. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say that most people outside of the US know what Alaska is, and more to the point where it is. I would not be surprised to learn that more people outside the US can find Alaska on a map than those who live in the US. If I were to put in an article about myself that I was born in Albany, New York I'm confident there's no confusion that it was in the US and not Albany, Australia. The addition of a state name is pretty clear that it's in the US. There are some US states that arent well known in the world, but Alaska (and California and New York) is not one of them, it's a major geographic entity as well. We arent talking Alabama! (no offence!). On a second note- the constitution does not bar people who were born outside the US from being president. It bars people who were not BORN US CITIZENS. That is why Gov. Schwarzwhateveryouspellit can not be president. People who are the children of US citizens but born on foreign soil are still eligible. On another note- wow, is this entire article a giant republican propaganda piece or what! NPOV anybody? 24.182.142.254 (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this entire article is a pawn of the vast conservative conspiracy. :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 03:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there are probably people who do not know where Alaska is, but most people take geography at some point in their course of education. Edison2 (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont think you get my point, you said "I would not be surprised to learn that more people outside the US can find Alaska on a map than those who live in the US.", this a completely POV statement (in addition to being ridiculous), America's literacy rate is close to 100 %. You also said, "The addition of a state name is pretty clear that it's in the US.", is this standard wikipedia policy ? What about Rampur, Himachal Pradesh or Perth, Western Australia, are they in the US ? Follow wikipedia guidelines to avoid confusion.I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

All things being equal, if there is a desire to refer to US geographic locations such as Rochester, New York, US -- would the same be true in the near future for Europe in similar fashion, Cork, Ireland, EU? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.5.54.199 (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ireland is a sovereign country that can grant rights of citizenship, Alaska is not. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

My status as a registered Democract completely aside, this article seems to be a of an NPOV concern to me. Are we really to believe that this poliitician has had no controversies in her career? Are we really to believe that she is as "squeaky clean" as the article in its current form might lead us to believe?

I've tagged the article as an NPOV concern and would like to have a discussion here, in hopes of reaching some form of consensus on the subject. Thanks. --Winger84 (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You haven't made any case for NPOV at all. There are numerous controversies mentioned. Please make your case before re-adding the tag. Kelly ^hi! 16:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kelly here. Suspecting there should be controversies doesn't equal a NPOV dispute. - auburnpilot talk 16:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless you know of something "bad" to write about her that is sourced, I cannot see how the article is not neutral. It is factual, is it not? Just because an article is missing any "controversies" (which it's not... see the commissioner's dismissal section), does not mean that it is point-of-view-ed. Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The article reads like an advertisement taken straight from either her website or the Republican Party's website. Hence, neutrality can - and has - been raised as an issue. The tag can not be removed without a consensus being reached here. --Winger84 (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Which specific part is not neutral? --Ali'i 16:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe there are just a few more positive things than negative, sometime difficult thing to believe from a politician, but still possible. We shouln't try to exactly match the thigs that someone finds positive to the exact number someone else finds negative. Any issue + or - if properly cited could be added. Wikihonduras (talk)

If you find something then add it. Don't use innuendos to justify your political agenda. --user:jojhutton-- —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This is in no way a "political agenda." In fact, I'm pleased that the Senator McCain has chosen her as his VP, because she appears to be a very strong candidate. My concern here is the fact that the article reads very much like an advertisement, rather than an encyclopedia article. --Winger84 (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Winger,

1. I don't perceive a non NPOV article at this point.

2. Of course, any notable controversies that can be sourced according to wikipedia guidelines should absolutely be included.

3. I think you should have more than simply your apparent "belief" that an article about any politician without controversies means that it is not NPOV to charge that an article is, in fact, not NPOV. Lawyer2b (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll compromise. I'll pull the NPOV tag, but I am going to replace it with the ADVERTISEMENT tag because if this article doesn't fail NPOV, it certainly meets ADVERTISEMENT. As I've said, there's no "political agenda" here. I'm very pleased, and very surprised, that Senator McCain selected Governor Palin as his VP choice. In fact, if it were someone other than McCain as the Presidential choice on the Republican ticket this year, this VP candidate might have been enough to make me vote Republican in November, rather than Democrat. --Winger84 (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that the article reads like an advertisement. (As of when I read it anyway, as it is changing constantly). Seemed fairly straight forward and factual to me. I certainly didn't see any "peacock terms." (But like I said it is in constant flux so it may or may not be "advertisement-like" in some versions.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The assertion that this is an advertisement is ridiculous. Before throwing around such claims please familiarize yourself with WP:SPAM, then explain how this article even comes close to what that guideline defines as promotion. -- Atama^chat 16:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is the neutrality tag back on the article? There is no consensus for that. Kelly ^hi! 17:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the main reason some people feel the page should be controversial is that she herself is controversial. But the two do not always go hand in hand. Until something actually controversial arises, I say that everyone chill out. 72.211.237.4 (talk) 05:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of this Article

This article, in my opinion is not neutral and objective. This article seems relatively pro-Palin and also some parts of this article are very informally written. Psdubow (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Could someone explain exactly why there is an NPOV tag on the article? (Some specifics would be appreciated). Kelly ^hi! 17:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently cause the media can't seem to find enough dirt to slant it in such a way to support the allegation that she's the devil. :P My god, a relatively clean politician. How refreshing! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

While that last one was a little over the top, struck after seeing emoticon Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC) I agree that but for the disjointedness that such an article in flux has at times like this, that neutrality is not really an issue. Even if it were, a tag may have its own issues as the article changes so rapidly. That said, I concur with not needing the tag, but don't strongly object keeping it until the editing slows down and it becomes easier to assess specific deficiencies. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd give it 24 hours before we worry too much about the NPOV. So little is known about Palin that the media are struggling to get much out about what makes her tick. Her bio is pretty vanilla on the surface based on the fact that... because she's a virtual unknown, few have ever done any digging. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's so laughable, look I'm the biggest liberal nut going so don't accuse me of an agenda. If there is something she's done worth mentioning we will add it. I hate this idea that everyone must have done something controversial in their lives. Some people are just boring and have no controversy, it happens. — Realist² 18:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

NPR has just run a story less than an hour ago about how often this page is being edited (in a pro-Palin way). I admittedly haven't done much Wikipedia editing, but hearing that bit on NPR makes me feel that this page should be flagged somehow, no? Keykrazy (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the lack of a negative tone within the article has more to do with the relatively short time that she has beein involved in politics. As additional sources of dirt evolve feel free to add to the article (assuming that the references are notable). I am not seeing any overt NPOV issues here, though that may change over the next few weeks.--Tralfaz (Ralraz, yech) (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It would appear to me that it is impossible to have a facts only article on any political candidate. Case in point: the obviously biased commentary on this page about this reading as an advertisement, and lacking negatives, when there is plenty of editorial comment disguised as fact. Look no further than the editorial commentary misleading the reader on the "bridge to nowhere" issue, drawing argumentative conclusions provided by left-wing blog sites. That's NPOV? You guys tickle me. Cut the crap, stick to facts. 71.63.29.72 (talk) eric schmitz

how is this pov. don't just say it is pov, but say how. find a pov section, or sentence, and show how it is pov. if the article is pov,due to an omission, find that omission and add it. Perhaps Palin has a squeaky clean record, after all she is young,(for a politician) and not well known Rds865 (talk) 07:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Pro-contraception?

Last night, the article stated Palin is stongly pro-contraception. Now that part's been disappeared. Anyone know the facts?

I don't really know for sure, but I assume she has no problem with contraception since she is a Protestant Christian. Contraception is usually only an issue for Catholic Christians. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd remove reference to either stance unless we have a source clearly stating her position. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I found a source for her being pro-contraception, and added the reference back in. JayareIL (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I just dug through all four sources. At first it seemed as if contraception wasn't mentioned at all, but it does get a sliver of attention in a 2006 article in the Anchorage Daily News. I'd love to see more detail, but I imagine that'll crop up in the media soon enough. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I honestly do not see the relevance of including her stance on contraception unless she is notably against it. Has she made any big policy moves or campign moves on that issue? If not, I do not see the importance as contraception is not too big an issue outside of conservative christian groups, such as Catholics.66.194.118.10 (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC) MikeD

I read on a blog she was against contraception, so that rumor is out there - whether true or false I don't know. In any case, since it's out there, it seems reasonable to include the accurate information - whatever that may be. Vcrs (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Weasel Words?

While I agree that a NPOV can be reached here, there seem to be a significant number of weasel words that need to be edited out. rather than being NPOV, i propose that we add a weasel words tag. Log'a'log (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please eliminate the redundancy on her quote about VP

First, it is shown twice.

Second, both quotes are purporting to be quotes, yet are different. Until this is resolved by someone with a tape of the quotation, please remove it.

If we get the real quote, then it is fair to put it in, although I see comments of that nature not really biographical in nature, and unless it becomes a campaign issue, silly for this to have as a highlight for her bio.

This bio needs a careful hand. Her life is relatively short for being a Vice Presidential candidate, so there will be a lot of holes in her bio needing filling. I would love to point people to her wiki page, so lets try to get it as accurate as possible.

Example: I saw that the basketball team won the state championship. This needs to be confirmed, and added if true.

need a real quote?

[6]

Roughly at 2:50

217.95.47.180 (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wedding date

In her speech today, August 29, 2008 -- http://www.breitbart.tv/html/163813.html -- she noted that it's her 20th wedding anniversary, so that would set her wedding date as August 29, 1988.Lawyervon (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this would be a reliable citation. Kelly ^hi! 18:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The "old-age home" is the Palmer Pioneers home. The court clerk who married them still works at the Palmer courthouse.

Down's Syndrome

Down's Syndrome is a disorder not a "disease." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.61.217 (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's a "syndrome"  :-) As such, this should not be hard to fix acceptably to those of all labeling persuasions. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What's with the Conservative meme implying that liberal or por-choice Americans support the abortion of a fetus diagnosed with a condition such as Downs syndrome.24.92.102.48 (talk)

when someone is fired by a polititian simply for disagreeing with them it is a threat to democracy itself therefore relevant when discussing scandalous behavior

It seems that whoever wrote the Mat Maid controversy topic wrote it with a bias against Sarah Palin, as it made no mention of the fact that the reason she fired the Mat Maid board was simply because they refused to see her in any way after announcing they were shutting down the dairy. This was the reason they were fired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.10.61 (talk) 03:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the notability of this topic anyway. Governor fires some bureaucrats, film at eleven!0nullbinary0 (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Should there be more mention of her attractiveness and how that may affect the '08 election? Just a thought Aaya35 (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That's beyond an ignorant and sexist comment. Obama is an attractive man, is there a paragraph about how attractive he is and how that will affect the election on his page?Chexmix53 (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but it is a fact of life that her appearance may play a role. Society is not now, and never will be, free of sexism, and women will always be judged for their looks more than men are. Palin's looks matter more than Obama's...sad fact of life but a fact nonetheless. However, Wikipedia is not a place for speculation or prediction. Such a mention has no place.Alanmjohnson (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism and protection discussion (consolidated)

article is being hacked !!! please fix photo !

Wayfarers43 (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC) this article is being hacked and should be blocked for the time being. Please fix the photo.

Agreed: "Before all this, she was a man"? CLearly vandalism. 207.237.198.152 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Seconded

It's just some silly vandalisim. It's expected for now. It will cool of soon. Tenho Karite (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Been cleaned up and semi-protected now. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Please lock this page

Somebody has been vandalizing this page. And, as Biden's page is locked, it would make sense to lock this page. Thank you. 192.77.143.150 (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it would be a sensible move.--JayJasper (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's currently under semi-protection, so that anonymous and newly-registered editors can't make changes. That should help. -- Atama^chat 16:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've unprotected it. Times like these are the most important to have anon editing enabled, as there is a lot to do and many anonymous readers will have valuable content to add. We can reverse vandalism very quickly, and block any persistent vandals.--ragesoss (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"hot" governor???

Whomever uses the word "whore" to describe the lady is a reprobate and I condemn them.

" is the hot Governor of Alaska, and the 2008 Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States"

looks like vandalism and is probably going to go rampant. why isn't this article under some sort of protection?

also

isn't she the VP presumptive candidate until elected by the R. convention next week? 68.173.2.68 (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Been cleaned up and semi-protected. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Should this article be semi-protected?

There has been some back and forth with protection of this article since the VP announcement. I've just unprotected it, with the same rationale that we use for leaving Today's Featured Article unprotected. More anonymous contributions are constructive than destructive (glance through the history), and vandalism is reverted very, very quickly for articles in the spotlight like this one. Anonymous contributions that are prevented by semi-protection, however, can't be restored so easily. Unless there is a specific systematic attack on this article, as opposed to just a normal proportion of vandalism during a period of intense editing, I think it should remain unprotected.--ragesoss (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Does that logic apply to John McCain, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama—all of which are semi-protected? --Elliskev 19:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily, because those articles have reached states of relative stability. This article is still improving rapidly, and anonymous users are helping with that process.--ragesoss (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Really? Look at the edit history for the last 5–10 minutes. --Elliskev 19:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There are too many bad edits by anonymous users at the moment to keep up with them all. While I appreciate that some anonymous users are helping improve the article, for the time being the article has to be protected. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I looked at every anonymous edit between 19:22 and Jredmond's protection at 19:28. I count 4 instances of vandalism, 7 contructive contributions (3 of which fixed anonymous vandalism), and 3 good faith but unconstructive edits. One of the fixes was very important; an anon changed an expired html link in a footnote (from a "news ticker") to the permanent address of the story. On balance, I think anon contributions are good. And as I said, we can always remove vandalism, but there's no way to recovered edits that were never made because of protection.--ragesoss (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Jredmond just restored semi-protection, arguing that vandalism outweighs positive contribution at the moment. I disagree; looking through the history, I notice that many of the anonymous contributions are in fact good faith edits (often with sources, even) that are simply out of place or repeat what is already mentioned elsewhere. I think semi-protection ought to be removed.--ragesoss (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is the first non-news result for "Sarah Palin" on Google. Since Palin is a relative unknown, lots of people (including the Washington Post) are searching the Web for info and winding up here. While some anons were contributing positively — and we need to be sure to encourage them to register — the pace of revision made it impossible for the rest of us to keep up. The article is still changing very quickly, but we're no longer at ludicrous speed; I attribute that to semi-protection.

This article has also been under the eye of ST47's BLP watch bot since June, when a series of anonymous contributors kept adding poorly sourced defamatory accusations[7]. I haven't seen any of that stuff resurfacing today, but in that tide of contributions it's easy to miss things.

Finally, I don't see a very strong parallel between unprotecting this and unprotecting a daily featured article. For one thing, FAs are already stable, so while anons do improve the daily FA slightly, they don't build it from scratch like they would be doing here. For another, visitors stumble across FAs, but thanks to Google and news coverage they come here specifically for this article.

Now that I've said all that, if you want to lift the semi-protection before it expires (noon tomorrow UTC), then go right ahead. This article isn't worth a wheel war, and we can always semi-protect or fully protect again if we really need to. I just want the rest of us to be able to keep up with new revisions. - Jredmond (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

With hundreds, if not thousands, of editors watching this article, semi-protection seems a bit silly. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Lock Up the Errors

Wikipedia has again locked up an article except for changes by Wikipedia owners/elites. Do you see the two errors in the following two sentences:

"On August 29, 2008, Palin was announced as presumptive Republican presidential candidate John McCain's vice-presidential candidate, or running mate.[59] Palin's selection surprised many Republican officials who had speculated about other candidates,[60][61] such as Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, United States Senator Joseph Lieberman, and former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, or did not know Palin personally."

They can't be edited in the normal fashion; they must await some Wikipedia owner/elite to notice how poorly written they are.

This article is not currently locked, and may be edited by anonymous users. In any case, it is changing very rapidly, and is undergoing hundreds of edits in a very short time; short-lived bad sections are inevitable until things settle down a bit.--ragesoss (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

height

How tall is she? There's a long tradition in political science of tracking the Heights of United States Presidents and presidential candidates, so I think it's relevant to the article. --M@rēino 19:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What an article. — Realist² 19:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

One of those things that you never realize you've wanted to see until you see it. I love this encyclopedia. --Kizor 21:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No controversy sections

No controversy sections. They are not good, disperse the information into the relevant section of article or don't include at all. — Realist² 19:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

{{editsemiprotected}} There appears to be some vandalism in this article. The first paragraph refers to Sarah Palin as the "retarded govenor" of Alaska. Can someone please fix this?

Already reverted. - auburnpilot talk 20:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

minor change (literally)

{{editsemiprotected}} \ Early Life \ says "Palin holds a bachelor's degree in journalism from the University of Idaho where she also minored in politics." The University of Idaho does not offer an minor in 'politics'. They do offer minors in 'political science'.

Already fixed. Thanks. - auburnpilot talk 20:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

IPA

That IPA can't be right. Shouldn't it be /peilɪn/, not /peɪlɪn/? The ɪ would be a southern way of pronouncing that dipthong, but not the general American way, I think. Homunq (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Vogue spread

{{editsemiprotected}} This needs to be reviewed. The supposed photo shoot for Vogue was a photoshopped image created and posted on the Internet. http://kodiakkonfidential.blogspot.com/2007/12/sarah-in-vogue.html

• This happened, do a simple Google search and you'll see the Vogue photoshoot is real. What you found is a blog entry and is not cited in the article. Instead, an appropriate cite to the Anchorage Daily News story on the Vogue shoot is included. --Friejose (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. My apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ffunky (talk • contribs) 20:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This info was removed by "Calliopejen1" as a "trivial fact" but it hardly seems trivial to me that a sitting governor posed for a major magazine. Apparently I don't have permission to add it back in, or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csullo (talk • contribs) 02:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The Vogue spread was just mentioned, showing the photo, on GMA Saturday. Kathimcgraw (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)kathimcgraw

The Vogue photoshoot was real. Look for the video news report of local Alaskan news from December 2007. However, the image of Palin on the cover of Vogue is a hoax, because in fact Penelope Cruz was on the cover, not Palin.

ITN

After checking out more than 1000 edits, I still can't figure this out so anyone who helped on this article can take it:

On 29 August, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article(s) Sarah Palin, which you created or substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--Spencer^T♦C 19:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoever is deleting/reducing hiring controversy, please stop.

There is no consensus on deleting the hiring controversy. The hiring controversy has the Alaskan media in an uproar. See "Palin has been under heavy criticism since firing former Department of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan." http://www.ktva.com/commissionercontroversy/ci_10192665 If she has been under heavy criticism, that should be reflected. The rest of the article reads a bit like it's written by her staff, and this section will be understandably controversial for a while. But it should not be deleted.Jensiverson (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and she promoted a known sexual harassment aggressor, but mention of that was also scrubbed :: Palin replaced Monegan with Chuck Kopp, who had previously been removed from supervision of an employee he had allegedly sexually harassed. [53] Palin knew of Kopp's alleged sexual harassment before she appointed Kopp. [54]

I agree this needs to be discussed - but maybe not in such detail. RE: Kopp - I understand this has been mentioned in the Alaskan press, but don't slander this man needlessly. He was found innocent of the allegation. Thus the above comment isn't helpful. It would have been standard practice to remove Kopp from supervising the complainant during the investigation. But the investigation found him innocent. What's the controversy? 20:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The Kopp part continues to grow. The language of the current three sentences is very unfortunate. It intends for the reader to draw a conclusion about Mr. Kopp (and the Governor) that is not supported by facts. There is nothing illegal or unethical or notable about appointing someone who was cleared of a harassment allegation to the position of Public Safety Commissioner. Akiracee (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Homunq made some changes that I think are an improvement - cheers. Akiracee (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Now I'm confused about this Kopp guy. Has he already been fired (served 11 days)? Akiracee (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin know Kopp had allegedly sexually harassed an employee. See http://www.ktuu.com/global/story.asp?s=8712164 "Before appointing him, Palin said she was aware of the prior complaint against Kopp." Kopp was reprimanded. http://community.adn.com/adn/node/127679 I don't think these are controversial points. If editing is necessary, that's fine, I don't want any misimpression, but I don't see the controversy with those two points.Jensiverson (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the sources says she knew he had been cleared of any wrongdoing. Another source says she didn't know at all.   user:j    (aka justen)   21:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I assume you're refering to http://community.adn.com/adn/node/127679 which says she didn't know about the reprimand. It shouldn't read that she says she knew, yes, but she definitely knew that there had been an alleged sexual harassment. He has not, according to the published news, been cleared of all wrongdoing as I understand it, (an affirmative step beyond finding the allegation had not been substantiated) because he was reprimanded, and he stepped down. "Kopp came under increasing scrutiny from the governor after he acknowledged this week that a 2005 sexual harassment complaint while he was chief of Kenai Police resulted in a letter of reprimand from the city." http://www.adn.com/news/politics/story/475539.html These are allegations, and should always have "alleged" in front of it. But this should be in there. It's a pretty obvious, public controversy. The person who alleged the harassment hasn't backed down. Jensiverson (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

How about this or something like it: Palin replaced Monegan with Chuck Kopp.Palin knew that Kopp had allegedly sexually harassed an employee, but thought the claims had not been further substantiated and did not know that he had been removed from supervision while he was investigated and received a letter of reprimand.

or more accurately:

Palin replaced Monegan with Chuck Kopp.Palin knew that Kopp had allegedly sexually harassed an employee, but thought the claims had not been further substantiated and did not know that he had been removed from supervision of the employee while he was investigated and received a letter of reprimand.

Please see the similar discussion at the bottom of this talk page. And the source ([8]) does not back up the assertion that Palin herself knew that Kopp had allegedly sexually harassed an employee. Happyme22 (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this fact is in question: Palin know Kopp had allegedly sexually harassed an employee. See http://www.ktuu.com/global/story.asp?s=8712164 "Before appointing him, Palin said she was aware of the prior complaint against Kopp." I'm not sure how much clearer it can get. Perhaps easy to miss amidst massive editing, but it's there.Jensiverson (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

... I just added a separate article for the hiring controversy. That does NOT mean I think the section here should shrink, just that it should not grow by much. Homunq (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Slate reports draft Palin movement lead to her pick

Here is an interesting Slate article [9] about the Palin pick. Maybe some of this can be incorporated into the VP selection area. Remember (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Another important neutrality point

This article states that Palin is "pro-life." Pro-life is NOT a neutral term. This is similar to saying she is Anti-choice (some people would say being against the right to choose is anti-life). The correct designation would be that she is "Anti-abortion."

No, that would be POV. Nobody is actually 'pro-abortion'. One is 'pro-life' or 'pro-choice'. If you prefer, we could contrast 'pro government decision' vs. 'pro individual conscience'. Flatterworld (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a standing consensus to use the terms preferred by each side of the abortion issue. It's pro-life and pro-choice. --Elliskev 19:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Aye, deviating from generally accepted terminology in an environment as volatile as this would cause more trouble than it might solve. --Kizo

r 21:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd think the correct terminology would be "pro-choice" and "anti-choice". 12.40.5.69 (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Only if you are Pro-Choice. I believe that the decision on terminology is intended to represent the position as the person would want to be portrayed, not as their opposition wants them to be portrayed. As such, using the terms Pro-Choice and Pro-Live is a courtesy afforded on the individual. Make sense?--Tralfaz (Ralraz, yech) (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The widely accepted and supported terms in published North American political discussion are pro life and pro choice and there are reasons for this.[10] Gwen Gale (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE READ: According to Associated Press standards, the correct designation is "anti-abortion" (Associated Press Stylebook, 2006, p. 5). If Wikipedia has different standards currently then I think those should be under discussion as well. Regardless of what people who are against abortions want to be called, there is no legitimate or logical reason to refer to them as "pro-life". That is like referring to a Christian as "pro-good", it is a completely biased term. This label can not be used without perpetuating a problematic cultural assumption. The reason I especially take offense is because this particular label infers that people who are for abortion rights are somehow "anti-life" and I can only see thinking like that leading to an increase in women's health problems. It is just plain NOT RIGHT to refer to an anti-abortion person as pro-life, that is a semantic faux pas along the lines of referring to an ethnic group by a discriminatory slur. If people with such a little understanding of the English language are going to use an incorrect term on their own, that's their business, but in a matter of public record that is supposed to be objective, like the newspaper or an encyclopedia (even an Online one) the correct terms should be used as an example to everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.165.124 (talk) 05:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

it could be stated as for or against abortion. I think pro-life is a good term, because it helps communicate the perspective of pro life people, the same goes for pro-choice. refusing to call pro-life supports pro-life, is like refusing to call Christians Christians, or calling Marxists, anti-private property. I don't think any one is being fooled here. Pro-choice, implies that pro-life people are against choices. try to spin it your way. next you are going to suggest the patriot act, can't be called the Patriot Act, because it isn't patriotic? Rds865 (talk) 08:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The Patriot act is not Patriotic. That is the irony and why it was given that moniker. Much like "The People's" Republic of China. On the topic at hand, Palin is anti-abortion and it should be stated as such rather than given a euphemism. 66.186.173.180 (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Abortion and capital punishment

Well-sourced statements on her positions with respect to these social issues were once in the article, but have disappeared. Srnec (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember there being anything more about her stance on abortion in the article since I first looked at it this morning. The article is currently in a constant state of flux and things have been going missing, readded and restructured like mad. I think a valid suggestion at this time is to not panic and wait until the article calms down a bit and see if they come back. If they were well-sourced, I'd imagine there won't be a problem restoring them. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of power investigation

Undue Weight. Too much info. Too much is written on something that has only affected a small period of her life. — Realist² 19:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you kidding? she is CURRENTLY under investigation for ABUSE OF POWER, which is an impeachable offense Scottf43 (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Niggling details should go in Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal controversy; the main points should stay here. Homunq (talk) 23:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Gotta stay on top of this one. The entire section had been scrubbed as of a few minutes ago. I've reinstated it. BTW, the subtitle "Abuse of power investigation" is not a violation of NPOV. It is simply the proper description of what is currently taking place.--BenA (talk) 06:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This issue is a part of Palin's wikipedia entry not because she dismissed the public safety commissioner, but because she is the subject of an abuse of power investigation. The NPOV title of the section should thus be "Abuse of power investigation," as that reflects the actual core subject of the discussion.--BenA (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Despite providing no justification for doing so, others keep changing the title on the section on the abuse of power investigation to "Dismissal of Public Safety Commissioner." This matter would not appear on Sarah Palin's wikipedia page were it not for the abuse of power investigation. The accurate, NPOV title remains "Abuse of power investigation." Saying so is in no way to render judgment on the outcome of this investigation. Failure to title it "Abuse of power investigation" is a little like titling a section of Bill Clinton's wiki entry "Grand jury deposition" rather than "Impeachment."--BenA (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The investigation relates to the dismissal. The subtitle "Abuse of power investigation" is a violation of NPOV and undue weight. Rlendog (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There is an investigation. That is an objective fact. Were it not for the investigation this matter would not be a part of this entry. How is accurately naming this section either a violation of NPOV or undue weight? The violation of NPOV is attempting to cover up a public investigation into potential wrong-doing by giving this section a misleading title. The chief item of interest here is the investigation itself, without which the firing would be a minor matter.--BenA (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, Bill Clinton was not impeached. 208.61.250.70 (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC) MikeD

I have put the dispute over the naming of this section on the NPOV notice board for more general comment.--BenA (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Bill Clinton WAS impeached (only president ever to be so) and we should all review BLP guidelines. We can't just throw up sections that are potentially libelous like "She did something wrong maybe and is under investigation". Just be more neutral with the wording is all. Someone with a clear head (as opposed to a hot one) should probably be editing that section once we get a concensus. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)--98.243.129.181 (talk) 00:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"what is it exactly that the V.P. does every day?"

This quote is unquestionably relevant. Please stop pushing it into footnotes only. I am 1 away from 3RR so I cannot continue to do so myself. Homunq (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If this quote is to be included (which I have no problem with), the WHOLE quote should be give to show proper context. This was done in some previous versions, but has since been editing out (I don't know why.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is because others edited it out, and I put back what I felt was the most relevant portion. I think that the current compromise is OK - basically, a more-complete quote, but edited down so that it is not given the undue prominence of a blockquote. Homunq (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

My vote: I don't think it is "unquestionably relevant." It appears it was a throw away sentence, not an opinion or policy position. Akiracee (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

(Comment from footnote pusher) I put the whole quote in the footnotes for editorial spacing concerns (the length of the quote itself seems out of proportion to the content it's trying to support). The actual wording of her comments regarding the VPship can be tweaked, including well chosen actual snippets. I would want to minimize this, though, as scare quotes, or even the appearance thereof, make for a poor article. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. It's been reverted back to a blockquote. I won't edit war, but I do feel this needs revisiting at some point. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I would be fine with something like "spoke dismissively about the importance of the office" which gives the flavor of the quote, with the quote in a footnote, but the first footnote-only version ("admitted she had not been groomed") was far from that. Homunq (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC) ps. I think that scare quotes on individual words are silly (just use indirect quotation), but that including quoted phrases in a sentence is meaningful. It isn't just a matter of distancing the editorial voice from the sentiments, it is a way to keep conciseness and flow while giving the most authentic feel for the original tone.

I give up. I was just trying to put in a compromise, and failed as 3 successive edit conflicts showed me 3 different (conflicting) interim versions of the relevant section. I definitely vote for some "spoke dismissively" type paraphrase, but I'll let the rest of Wikipedia hash it. Homunq (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the quote is relevant. She's up for the VP job. The fact that she didn't know that the VP presides over the Senate is worth considering, even if she was only joking about it. I say put in the full quote and its context. 24.187.189.117 (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This woman could potentionally become the next vice president of the United States, and doesn't even understand what a vice president does. This is certainly worth inclusion into the article, in fact this is frightening to believe.

The Truth is... SHE SMOKED WEED!

She smoked weed. it was likely that she was smoking weed while she was holding public office. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/29/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4397109.shtml

in spite of the fact that several "controversial" TRUE FACTS about this woman were present on her Wikipedia page this morning, they have suddenly disappeared and now the page is locked. i guess someone is hiding a lot of skeletons . I can understand scrubbing untrue statements from Wiki sites, but when the truth is posted, with references, it should not be deleted. Whoever is scrubbing her image and hiding her skeletons should be ashamed of themselves. Scottf43 (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're really concerned about articles being scrubbed clean of skeletons try looking at the Obama page sometime. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That source does not indicate that "it was likely that she was smoking weed while she was holding public office." You're about one more violation of the biographies of living persons policy away from being blocked. If her prior use of marijuana is widely covered in the mainstream press, then it will likely end up with at least a brief mention here. In the meantime, do you have any other interest in this article or the encyclopedia besides featuring this tidbit as prominently as possible? MastCell ^Talk 20:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I love it when people say things like: "True Facts". It is funny because a 'fact' is 'true' by definition. This demonstrates the lack of thought behind the words.--An-Alteran

I'd just like to point out (with no particular agenda or specific changes that I'm promoting) that there's a danger in restricting this articles sources to items "widely covered in the mainstream press." Palin wasn't widely covered in the mainstream press until her name came up as a potential VP pick, and even then she was widely discounted until today. As of today, what the press chooses to report on will begin to erode the thin details that were previously available and if that's Wikipedia's focus, then it will be a potentially different perspective than that which was available a few months ago. That transition itself is notable. I'm not advocating giving equal weight to fringe publications, but if a lesser-known media outlet in Alaska is our only source for some detail, that might not be sufficient reason to exclude its mention. -65.116.132.250 (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out (with no particular agenda) that the national news media (CNN, MSNBC, ABC News, USA Today, AP, etc) is not the same as "mainstream press". The national news media is certainly an important part of the mainstream press in the United States, but they do not hold a monopoly on the term. We have a list of newspapers in Alaska, a list of television stations in Alaska, a list of radio stations in Alaska, and even a Category:Alaska media. I'd say that for a subject that until recently was mostly of Alaskan interest, many of the news sources in those lists and category would be the best "mainstream press" sources to find information on the subject of this article. I'm sure many of them would even qualify under our reliable sources policy. Don't get lazy and expect CNN to do our jobs for us. Gentgeen (talk) 09:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out another source (from the day before yesterday's version of the article). http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/governor06/story/8049298p-7942233c.html It will be interesting to see if this becomes a major issue considering Obama's admitted drug use --D3matt (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and Bill Clinton "didn't inhale," and G.W. Bush acquitted for possession of cocaine, if it's a cited fact (from a legitimate source,) what's the big deal.

Agreed. If drug use by Clinton, Bush, and Obama make it into their articles, what's the justification for deleting it here? Without it, why is her opposition to marijuana legalization even being mentioned? I doubt it's mentioned in the articles of 95 percent of politicians who have that position. —KCinDC (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please keep this article neutral....hawks are trying to descend

Look at all the hatemongers flooding this page to jack this article up full of "controversey"....we all knew this would happen. WIkipedians posing as "NPOV" when in reality they want to spice up the article full of a gigantic "controversey" section...you want this article to have a big "controversey section" don't you? Admit it, you think it "needs" a gigantic section full of macacas. Cmon you wiki libs. I estimate that within 72 hours half this article will be devoted to "controversey"...I can only hope moderators will do the right thing and protect it from the hawks that insert controversey in the name of NPOV

"wiki libs"? c'mon. Oh, and sign your posts (Aventari (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC))

I agree-no big controversy section. I also agree with those saying that the separate sections on controversial issues should not be minimized. She is going to be a major figure. She could be President of the United States shortly. She is four months from being a heartbeat away if Senator McCain is elected. She has a limited public record, what there is worth a full examination. So, to the best we can, neutral, and without shying from what has been publicly reported by reputable sources, good or bad.Jensiverson (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Todd Palin discussion (consolidated)

Removed Section Regarding Husband

'Palin's husband, Todd, is a Yup'ik Alaskan native.' -this statement is highly suspect. Todd Palin is Caucasian from the continental US, and not an indigenous Alaskan, so he can not be considered an "Yupik Alaskan Native." Intranetusa (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The cite points to a book by someone named Kaylene Johnson. I haven't read the book, but the Amazon.com reviews are scathing. And the full text is not up, so we don't even know if it says that he is an Indian. If he indeed is an Indian, we will doubtless be reminded of this fact during the next 67 days from other sources. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

He is 1/8 Yup'ik.[11] His mother is 1/4. He's only an "indigenous Alaskan" because he was born there. To quote the Anchorage Daily News, "Palin was born in the western Alaska town of Dillingham to Jim Palin and Blanche Kallstrom, who is a quarter Yu'pik Eskimo." I'm going to fix the article accordingly. -- Atama^chat 16:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

New article suggestion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was

put this in?

I can't add this to the article...

Todd Mitchell Palin is a 42 year old oil field production manager in Alaska and First Gentleman of Alaska. His wife is Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska and Vice Presidential candidate for the November 2008 election representing the Republican Party.

I linked it, the whole article can't go in though.Jensiverson (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Early life and career

He was born in Dillingham, Alaska to Blanche and Jim Palin. His grandmother Helena Andree </ref> is Yup'ik (indigenous peoples of Alaska). In 1988, he married Sarah Pallin who were high school sweethearts.

For 18 years he was a blue collar employee in the North Slope oil fields of Alaska working for BP and now is a production supervisor.

Champion snowmobile racer

In 2008, while defending the Iron Dog Championship, he was injured when he was thrown 70 feet from his machine. This race is a snowmobile race which traces the path of the Iditarod race with an extra journey of several hundred miles to Fairbanks added. He first competed in the race in 1993 and has been the champion four times. His racing co-pilot is Scott Davis. He has previously raced with Dusty Van Meter in the race and were co-champions in 2000 and 2002.

Family life

The Palins have five children. Track is in the U.S. Army and scheduled for overseas deployment. They have three daughters, Bristol, Willow, and Piper. Mr. Palin fishes and is a pilot holding a Airplane Single Engine Land license.

References

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Date linking

Date links

I don't want it to appear as if I'm edit-warring over dates, but... Date links are deprecated per WP:MOSNUM. The dates don't have any values as wikilinks, they hide inconsistencies from registered users with date preference settings, and provide no benefit to 99% of our readers. Before I delink them (again), I'd like to hear comments. If the consensus is to ignore MOSNUM, I'll live with it. --Elliskev 18:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Additionally The McCain article does not use date links. !--NB—THE DATES IN THIS ARTICLE ARE NON-AUTOFORMATTED -- is included at the top of the edit page. --Elliskev 18:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

People are likely just unaware of the standard change and are acting in good faith. Personally, I'd just let it sit until the editing dies down since it is rather trivial (and if you really want to fix dates, the other 99% of wiki articles are still wrong ;)).--ThaddeusB (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That's reasonable. --Elliskev 18:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I was involved in relinking the dates, and indeed I was not aware of the guideline change, which apparently was made this week without fanfare. I never saw any space for public comment on the issue. Custom formatting of dates has always been one of the features of Wikipedia dearest to me because it permits for dates to be universally writable and readable, at least for registered users. Robert K S (talk) 05:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Again

I've delinked the dates twice; will whomever is linking the dates here please read WP:MOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

For those who aren't aware, this was recently changed. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), linking dates has been deprecated. - auburnpilot talk 20:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

new information to add?

her popularity in Alaska has soared as high as 83% as she has gone on to sack political appointees with close ties to industry lobbyists, shelved pork projects by fellow Republicans

from http://www.wsj.com/article/SB121993453813079803.html?mod=psp_mostpop

-- Gov. Palin denies that, saying she removed the commissioner she appointed 18 months ago because she wants "a new direction," and offered him a job as liquor board director which he turned down.

from http://www.wsj.com/article/SB121993453813079803.html?mod=psp_mostpop I don't know if the liquot board director pays well so someone should look into this.

--- She appears, for example, to have forced Alaska's dominant oil producers, ConocoPhillips and BP PLC, to finally get serious about a natural-gas pipeline -- without making any tax or royalty concessions. "People see her as the symbol of purity in an atmosphere of corruption," says Anchorage pollster Marc Hellenthal. "She's more like Saint Sarah."

from http://www.wsj.com/article/SB122002615833483595.html?mod=Politics-and-Policy Radiomango (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

i see the category 'American Pentecostals' - nowhere in the article do i see a reference to the denomination to which she adheres or to any religious movement or philosophy with a name that she supports - can someone add 'she belongs to xyz Church' . . . or whatever? does someone know? - i am curious - not finding the answer easily on the 'Net - b betswiki (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Faster than a bullet

I love wikipedia because it not only conveys subject information but can give a glimpse of the historical conjencture. Until yesterday, who had heard of her? On 22th August, a week ago, there were absolutely no edits to this article, not even vandalism!! :))) 82.230.24.185 (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, wikipedia is a good place, please remember that talk pages are really for discussing improvemts to the article only. Welcome to wiki though. — Realist² 21:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a bureaucratic dystopia, where objective truth is subject to revocation upon "consensus". 75.168.211.99 (talk) 01:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia does have sundry kinds of systemic bias, but reliable sources can help. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Systemic bias" and constant shifting of fact renders Wikipedia unusable. 75.168.211.99 (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Whilst reading political articles and other high traffic, controversial topics, yes, the reader should be wary but this is true for most published information anywhere. I would also say many Wikipedia readers are smarter than some editors think. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Protect page - Controversy investigation info is being removed

It is also interesting to note that any hint of scandal on Palin was reported immediately, but that the John Edwards scandal was very widely known in October 2007 but remained completely unreported by the mainstream media. Double standards and partisanship do not add up to sound journalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Earlier today there was info in this piece about the ongoing investigation of Palin's office for abuse of power. It is now dilluted and almost gone.

Here are the facts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPTMcs8wpHc

from a reputable local network news broadcast.

PLEASE LOCK THE PAGE and correct the cleanup / hack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davequ (talk • contribs) 21:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

We have to be careful about giving too much undue weight to that matter, as it is only a small portion of Palin's life and career. A lengthy section detailing an intricate investigation and what she and many others may or may not have done is not appropirate here (please read WP:WEIGHT). A mention of it and some facts are okay, however. Happyme22 (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not remember there being a considerable amount of additional space given to this investigation, the current three paragraphs were shortly duplicated by a smaller subheading but that material was redundant. I wonder if there is a grass roots movement to have this repeated, earlier someone else posted similar language. Maybe a copypasta from Above? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I, as one of the people who was editing the longer version, think that the summary is pretty good, or at least was when it first arrived. Well done, Happyme. Homunq (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) --Happyme22 (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There was a good amount of sourced material that was deleted without any discussion. This has been a major focus of the news during a substantial period of her short term as governor. It deserves a reasonably thorough treatment unless it is broken out as a separate article. How about, as suggested above:

Palin replaced Monegan with Chuck Kopp.Palin knew that Kopp had allegedly sexually harassed an employee, but thought the claims had not been further substantiated and did not know that he had been removed from supervision of the employee while he was investigated and received a letter of reprimand.Jensiverson (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I personally support breakout as a separate article: Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal controversy. I like your passage, Jensiversion, but there is no way to give enough details on this issue to satisfy the truly curious without weighing down this article as it stands. Jensiversion, I urge you to be bold and start such an article add your edits there. Homunq (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: of course the current summary section would stay here. But if we start digging into Kopp, we have to dig into Bailey and the nephew and all the rest. That should happen, yes, but in a separate article. Homunq (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Was Palin really an opponent of the "Bridge to Nowhere"?

From the Anchorage Daily News on October 22, 2006 (Q and A while running for Governor):

5. Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?

Palin: Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now--while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.

September 19, 2007, Palin's statement while redirecting funds away from the bridge

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20908207/

"Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer. Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened."

I put the above info into the article (just half a sentence, though who knows how long it will last there). Homunq (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Foreign policy/relations?

The Kuwait photo suggests that there would be at least a paragraph to write on this topic, and such a section would be welcome. Homunq (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really much to write about. She visited the troops (Alaska National Guards Battallion) in Kuwait. Once. That's about everything i know off in terms of "foreign policy". It might even be better looking for Palin to leave the photo and not clarify the lack of foreign policy content... 217.95.47.180 (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Of Course she has foreign policy experience....Alaska is right next to russia...duh

more useful input from the anons =( Veriss (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Marathon time and result: post under Family and personal life

Sarah Palin has competed in 10K and marathon running events. On July 30, 2005, she finished sixth among women in the Anchorage "Run/Walk for the Whisper" (benefiting the fight against Ovarian Cancer) with a time of 49:01. On August 21, 2005, she finished "Humpy's Marathon" in Anchorage, Alaska with a time of 3:59:36. --Mayamolly (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality of sources

Can someone come up with better sources than LifeNews.com and TPMCafe for Palin's pro-life stance? I don't doubt the position, mind you, but neither of those are acceptable as reliable sources. Tvoz/talk 23:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Reputable sources that aren't from a blog or activist web site have been an on going battle. If you have citations from balanced sources you could definitely help us out =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veriss1 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

TPMCafe -- which is part of TalkingPointsMemo -- is not a blog, and is considered by most experts (except for the right-wing partisans) to be a reliable source. However, practically every one of its articles are built around links to websites maintained by the Corporate Media Mainstream media, so unless you want to cite the opinion of one of the reputable journalists working there like Joshua Marshall, one should be able to follow the link to the kind of source you are looking for. -- anonymous, 01:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Supports Parts of Obama's energy Plan??

That claim references a Huffington Post article that makes the claim, and two newspaper articles that make no mention of Obama's plan. The Huffington Post links to a page with other links and no mention of Obama directly. Right now it's overloaded and mostly not responding, so I can't check all the links. I suspect the most you can say is some things she has supported/done (gas pipeline, giving energy rebates) are similar to things Obama supports. As it's written, it sounds like she made a statement about Obama's plan saying, "I support these measures in his plan," or something to that effect. Unless that's true, the claim should be removed or drastically reworded. 209.159.37.194 (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It currently reads "he has supported aspects of Democratic nominee Barack Obama's energy plan related to encouraging the further use of natural gas but has opposed his plan to raise taxes such as the windfall profit tax." Is that sufficiently NPOV for you. Seems OK to me, but I change if you have an alternative you'd like to see (Note; I didn't write the current or any previous version) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The original article was a press release that appears to have been taken down after Palin was announced the presumptive Republican VP nominee. The original article (through Google Cache) can be found here: [12] It's the first result under a google search for 'Sarah Palin Obama energy.' I hope you don't mind if I edit the section to explain this. Seleucus (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

husband and BP

This page says her husband WORKS for bp, his page says he resigned in 2007. Rescuechick 23:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Which is true? --Elliskev 00:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Should 'Palin' redirect here or to the disambiguation page?

I was surprised when I typed in Palin and wikipedia sent me straight here. I would think Michael Palin is important enough, especially since Sarah Palin was unknown to most people in the US until about 12 hours ago.

Up until 12 hours ago, you would have been correct. But for the foreseeable future this redirect seems appropriate. There's a notice at the top of this article pointing people to the disambiguation page. I, of course, like Michael Palin (especially The Life of Brian and A Fish Called Wanda), but for now the redirect seems okay.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge don't write stuff like that. I might think you actually have a sense of humor!!!!OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Perish the thought, Orange One.  :)Ferrylodge (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Mmmmmmmm. I'm a Republican, but I'm not so sure that Palin should be a full redirect here. It really ought to be a disambig. It's not like an extra click is gonna hurt anyone. --Elliskev 00:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Check out McCain, Obama, and Biden. The point is, the vast, vast majority of people typing in "Palin" right now are looking for this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

True. Just presenting an alternate POV. I assume we'll eventually revert to a disambig? Even after she's the VP? --Elliskev 00:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, What would McCain, Obama, and Biden dismabig to? 'Palin' is different in that Michael Palin is a likely candidate for a search. I go back to my assertion that it should be a disambiguation page. Again, it's only one more click. --Elliskev 01:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow. They would disambig to McCain_(disambiguation), Obama_(disambiguation), and Biden_(disambiguation).Ferrylodge (talk) 03:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, there's an Obama Castle (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.45.81 (talk) 06:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I say redirect to the disambig page. If she loses, Michael Palin will be much more remembered 25 years from now. And think of our non-U.S. readers. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If you type "palin" in the search box (which is what most users will do, not put it on the URL line), you get Michael Palin and Sarah Palin as the first two hits. So everybody will find what they are looking for. To redirect Palin to here is to impose a too U.S.-centric, recentism-centric perspective on things. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If she loses, then I'll fully support redirecting to the disambig page. Not quite yet, though. Our anglophile readers will just have to suffer for the time being, IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If she loses, it makes sense to direct "Palin" to the disambig page. Until and unless she does, it makes most sense for "Palin" to direct here. Even among non-US users the current US VP nominee is likely to be of significant interest. Rlendog (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Support disambig if she loses. Hobartimus (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please continue discussion at Talk:Palin (disambiguation) Nil Einne (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

POV/OR in "Bridge to Nowhere"

Could someone remove the speculation about Governor Palin's reason for cancelling the bridge project? The quote doesn't support the premise that she cancelled the project because the federal government wouldn't pay for all of it. Celestra (talk) 01:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Never mind...that was edit number ten. ;-) Celestra (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Houses Added to Ticket

Is the quote "MSNBC added the quote "How many houses will Sarah Palin add to the Republican ticket?" as "breaking news" when Sarah Palin was nominated. The Center for Public Integrity reported that Palin owned three houses (one residential and two recreational) according to her 2007 financial disclosure form.[79]" appropriate for this article? It seems to me to be irrelevant to a biography page and just a snarky political attack point. GatorOne (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is rather pointless and should likely be left off. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --Elliskev 01:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed it for now, if some people really think it should be added back ok. GatorOne (talk) 01:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If it's restored, maybe we should add all the very recent MSNBC bias discussion? For contextual purposes. --Elliskev 01:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's not relevant to her biography unless she or others make it a controversy that embroils or it appears to strongly affect her. If anything it should be on MSNBC's page if their editorializing during a hard news article becomes a controversy rather then on her biography page. Veriss (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Relevance aside, how is this an "attack point?" No matter who McCain had picked it would have added some number of houses to the Republican ticket. She brings the average down to 5.5, how does that hurt the ticket? --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Moose hunting

Why does it state that she would wake at 3:00 am to hunt moose? Shouldn't this be cited or removed?

The citation covers multiple sentences in the paragraph. It shows how dedicated she is to outdoor activities so is therefore relevant. Entire Washington Post articles have been written about Bush landscaping his ranch. Veriss (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This should be related to the time of sunrise, for purposes of context. Her hometown should have periods of sun almost all night, and I doubt she was blundering around in the woods in pitch black. Wnt (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska

It is important to note that Wasilla is a small town of 5000 people <as noted in Wiki>. This provides citizens an idea of the size jurisdiction she served (as mayor and city council member of Wasilla) prior to becoming Governor of Alaska. § —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizenect (talk • contribs) 01:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

People can see that by clicking the "Wasilla" link so it isn't needed here in my opinion. GatorOne (talk) 01:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like an attempt to minimize the "experience" of Palin. If this edit goes in, then it should merit breaking up the city council experience to emphasis the 16 years she's been in politics. --Theosis4u (talk) 01:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, breaking up the article into the positions Palin held would be more consistent with the format on other bio pages, i.e. Obama's. The topic line should also state the years in that position. Example from Obama's page - "State legislator, 1997–2004" --Theosis4u (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have also been a bit curious about her early history facts but I'm waiting to get that book that writes about it before making decisions. Still, I support noting that Wasilla is merely a small town to place it in context of her experience. It may or may not diminish her but I feel its relevant. Mayor of New York City versus Mayor of Podunk? For example could NYC lower its property taxes by 40%? Probably not, the city would go bankrupt. But if you have a handful of people, you can do things that you can't in cities 20k+. Sorry I have been harking on this topic but I feel like whoever write that part is a big wank. .:davumaya:. 10:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah if all that goes in it should also be noted that she's the only candidate (including the two for pres) with any experience in governing a state. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that she is of national import, please consider adding additional information regarding her tenure as mayor of Wasilla. Specifically, her involvement in the controversial land aquisition for a regional sports complex [13]. According to this article, the city raised sales taxes, used emminent domain on the property, then lost a lawsuit to the rightful owner. Eventually they paid over $1.25 million, for a property that they could have purchased for $125,000. The city's finances are still reeling from this action, and contruction of the $14.7 million facility [14]. Ljmajer (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Entry has been tampered with!

Dear Folks,

Earlier today (Aug.29, 2008), I happened to look at Sarah Palin's Wikipedia entry and noticed the paragraphs describing her failed attempt at running a state-owned dairy processor (Matanuska Dairy Maid). I went back to look at the story this evening and it had vanished. Gone! What the heck is going on?

It was a state budget so was moved mostly intact into that the section discussing Budget issues directly above. Veriss (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like an account with the same name as Ms. Palin's son is cleaning and sanitizing the Wikipedia entry. KiTA (talk) 03:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

OMG POV EDITS ON WIKIPEDIA. THIS MUST BE NEWS! :P The article has been heavily edited since then and the apparent SPA has gone silent. Move along, nothing to see here. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is the information on this:

Highlights of Palin's tenure as Governor include a successful push for an ethics bill, and also shelving pork-barrel projects supported by fellow Republicans. Though she initially expressed support for the Gravina Island Bridge project, once it had become a nationwide symbol of wasteful earmark spending and federal funding was lost, Palin decided against filling the over $200 million gap with state money.

See: [15] Thanks! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 03:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This has been covered ad nauseum. Veriss (talk) 06:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Political positions sub-page

Political positions of Sarah Palin has now been created, and contributions are welcome. This will prevent the main article from cluttering up. Lampman (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Should the relevant info, but be duplicated on the main page then? At this point it still is. What is the standard procedure in these cases?--ThaddeusB (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it probably should be summarized as a separate section in this article, then some of the content that's here should be trimmed down. The section on gay marriage, for instance, is not really that important to her term as governor but some people may want to go to the political positions page to see what her views on the matter are. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the link/section heading. This should facilitate the trimming down of the current content to summary form.--ThaddeusB (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Note, a proper way of summary is to write in paragraph form the many points instead of separating them into subsections. .:davumaya:. 05:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have severely trimmed down this section into a proper summary now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Firing Controversy/Impeachment Quote

The quote about "could face impeachment" seems wrong to include to me. It's a quote from one state senator who said ""This is a governor who was almost impervious to error," says Hollis French, a Democratic state senator. "Now she could face impeachment, in a worst-case scenario." Wall Street Journal I haven't heard it mentioned anywhere as a real possibility and it seems to just be talk by the opposition party. GatorOne (talk) 02:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Now the whole section is gone. There's some middle ground here between blowing it out of proportion and deleting it completely. GatorOne (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The impeachment quote is clearly POV & in context doesn't really say what it seems. I removed this part, but restored the section. The section should probably be summarized further since it has its own page now.--ThaddeusB (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post saw fit to print the possibility of impeachment, it seems to be censorship to remove it from this article on the grounds that it is "POV." Edison2 (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd ask you (and many users on here) to kindly to review the article on censorship and then read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to understand the difference between the two actions. Secondly, to address this source, I have read the source supplied and the quote is taken extremely out of context (what did the reporter ask?) and the article itself does not speak about impeachment but as the title states "Palin faces a probe." Meaning they have not even begun addressing the concerns, let alone decide for impeachment. Plus is it surprising the opposing political party would state the worst-case scenario? As such, this news story shouldn't be given weight until proceedings actually occur. .:davumaya:. 05:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that everything regarding this controversy has been removed. I agree the quote about impeachment should have been removed but removing the entire section seems to be very political. At the least, a statement should be added that she is currently under investigation by the legislature for abuse of power. With a link to a summary of what lead to the investigation. insxobj06:10, 30 August 2008

From what I have read so far....concur. Veriss (talk) 06:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)>

Inaccurate statement in Budget section

"In 2008, the state gave each resident $1200"

The qualification for a resident does not exactly coincide with the qualification to receive the $1200, not all residents qualified for the $1200.

Also, the first payments will not be made until at least September 12, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.74.113.13 (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Why was important information removed?

I think it's pretty important to keep all information about this person accurate and full in detail. I'm a bit dismayed that I'm coming to find that Wikipedia is obviously suseptible to the Republican noise machine.

Please re-add this information, it was obviously removed.

Budget

In the first days of her administration, Palin followed through on a campaign promise to sell the Westwind II jet purchased (on a state government credit account) by the Murkowski administration. The state placed the jet for sale on eBay three times. In August 2007, the jet was sold for $2.7 million.[31]

31 = http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/25/us/25jet.html?_r=1&fta=y&oref=slogin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webshaun (talk • contribs) 03:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I have no idea what this Republican noise machine is it seems to be often referred to on this page and I doubt it has much sway, it sounds like a cartoon on Adult Swim. So please stop users on here would desist from speaking of this machine. Secondly, that fact I believe was removed for being deemed not very relevant. A campaign promise to sell a plane? Perhaps there is controversy beyond it that I do not know of but it sounds very procedural and does not seem to speak of any problems. .:davumaya:. 05:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this was part of a huge political scandal - the jet was probably the main downfall of her predecessor, Frank Murkowski. This was a huge symbolic move for her and sort of christened a new non- (anti-?) Murkowski era. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh.... I should've figured this scandal had lots of bells and whistles. I think whoever knows more should summarize more about her predecessor and why when she took office it was relevant. For example it states she rescinded dozens of appointments but doesn't tell me why or in what context she did so. I get that something is wrong with Murkowski but its never clear in the article what he did. .:davumaya:. 10:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Futile attempt's from Daily Kos kids trying desperately to dig up dirt on Palin and that's all they came up with - I don't blame them for trying to post the little irrelevant piece of garbage they actually did turn up but I do have a problem with their insane attempts at vandalism and turning Wikipedia into their dKosopedia. Wikipedia is neutral. If you want a biased encyclopedia go edit dKosopedia on your blog website--Papajohnin (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Bridge to Nowhere" vs. $1200 for each Alaskan

The page currently states, "Palin's government accepted the federal money would have been spent on the Gravina Island Bridge, had Palin not canceled the bridge because the federal government wanted Alaska to pay for part of it. This gained the state of Alaska over $200 million, which it could spend however it wants. In 2008, the state gave each resident $1200."

Clearly, this implies that the money Alaska received for the Gravina Island Bridge is being distributed evenly to all the state's residents. As an Alaskan, this is the first time I have *ever* seen a connection between the $1200 we're to receive this year and the 'Bridge to Nowhere.' I think the two should be separated into different paragraphs. The $1200 is designed as an 'energy rebate,' for the higher fuel prices in Alaska, as compared to the rest of the state, and (I believe) only those receiving a 2008 Permanent Fund Dividend will be receiving the additional $1200.

65.74.34.57 (talk) 03:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This may have been a problem with a particular edit that caused part of the article to vanish due to the inclusion of an odd symbol. Does it still present the article like that? I can't find this. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Mention of attractiveness?

Would it be appropriate to mention that commentators have referred to her as "telegenic", "photogenic", "attractive", "gorgeous", "pretty" etc ? As runner up for Mrs. Alaska she has proven that her looks are better than the average person. In the television age could "hotness" not be viewed as an asset? Maybe it will make some men more likely to vote for her ? Or jealous ugly women less likely etc ? 72.91.214.42 (talk) 04:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin prefers her beauty queen past not be emphasized, she said in a taped segment from earlier this year.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 03:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

is it really up to her ? I thought we were the editors ? 72.91.214.42 (talk) 04:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Just: where on that page is this? Tvoz/talk 04:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we remove it from this article, or add this to the article, which would have an affect of drawing attention to it? I'm perplexed why this was worth mentioning... —  X  S  G  03:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a FYI for contributors, since I believe subjects desires should be taken into account in BLP's (namely, by not emphasizing the beauty pageant stuff etc too much, as she'd prefer).  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 04:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am asking about her "hotness" not her beauty pageant past. I think her good looks are an asset. All the other candidates are ugly - and people sometimes vote on looks alone. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

In terms of biographies, we have a special obligation to the subject that is Miss Palin, that we avoid inserting or over-emphasizing (WP:weight) our assertions of them. Especially since they are still alive and publications of them continue to be made, we have to maintain an objectivity that usually means following the source itself (the person). What you are proposing while true, does leave the encyclopedic realm into triviality such as say a columnist article (unspoken facts that do not necessarily need to be spoken about). .:davumaya:. 04:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

But I am giving her a compliment. Why can we not compliment McCain's genius in picking such a pretty running mate (I'm sure he noticed) ? It will likely win him the White House. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Also let's be honest here, she is a great pick for soon to be President McCain because she is so hot ! beauty pageant winners usually have great speaking skills and good looks for the cameras. This works great with 24hr news networks. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop this is not a forum to discuss this trivial topic. .:davumaya:. 05:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

pageants are not trivial ... and are notable. Have you ever won one ? It's sexist for males to call beauty pageants trivial. Miss Alaska is a big honor. Also I am not merly discussing, I am saying it should be added to the article, the purposeof this forum 72.91.214.42 (talk) 05:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Newt Gingrich just told Greta Van Sustren on Fox News: "She's had 5 kids and looks this good" --- you see her looks are a plus. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 05:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What Gov. Palin may mean -- and what's journalistic practice, is to do as this WSJ blogger does and, if a serious commentator notes something fun/trivial,

eg the WSJ here's "At the NGA [National Governor's Association] conference she demonstrated her fun side—she appeared at an energy session in glittery platform heels and Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell said she had been 'first on the dance floor' one night, leading governors in the Electric Slide."

--such stuff should be an afterthought rather than a leading obserservation. (I think?)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 05:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Charm has a lot to do with politics and I glark there'll be lots of reliably sourced commentary to be had on this. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with it, as long as it was done with some discretion. ie. NOT "VPILF" ;) --Papajohnin (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and thus a subjective measurement. As Wikipedia's purpose is the creation of an encyclopedia instead of writing editorials, we are better off providing readers with the information needed to make an informed decision instead of telling them what they should think. The article mentions that Palin won a beauty contest and placed 2nd in another, worked as a television sports reporter, and provides multiple images. How much more information is needed for a reader to determine if she meets a readers personal standard or current societal standards for attractiveness? --Allen3 ^talk 20:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

We cannot include something like "she is pretty". But as mentioned above, I think we should, with a look at WP:V, include it if major reliable sources judged this to be important to the campaign. Because we have to write about all things that reliable sources deem important, not judge about whether she is attractive or not. We just report that others do or do not. SoWhy 20:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Dubious catchall source

There is a very dubious catchall source being used: Johnson, Kaylene (2008). "Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down". Epicenter Press. ISBN 978-0979047084. I welcome and support paper published documents but I cannot imagine the unbelievable coincidence that an entire biography of this woman was conveniently made this year. As well I count no less than 10 citations going to this one book which I doubt anyone has actual access to. For example since when does a municipality have the power to "reduce property taxes by 60%? Unless there was an immense high-density growth the likes of New York City in Alaska OR a state supported socialist funding mechanism the likes of Norway, there would be no feasible way for local government to cut itself in half in that manner.

Anyway as for the source itself, because this page has greater scrutiny than other WP pages, I suggest we start marking citation needed for assertions that sound quite a bit out of the norm considering the beauty-pageant editing of the page that has been going on by the McCain campaign. .:davumaya:. 04:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We'll have to wait a few days for reliable, neutral sources to catch up in their research. By the way, the following is not a neutral source, but editors of this particular Wikipedia article should find it interesting (though unusable for citation). Stevens & Palin: "Singing from the Same Sheet of Music" --Ohaohashingo (talk) 04:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not so dubious, at least in terms of timing: the Johnson biography has been on the stands here in Anchorage at least since I moved here in February. No connection with ultra-current events that I can see - McCain wasn't even the presumptive nominee then. As far as "anyone has actual access to" - my local Fred Meyers has a dozen or so copies, send me your address and I'll mail you one. Alparrott (talk) 04:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Fabulous please do, plus its interesting reading. The fact I've questioned may very well be true, I'd just like to understand how it was done, its not exactly a common thing. .:davumaya:. 05:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The tax was reduced from 0.2% to 0.12%, a 40% reduction. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Pawlenty/Romney bruised feelings

Other candidates did not feel manipulated, nor did they claim to be used as decoys.

This line is false and the citation provided does not verify any of the claims made.

"Palin's selection surprised many Republican officials, several of whom had speculated about other candidates[66][67] such as Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, United States Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, and former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge.[68] Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty, previously considered the frontrunners for the position, reportedly 'feel manipulated' over the surprise announcement for being 'used as decoys.' [69]"

Citations 68 and 69 say nothing about "reportedly 'feel manipulated' over the surprise announcement for being 'used as decoys.'" Someone should correct this. As a new user I do not have permission to make the adjustments.

Taskr36 (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This has been fixed (as it now is sourced by a relevant article.) Not sure its relevant, but it is at least accurate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the line "Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty, previously considered the frontrunners for the position, reportedly 'feel manipulated' over the surprise announcement for being 'used as decoys.'" should be removed because A) This is mainly pertinent to 1) the Mitt Romney Article; 2) the Pawlenty Article; and 3) (mostly) the McCain article under VP search. Rumored bruised feelings by third parties are not pertinent to Palin's biography until such time as there is backlash, etc. B) Does the AP article meet the source requirements? The AP can only quote unidentified sources. Should we not wait for either 1) the gentleman in question to express displeasure or 2) some sort of consequence/backlash? I look forward to your instruction.76.92.144.119 (talk) 04:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)jason

IMO, it may be pertinent if and when it becomes a controversy that affects her candidacy. At this point it appears to be limited to "talking head speculation" and does not appear to be noteworthy on her own living person biography. Veriss (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed it should be removed, I almost took it off myself. It didn't seem very relevant, many campaigns use ruses to fool the media. .:davumaya:. 05:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

In addition to being better placed in other articles and not directly relevant to this one, I find that this statement, without further explanation, is also biased against Palin. Besides, bruised feelings and the stringing along probably result more from the fact that the McCain campaign actually did a good job of keeping its pick secret and the fact that the media insisted that it would be either Pawlenty or Romney up until Thursday than from the fact that he finally picked Palin. I am removing the statement and accompanying link since we all here are against it. If someone later wants to add it back, I'm sure they will. Bojangles04 (talk) 07:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

2006?

The lead paragraph says "Palin was elected governor in 2006..." I think it would be pertinent to mention that this was late 2006 (as should took office in December). It's a bit misleading it seems otherwise. - 71.178.193.134 (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

She was elected on November 7 and assumed office on December 4, 2006. -- Dmeranda (talk) 05:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Merger of political positions article

This article [Political positions of Sarah Palin] contains duplicated material from Sarah Palin and does not add anything new. Merge proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• I oppose merging the political positions page with the main page. RobRedactor (talk) 05:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose There will be plenty of positions that will be made visible with citation, which would overwhelm the biography. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• I oppose merging this page with the main page. RobRedactor (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support merge from Political positions I agree with Jossi, at the present time - based on the amount of information available now - that there's no point in the separate article. Forks aren't needed if the main article is of a reasonable length, which Sarah Palin is. Can revisit this at a later time if reliably sourced material emerges that would overwhelm this article, and then it should be summarized here. Right now there isn't all that much. Tvoz/talk 06:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose too! Sorry I understand what you are trying to do but the page is constantly being edited and it is difficult to keep up with. The separation has allowed at least some of the traffic to spin off. At a later date we may recombine. .:davumaya:. 05:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I think positions should be expounded upon elsewhere at a length inappropriate for a general biography.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Feel free to give me more details about the beauty pageant and basketball stuff though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose This article is already too long. 71.233.230.223 (talk) 06:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Agree on merger. Present text overlaps broadly and will otherwise diverge. LarryMorseDCOhio (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose For now, look again in a week or two if this article doesn't grow. I have a feeling this article will grow a lot, to the point it will fork right back out. rootology (C)(T) 06:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Oppose maintaining a separate web site. It's already too hard keeping the neutral players on a neutral front. I maintain that any effort to maintain a separate site is merely to complicate the mission of the neutrals and to make the endorsement of them more difficult. Veriss (talk) 07:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose merge with main article. A politician on the caliber of a VP pick should have a detailed analysis of their views, noting specific instances and examples. For example, the phrase "pro life" is pretty damn generic. And what does she consider contraception? Some forms of birth control (say, the pill) are believed by some pro lifers to be able to cause abortion. Others may call this contraception. Answering responsibly what she thinks on numerous issues would get lost in one-page article on the woman. -Aknorals (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose merge with main article for reasons articulated by others already. The PP article will grow naturally in coming days as reporters delve into her past statements, and thus the article will become an increasingly salient and relevant one on its own. Arjuna (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose as creator (of "Political positions"). 1. This page is already 60k, which is double what it was a couple of days ago. It has to be split up, sooner rather than later. 2. Precedent: Joe Biden, and numerous other, less significant politicians have corresponding pages. 3. Even though the page originally, as a matter of convenience, was created by copying text from the main article, it is already taking on a life of its own. Lampman (talk) 09:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• OpposeDo not merge. Too much information to incorporate here, but a summary should be here. Edison2 (talk) 12:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sufficient information for separate article. --Crunch (talk) 13:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. McCain, Obama, Biden, and many other politician have a separate page. Palin should too. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too big for merge with main article + Biden had this article. --Cinik (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Consistency with all of the other candidates is important. Chadlupkes (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Way too long, plus many other politicians have the same page. Miquonranger03 (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Let's give her the same treatment as Joe Biden, see Political positions of Joe Biden. Truthanado (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Within a week we'll have to separate them again because of overflow. --Floridianed (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Actual federal monies kept by Alaska in Gravina Bridge cancellation

Apparently, $36 million, which Palin directed Alaska DOT to a find other ways to spend. [16]

NB: Alaska drivers seem to pay well over $100 million in federal fuel taxes each year: "[i]n 2006, Alaska's drivers paid $120.1 million in fuel taxes" [17]
— RVJ (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

• "Abuse of power investigation" violates NPOV. It should be a neutral "Public Safety Commissioner dismissal" or "Investigation for alleged abuse of power."

• For the Wasilla section, the 60% figure is wrong. It should be 40%:

Sarah began delivering on campaign promises. First, she took a pay cut, from $68,000 a year to $64,200. Second, she cut property taxes from 2 mills to 1.2 mills and eliminated personal property taxes and a business inventory tax.

-- Kaylene Johnson, Sarah p. 65 (2008)

I'd make the edits, but the page is protected. Halcromania (talk) 06:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's semi-protected. Only brand new users and IPs can't edit the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. .:davumaya:. 06:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't that make the Johnson, Kaylene (2008). "Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down". Epicenter Press book a more unreliable than reliable source? The article relies much too heavily on this book in any case. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you say Publishing Bonanza for Epicenter Press. Sure. Sure you can.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 07:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Firing scandal discusion

FYI, we can use more eyes here: Talk:Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal#scandal category. Thanks. rootology (C)(T) 07:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Reduced salary but added deputy administrator?

Ms. Palin did reduce her salary, but didn't she also add a deputy administrator position to assist her?

Yet again, need citations. Veriss (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are there two Environment and Energy sections?

Why are there two Environment and Energy sections? They say essentially the same thing, except the higher up one is more pro-Palin. They should be merged. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Arjuna (talk) 08:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Combined. .:davumaya:. 10:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, buddy. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of Palin's education (consolidated)

degree?

Sarah Palin, if elected, would be the first VP in over forty years who does not have an advanced degree.

FORTY years?!! --Elliskev 01:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Even on the talk page, assertions like this should have a source. As I recall, Ronald Reagan had but a 4 year college degree.[18] Gwen Gale (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Who cares? Let the voters decide. We're not investigative reporters. Veriss (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about verifiability of content in a helpful encyclopedia article. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Gwen Gale, I tried to alter my indents so it wouldn't appear that I was replying to you. I was trying to reply to the original poster. I probably could have been more diplomatic in my response as well. I'll post the same on your talk page so you are sure to see it. Veriss (talk) 02:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be relevant if true, but I believe Al Gore did not finish his Masters of Divinity or his DJP at Vanderbilt University.[19] That fact pretty much makes it a moot point.--Appraiser (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

academic status and j-school

She has a BA degree, therefore I assume she has the right to display the "BA" or "B.A." postnominal letters after her name. Does she use these postnoms? Should we add them? Also, her degree is in journalism from UoIdaho. Would it be correct to describe it as a journalism school or j-school? NerdyNSK (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen anyone display a BA after their name. There is no need to describe "it" as a school of any kind, it could be a department, school, college or division, but nobody cares about these names. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I really cannot believe that you have never seen anyone displaying a BA after their name. Was that a joke or something? If so, sorry but I can't understand it. To the best of my knowledge most people who have postnominals do use them, whether they come from degrees, professional registrations, or membership to honour orders. NerdyNSK (talk) 10:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anyone who proudly writes "B.A." after his name. Maybe in some non-U.S. countries it is the custom. People who have more advanced degrees would be amused and those who didn't go to college or left without a degree would be annoyed. No one would be impressed. Edison2 (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Really strange. Probably the US has a different culture on this. NerdyNSK (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am from the US, and live in Guatemala. Here in Gt undergraduate degrees are more respected, not just because they are rarer, but also because they require a thesis, unlike in the US. Homunq (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well my friend, this is America, and not guatemala. In America, lots of people have undergraduate degrees, it's similar to a highschool or middle school degree in your country. She's nothing impressive, in fact her education appears to be lacking considering she's being compared to harvard and yale law school grads.71.114.19.245 (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Low Level of education

If elected she will be the first vice-president of the United States, in the modern era, who does NOT have an advanced degree. Her highest education is a bachelors at the university of idaho! This is certainly worth at the least noting in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakerking04 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussed above. Gore has no advanced degree either, though he did some graduate work. —KCinDC (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Gore's graduate degree got disrupted becuase he joined the military, miss palin's got disrupted because she had to do a beauty pegeant.

I don't think either of those is true. Gore's graduate work was after his military service; he left school to run for Congress. Palin didn't have any graduate work to disrupt. —KCinDC (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Now now, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. 68.43.197.22 (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but a good story isn't always verifiable... IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 17:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

George H. W. Bush also only has a bachelor's degree. --Coemgenus 21:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Consistency in citations

Some paragraphs place the citation after punctuation, some others before it. Should we have consistency, and if so with which format? NerdyNSK (talk) 09:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I always thought MOS stated that all citations go after the sentence (after the period to be exact) and NOT to the exact fact. The reasoning behind it is, if it is a well composed COMPLETE sentence then it should only state one or two facts. A run-on sentence would thus incorporate several facts and necessitate placing citations within it. That is poor MOS. But maybe it has changed since I last saw it. .:davumaya:. 10:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I re-read your question again. Yes citations always go AFTER the period, not before. .:davumaya:. 10:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

References

Of the 100 references listed almost all were added after Sarah Palin was picked as McCains VP. Most of these references seem to have a POV; very few address her marijuana use, approval of hunting wolves by helicopter, extreme positions on abortion, gay rights, teaching creation in the schools, involvement in current scandals, and lack of knowledge and experience.

We can find lots of references about her second place finish in a beauty pagent but very little well referenced information about her positions on Iraq, foreign policy, Israel, the economy, peak oil, global warming, alternative energy, environmental protection, endangered species, drilling for methane hydrates, the Bush administration, its policies of warrentless surveilance, kidnapping, torture, murder and holding without rendition, signing statements, the Cheney vice presidency, Supreme Court nominees, Bush vs Gore, election issues, etc;

Given that there are 100 references listed including checks on her ancestry, how come there are no references to her speeches, appearances at Bucannan rallies wearing his campaign button, and her husbands ties to the oil industry.Rktect (talk) 12:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Because no one has found & added them. Fell free to find some and post them here and/or add them. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

According to some non-professional journalists (bloggers), the neutral evidence that might be perceived as not Pro-Palin has been scrubbed fromt he intertubes!

Stevens & Palin: "Singing from the Same Sheet of Music" [20]

As well, the nature of the troopergate scandal is wrongly depicted in this article. Palin is likely to be deposed in the investigation, as the aide claims to have been "pressured." http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5687512&page=1

There's also fairly damning evidence that Palin wasn't even vetted by the McCain campaign until August 24, 2008 (Sunday night): [21]

If original sources are being destroyed, how are we supposed to cite them now? Erichd (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Nuke mention of son's MOS in speech?

I don't get the impression that Palin revealing son's MOS is encyclopedia-worthy. Can we remove that entire paragraph (in the 2008 VP campaign section)? Dsf (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Quoting from the the reference given, "Track now serves in an infantry brigade. And on September 11th, Track will deploy to Iraq in the service of his country." So the exact date is given (it would be hard for a US politician to skip using that one), but does "serves in an infantry brigade" really count as revealing a "Military Occupational Specialty"? The latter point seems to be an interpretation that is unencyclopedic, and without it the whole paragraph probably is as well. Pingku (talk) 12:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement made on Glenn Beck has no point

The statement she made on the Glenn Beck show stands in isolation and has no apparent point attached to it. Lots of politicians make lots of statements every day, but in order to be worthy of inclusion in an article this brief, it should be in support of some point being made. The statement should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatemailname (talk • contribs) 13:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Signature?

Must we have a personality's signature featured in the page highlight box? When did this become relevant? For John Hancock, yes, George Washington, that sort of historic figure. Even sports figures whose signatures are relevant in the world of collectables, like a Babe Ruth or Mickey Mantle. But for contemporary figures whose signature's have no demonstrable relevence? May we not nip this off in the bud?24.63.103.140 (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no "we" in "wikipedia". But there are three different "I"s. Go for it. Homunq (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

He asked for consenus, and there is none. rootology (C)(T) 15:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

While not notable on the national scale, it certainly is notable on the scale of her local governorship and needs to stay in that context in the expand size. rootology (C)(T) 15:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Dobson

suggestion for external link

Back in May, long before the VP pick, Dr. R. Albert Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and one of America's leading Evangelical theologians (see Wiki on him), devoted an entire blog post to Palin and her infant. I think this would make an excellent and extremely valid "External Link", especially now that there will be a lot of focus on her pro-life views.

"Welcome to the World, Trig Paxson Van Palin" http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1144 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.83.6 (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Dr. James Dobson's reactions http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2008/08/29/dobson_%E2%80%9Ci_would_pull_that_lever%E2%80%9D_for_mccain-palin?page=full should be included. It is very noteworthy and important for the McCain campaign. 75.3.229.144 (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you but no thanks. Blogs, columnists, and opinion sources are not WP:Reliable sources whether pro-life pro-choice or pro-kitties. All anonymous users please read WP:External links before you suggest adding another one. At this point we have all the proper external links covered and no more should be added unless there is compelling reason. As for use as references, again, we really don't use these for references (even though they creep up over time). They will be removed. .:davumaya:. 16:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I get it. You're anti-kitty. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Good thing this is wikipedia and not the John Mccain website, no it should not be included! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.19.245 (talk • contribs) 16:48, August 30, 2008 (UTC)

Energy and environment lede

With the pro-life/ pro-choice debate, I accept framing each side in their own terms. Anybody who cares about these terms understands what both sides mean. But on the pro-energy-development/ pro-environment debate, I think that there are more people who think a middle ground (pro both) exists. But it is clear that, insofar as such a ground exists, she is not in it. Therefore, it is appropriate to mention the fact that she is generally criticized by environmental groups in the lede paragraph of the Energy/Environment section. Homunq (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources? Kelly ^hi! 18:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Facts suggested for inclusion (consolidated)

Pat Buchanan

The article I saw said that she was wearing a Buchanan button on a 1999 visit to Wasilla.

--RobbieFal (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Passport July 2007

Sarah Palin got her first Passport in July of 2007.

New York Times 08/29/2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/us/politics/29palin.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Miss Congeniality?

In August 30, 2008 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, p. A2, it is reported that in 1984 Amy Gwin, now living in University City, Missouri, won "Miss Congeniality" in the Miss Wasilla, Alaska, competition, not Sarah Palin. See <http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/columnists.nsf/debpeterson/story/23D7A0CF8A2E3A61862574B50011DB30?OpenDocument>. Phaedrus7 (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin was Miss Congeniality in Miss Alaska, not Miss Wasilla.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 15:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Photo discussion (consolidated)

Palin in photo with fur

The photo of Palin wearing a fur, why doesn't someone just come out and say that she's in support of hunting and trapping in Alaska. Why the allusion (sarcasm here). Either state it or get rid of it. I can't believe the partiality of Wiki's contributors. We don't show Barack Obama barechested in Hawaii while giving a press conference....75.73.4.221 (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

How do you know it's real fur? Kelly ^hi! 17:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Mmm. Dead fox heads...

(ec) I think it's the best photo we have of her speaking... In Alaska it is not unusual to wear fur, so I don't think there's any great fuss to be had here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

She's also apparently an avid hunter, so I don't think the image is trying to say anything that isn't already said in text. - auburnpilot talk 17:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If God didn't want us to hunt animals, why did he make them so delicious and their fur so wonderfully warm? Kelly ^hi! 17:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, they were given warm fur to keep them warm. Just had to add that for corrections sake, I personally am not against hunting or fur.66.194.118.10 (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

given that the native alaskans have hunting as part of their culture/heritage AND part of their dailies lives for survival/sustenance, we cannot ignore that fact. plus, there is no indication that the article of clothing she is wearing is real fur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.93.18 (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Miss Wasilla pictures

I would like to include her victorious pictures as Miss Wasilla into the article. Can someone check whether these images 1 and 2 ... are in the public domain? Thanks. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 04:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

They obviously weren't published prior to 1923 or produced by the federal governmet, so I really doubt they are in the public domain. Kelly ^hi! 04:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I use a fair use justification? Or could someone else? 72.91.214.42 (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the images would be acceptable under WP:NFC - we have plenty of free images of this person. Kelly ^hi! 04:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the help Kelly. However the link you give says we can use "Images with historical importance: As subjects of commentary" ... since McCain could die and she could be President, is it not historical that she was Miss Wasilla ? I think she would be the only beauty queen President -that's historical ... especially since most of the women who have lost in the past we're ugly. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If you can find the owners of the pics and they release them then you're on the way to including them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veriss1 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin's not professionally noted as a beauty contest winner (and most of such contests aren't notable at all). Any wry irony of political contests being "beauty contests" aside, following WP:WEIGHT, a picture like this would likely highlight this aspect of her background in a highly misleading way and hence be unhelpful to the article's NPoV. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I am bias because I have taken part in beauty pageants, but one of the first things commentators have mentioned about her was she was runner up to Miss Alaska (a big deal) and she only got that chance because she was Miss Wasilla (the town she won mayor of for 9 years). 72.91.214.42 (talk) 04:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Her pageant photos are all over the news, so the argument about not being NPOV is not well grounded. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly ! pageants are hard. I feel like the men here overlook the difficulty of them. Her win shows her determination. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 04:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen any of that coverage, so I understand what you mean, but my comment about WP:WEIGHT still has some sway. Wikipedia isn't (or shouldn't be) fluff telly news, I guess we'll see where both the sources and editor consensus go on this. As for pageants being "hard" that's true of lots of stuff and wouldn't have anything to do with notability or weight. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It gives a picture of her when she was younger, and should be included just because of that.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 06:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not a really convincing reason to add it. Perhaps after we clarify that the pictures are free and in public domain, we can continue this but please avoid inserting the photo. .:davumaya:. 06:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture of family

I love the picture of her family. But which one is which? --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Photo

Why are we not using her official Governor's portrait? I think we should.

Rick J. Evans 19:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In general official Governor portraits are not Public Domain.--Appraiser (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Photo

I think we should upload a better, and more formal photo for Gov. Palin. The photo on the State of Alaska's page seems more appropriate. This picture is available in higher resolution on various sites like here. Thoughts? - WilsonjrWikipedia (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What's the license on the official photo? - Jredmond (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The license is critical - while U.S. federal government photos are in the public domain, that isn't true of most (all?) state governments, which normally use a standard copyright. For example, this page of an agency of the Alaska government says "the unauthorized copying and posting of material contained within a department publication or web page to a non-[departmental] hard publication, web page or other electronic publication constitutes copyright infringement". So I'd guess that Palin's official photo is not note: added the prior word - my error in the initial posting - JB in the public domain at all. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What he said. The current photo, on the other hand, is GFDL, which means that it can be reused right alongside the article text. - Jredmond (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

John Broughton, would you please clarify? This sentence of yours does not seem to be gramatically correct: "So I'd guess that Palin's official photo is in the public domain at all." Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Typing way too fast (and not carefully reading) - my error. I've fixed it; thanks for checking with me. Not in the public domain. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Undue Weight Given to Kuwait Visit

Right, so in this article there are 4 pictures of Palin visiting soldiers in Kuwait, and in Political positions of Sarah Palin there are another 3. If I came to these two articles and didn't bother to read all the captions, I would get the impression that Palin has bags of foreign policy/military experience, when in fact all the pictures seem to just come from two trips (there are also a couple of photos from Germany) - rst20xx (talk) 13:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest taking all the photos of the visit to Kuwait and putting them in a gallery format. --Crunch (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I was the person who located and uploaded most of the photos we have of her - the reason there are so many of the Kuwait trip is that the military images are among the only photos of her in the public domain. (I also uploaded a ton of photos from Barack Obama's visit to the troops overseas.) I don't think including the images says anything about her foreign policy experience, but just a matter of style I think the article is too cluttered with photos right now. Kelly ^hi! 13:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do think it implies something, on some level, however would also agree that there were simply too many photos to start with. I see now though that many of the Kuwait pictures in Sarah Palin have been taken out, thus somewhat alleviating the problem - rst20xx (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

6 Photos of Kuwait visit is redundant. Please remove 5 of the photos. J23 08/30/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by J23 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree that there are too many photos, some of which are not germane or helpful to the article. Arjuna (talk) 23:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The idea of creating a gallery of photos makes perfect sense. I think we should do that. Sleeping frog (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Photos of Troops? It's too Much

Why are there so many photos of her visiting the troops? Casually scanning through the article gives you the impression that she's some kind of military leader.

User:NerdyNSK added lots of photos here ... but also to the Joe Biden article, of him speaking at various conferences, appearing with Obama, etc. I've started reducing them there, since there is too much replication from the same era. Same problem here. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this.....there are a lot of them for sure. I'll take a few out. RxS (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I took 3 out, they were pretty irrelevant to the sections they were in, not to mention there were too many. I left the ones that seemed to have some connection to the section they appeared in. RxS (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Has she spent her entire term as Gov in Kuwait? Or was that the only place she was photographed? --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's just those are among the few photos I could locate with a free license. I'm sure there will be more as she begins to make campaign appearances. Kelly ^hi! 15:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia always has strange place-of-image distributions, due to our highly restrictive rules. I read somewhere (would have to be checked) that the Kuwait-Germany trip was her first time going out of the country that required a passport, so giving the impression that she's a world traveller is misleading. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If true, that might make an interesting fact for here - rst20xx (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Photos, disproportionate weight

OK, why are nearly ALL the photos of her in the military context? I'm going to start swapping them out for others--we don't need nearly all of them showing her in Kuwait and the Middle East, plus it's a bit of disproportionate WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV, since he is distinctly NOT known for having any real foreign policy standing nor experience. rootology (C)(T) 16:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I certainly concur, they're making her seem like some kind of an expert on foreign relations. Her short visit to kuwait was in fact the first time she had been outside the United States, and didn't even own a passport until then!

Yes, I agree. Not intentional though, since the military ones are always PD and so easy to use. Meanwhile, User:calliopejen1 has found this picture; Image:Palin with kitty.jpg. --I am not Paranoid (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That picture is manipulated and irrelevant. I think it has no place in wikipedia and should be removed. Elwinda (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

A persistent Wikipedia issue with regard to images is that the US government and US military claim no copyright, i.e., all their material is in the public domain. This is why the only picture we may have of a foreign leader is on a visit to Washington. It's a problematic inherent bias and we need to monitor individual cases to make sure they don't slant the POV of an article. --Dhartung | Talk 19:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

An editor continually re-inserts her photo visiting an "injured" officer. I would incline to allow this but there is NO TEXT TO SUPPORT THE PHOTO. Photos are meant to further illustrate the text and simply mindlessly placing it in the Governorship section with no paragraph to reference it is not appropriate. FOr now the Don Young photo is important because it tells the viewer who this Representative is, since she is trying to oust him. .:davumaya:. 19:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Why all the military photos?

3 of 5 photos in the article show Palin in millitary settings. It appears that the person(s) editing in these photos are attempting to paint a picture of Palin as having millitary experience. People searching for Sarah Palin on Google will get this article as the first hit. A lot of visitors will not be interested in reading this very very long article, and will just read the lead and skim through the photos and photo text. The significance and impact of pictures are very important and makes the article look slanted. If the millitary background of Palin is not of high importance for her biography article, the emphasis of millitary elements in the photos should be reduced or replaced. Elwinda (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Cazort (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well we've been talking about changing or removing her military photos, but I currently don't have the credentials to since the page is semi-protected. Why don't you do it?

I don't mind if they're replaced with photos of similar technical quality. Kelly ^hi! 16:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is more important than pure technical quality. rootology (C)(T) 16:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The military photos are public domain; that's why they are used.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 16:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, we've got lots of free photos of her, and I've removed all the military ones for our others due to NPOV, which is more important than having a shiny pretty bauble of an article. rootology (C)(T) 16:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no rule saying each article must have at least 6 photos, and in an article this long the photos are very significant in conveying essential information. The Sarah Palin article (like others) is of course a very attractive item for use as a presidential campaign tool, but that is not what wikipedia is for. If only what appears as slanted photos exist remove them to restore a balance and neutrality. I am not saying that any one single photo is wrong, but that the overall appearance looks biased. Someone please look into this. Thanks. Elwinda (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I already did. Look again. rootology (C)(T) 16:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I replaced a couple of the military photos - some of the images being used were of poor resolution/quality. Exactly how does a photo of her in a military setting violate NPOV? It's silly. We should strive for high quality. Kelly ^hi! 16:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

She's got dead zero (per sourcing) military history, credentials, foreign policy skills/training/history/experience, nothing. To present her in a light like it was before I cleaned it up violates NPOV, WEIGHT, and other concerns, which trump image policies always. We can't present her in the light of being some military/foreign policy person like Joe Biden or John McCain--she's a village mayor and first term governor, so the photos should reflect that to comply with NPOV. rootology (C)(T) 16:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama contains two military photos. And I don't see that the case being made of a photo of her standing in a chow hall makes the claim that she's a foreign policy expert - it's just a photo. The technical quality of some of the images we are using is horrendous. Kelly ^hi! 16:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That is solely why you removed the military photos; you are an Obama bin Biden supporter. Haven't you heard of NPOV? A couple of those need to go back in.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 16:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think relevance should be the major concern when posting a picture. High resolution ant artistic quality is not essential. Wikipedia is not a press center. Elwinda (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The millitary photos just keeps pouring in it seems. This time a wounded German soldier. Germany is not even mentioned in the long biography, so why is this picure important?! Do not post photos unless they compliment information mentioned in the article. Even if you happen to have 3000 pictures of Sarah Palin with millitary personell readily available. I repeat that images have extremely in an article this long and thus should be selected to hightlight what is important in the biography. If the wounded German soldier is important the article should explain why! Elwinda (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless the Kuwait trip was somehow the most significant event of her life, there's no reason to include more than one photo from it. If there aren't other photos available, then let's just have fewer photos. —KCinDC (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

My concern is simply the technical quality of the images. If we have good, high-resolution photos with a free license, why use crappy photos? I don't understand how a photo carries a POV, could someone explain this? If photos of GIs are so objectionable, just crop the military people out. Kelly ^hi! 17:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting using crappy photos. There's no requirement that every paragraph have a photo even if it's irrelevant or redundant. Just delete them. How does having yet another photo of the same trip add to the article? —KCinDC (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Technical quality should not be the main reason for choosing a picture. Relevance to the main points in the biography should be the most important. We have several pictures already. If these extra pictures do not add significant explanatory value whey simply are not needed. The second point is how people read an article, which is by first reading the lead, then skimming the pictures and picture text, and then a lot of people stop there. Therefore the colletion of pictures should reflect the article and not be biased towards aspects that may seem to be slanted. This is even more important in a hight profile article as this. Elwinda (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The wikipedia user named "Kelly" seems to insist on posting millitary pictures because of their "superior technical quality". That user even removed a relevant picture of Palin with Alaska congressman Don Young (mentioned in the section), and replaced it with a picture of a wonded soldier in Germany (that had no relation to the text in the section). Please someone correct this misconduct. Elwinda (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It may be proper that we bring a formal complaint and request sanctions against this user. They are continuing to edit out other photos in favor of sensational photos of Palin with every member of the military. As well this particular user has added nothing of value to the page in terms of text. I believe its a very sinister SPA at work here. .:davumaya:. 19:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

<-- Yes, it's wonderful that all of the high-quality photos we had of this person have now been scrubbed out in favor of ugly, low-resolution photos. Kelly ^hi! 20:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Every news network has used many military related pictures of her, there is no reason we should avoiding using them. Sarah Palin is also commander in chief of Alaska’s National Guard. Please don't remove useful pictures. Pissed off starfish (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin's trip to Kuwait and Germany is now being mentioned in the "Persona Life and Family" section. The Kuwait photo should be moved to that section instead of being in the "Energy and environment" section. Elwinda (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Cute Kitten

File:Palin with kitty.jpg

like this?

We've got pictures of Palin with wounded soldiers, and in Kuwait in a cute t-shirt. I was wondering, can we get a picture of Sarah holding a kitten? --I am not Paranoid (talk) 05:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

How about a fish? Gwen Gale (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Your comment is sexist. She is cute, so her picks are cute. you must be ugly. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 05:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if I get through the day without crackin' a mirror, I'm happy. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not ugly, and I'm certainly not using Satire to ridicule the media for focusing on her good looks. I'd just like the article to have a picture of Sarah snuggling up with a rilly cute kitten. --I am not Paranoid (talk) 05:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! .:davumaya:. 05:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Fye, can't find any. My day is chaveled. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Shopped... >u<

Well, would little Sarah Heath as a toddler snapped up in her jumper on her dad's shrimp boat or somewhere with two live, shiny, mud-colored, antenna'ed(?/sp) jumbo shrimp, one in each of her paws do? (See here, but scroll down a bit.)  $\sim$ Just meow (  ) 06:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Should we use this photo as part of her gun-paragraph? Maybe we can even crop it tight on her and caption it out of context :) .:davumaya:. 10:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC) ---- If only her shirt was red, white and blue and with a giant Eagle - it would be purrrfect. --I am not Paranoid (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, we don't have any kittens, but guns are a close second, I guess. --I am not Paranoid (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Does it have to be a live kitten? 207.237.198.152 (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Do we actually have any good photos of her doing sporting? Would fit the article. rootology (C)(T) 06:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't seem to be any on flickr. Calliopejen1 (talk) 09:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Palin with kitty.jpg should definitely be the lead photo. Awwww. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That photo of Palin with the kitten looks fabricated. Not good enough to easily fool.Mdoc7 (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

All kidding aside, I actually think having a picture of her shooting would be a good idea, she is a hunter/fisher and it would show off her personality. We should use that picture. Pissed off starfish (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This photo illustrates her hunting/NRA/millitary background better than the photo of her drinking Coca Cola in an army camp in Kuwait. It is also high resolution (which wikipedia user Kelly insists on). Elwinda (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia user "Kelly" keeps adding random millitary pictures

The wikipedia user "Kelly" is very persistently insists insering photos of Palin in millitary settings throughout this article. He replaces relevant prictures with seemingly irrelevant pictures displaying Palin in millitary settings. At one time 3 of 5 photos in the article was millitary pictures inserted by Kelly. In section "Governorship" he removed the picture of Palin and Alaska congressman Don Young and replaced it with Palin and a wounded soldier in Germany. And now he replaced another picture in section "Energy and environment" with Palin in Kuwait. This was just a few examples. The photos he insert seem to have little or no relevance to the text, and if they are removed Kelly just keeps inserting new millitary pictures. It seems that he does not care what picture is put in which section. His argument is that the photos he insert are of a highly superior resolution and quality. He does not seem to care if they are relevant for the text or not, and the picture text he inserts seem to have no connection to any of the text in the entire long article (search for Germany or Kuwait for instance). From the Kelly users site it seems he is related to the US Army. My impression is that this user is biased in his contribution to such a degree that is harms this article more than it helps. What can be done? Elwinda (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Just one is fine, like it is now. And it's a decent photo. rootology (C)(T) 22:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The article says not a word about Kuwait (or The Middle East). What does the Kuwait army camp picture have to do with the "Energy and encironment" section in which it is located? There was also an adequate photo there before Kelly inserted the "Palin with Coca Cola" photo. Wikipedia has no requirement of 3200x2400 pixel photos or rule saying that the higher the resulution the more relevant the photo is. My main point is that user Kelly removes a relevant photo and replaces it with his own irrelevant photo. This does not make the article better and should be discouraged. If the relevance of Kuwait with "Energy and environment" is clarified in the section text I will be satisfied, otherwise I suggest removing Kuwait army base picture and restoring the trade show picture that was there before. Elwinda (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What did the crappy out-fo-focus trade show picture have to do with "energy and environment"? Kelly ^hi! 22:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing that I know of. But what is the point in replacing one irrelevant photo with another even more irrelevant photo? The right thing would be to move it to the relevat section or remove it. And your artificial criteria of photographic excellence is not warranted. Just because your millitar photos are perfectly focused 3200x2400 SLR photos it does not give you a manate to replace any other photo at your own discretion. E.g. the Don Young photo you switched with a wounded soldier in Germany. Please stop. Elwinda (talk)

There's nothing wrong with military photos, she has said herself that she's an avid hunter, and she is the commander in chief of the Alaskan national guard. A few military photos is fine. Sleeping frog (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

But what does the Alaskan national guard and hunting have to do with wounded soldiers in Germany or army camps in Kuwait? Elwinda (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that we don't have to erase everything military related. I think we can still have a balanced choice of photos even if one or two are military related. Sleeping frog (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I do see your point though, we want both relevent photos and a variety of photos, it can be hard to strike the right balance sometimes. Sleeping frog (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The right balance is no military pics, several threads here agree. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't think so. Barack Obama has two military photos - I think this is fine. A photo makes no statement about foreign affairs experience. Kelly ^hi! 23:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that last comment from user Kelly explains his point of view all too well. My point is that Wikipedia is not a place for political campaigning. What pictures the Barack Obama biography or Joe Biden biography or Mitt Romney biography has is irrelevant. This is the Sarah Palin article. If your reasoning is that biography X has N photos with theme T therefore biography Y must have equally many with theme T you should refrain from editing directly and instead post your suggestions on the discussion page first. Elwinda (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please take your bad faith assumptions and place them where they belong. My point all along has been that I went to some work to research good-quality images for the article, and it's a shame to let them go to waste. You know nothing about me or my politics, so please stop making stupid assumptions. Kelly ^hi! 23:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Until more free pictures of her become available, I don't see the problem in using the ones we have. And let's try to keep this polite and assume good faith. Coemgenus 00:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with using all the Kuwait or Germany photos, but then the text in the section they are being used should reflect them. Photos are there to highlight information, and are not there just to spice up the visual appearance of the article. Take any other picture - each one is relevant to the section in question. Elwinda (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Court tapes chronicle Palin family dispute

http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?s=8726444

This source does not explain how she was personally involved in this controversy. If she was not, this material does not belong to the article.Biophys (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Caution against making too many religious references

Obama is also religious and heavily involved in church, one thick with controversy. Obama has followed black liberation theology nearly his entire adult life. Yet Obama's article contains very little religious information. I'm asking the authors of this article to be very careful about going out of their way to start drawing up all kinds of evangelical associations and implications with Palin when no such attempts would be successful on the Obama page. Keep it fair please.

Clarification - Taxing Oil Company Profits

Under Governorship in Energy and Environment, there's mention Pain favors taxing oil profits. I'm unable to find this mentioned in the cite offered. Alaska taxes oil at extraction since it's a natural resource taken from the people by the oil companies so it's a royalty tax, not a tax on profits. This clarification needs to be made since it's factually inaccurate.--Shulerd (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The first source listed says "She stood up to the powerful oil industry, and with bipartisan support in the statehouse she won a tax increase on oil companies' profits." Is the source mistaken? --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

external links

I removed the campaign $$ links because this is not a wikisite for a campaigns for governor or mayor. Accordingly, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising." Likewise "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files." Furthermore, "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links."

In addition, "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." With this in mind even the governor's webpage doesn't go beyond what this site could provide. However, I still kept it because "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site, if any." Doesn't get more official than the government of Alaska's website, considering she doesn't have one herself. Lihaas (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There are standard links found in Governor and Candidate articles (including those in the template). Please stop deleting them. There is no reason to treat Palin's article any differently than the rest. Flatterworld (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement about the $1200

"and in its place she proposed to send Alaskans $1,200 directly"

Again, this statement is inaccurate. Only Alaskans that applied and qualified for the 2008 Permanent Fund Dividend check will receive the $1200 and it will be included in the PFD check amount, not sent directly. This information is publicly available, so the editors of this article need to stop being lazy and look it up from reliable sources, rather than misinformed sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.74.113.13 (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The only qualifications I see is that one must be a resident for at least 180 days and fill out the necessary paper work. Is that correct? How would you suggest rewording it? --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That is not correct, the 180 days was a part of the original proposal, but in the final legislation, the legislature approved it only for PFD recipients. One qualification for the PFD is that you are a resident for a certain period of time, but that is not the only necessary qualification. Therefore, there is a small percentage of people that can be considered Alaskan residents or non-resident Alaskans, that have not qualified to receive the PFD or the $1200 additional amount.

additional points

Seems like small stuff, but it would be useful to have her height.

Secondly, in the same vein, we need to know if she's related to Michael Palin of Monty Python, etc.

71.246.234.163 (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be her husband that would be related, if anything.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 19:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Second major female VP candidate? discussion (consolidated

First Major Female VP Candidate

Could we have a link to Geraldine Ferraro where it says "second female Vice Presidential candidate", as it took me a long time to find out the identity of the first by myself.

The article says, "making her the second female vice presidential candidate representing a major political party...." The implied reference is to the Libertarian and Democratic parties. Saying the Libertarian Party is a "major" party is hardly defensible by any objective measure. If it is major, then so is the Communist Party USA and it had a female Vice Presidential candidate (Angela Davis in 1980 and 1984), as no doubt have many other minor parties in 200-plus years of US history. Semaj3 (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Libertarians not implied. Geraldine Ferraro (Dem) first, Palin (Rep) second. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree respectfully. Millions in fundraising and succesful aquisition of electoral votes makes it a major party, no? If a party has never recieved electoral votes I'd agree with you. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Is Libertarian not a major political party?

I made an edit noting that the first woman to be run as VP and win electoral votes was the Libertarian VP candidate. The second was the democratic candidate and here we have the third woman in a major political party to run for vp. Why then did it get reverted to say that this is only the second woman to run when this is clearly not the case? Thanks! --98.243.129.181 (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No, a party that gets 1% of the vote is not major. Having a faithless elector vote for someone doesn't convert a minor party into a major party. —KCinDC (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, can I get some citation with that? --98.243.129.181 (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Check out the major party article. If the Libertarian Party in 1972, which got fewer than 3,000 votes across the whole country, counts as a major party, then what would a minor party be? How about a citation from you that describes the Libertarians as a major party? This is just common sense. If the party were getting 10% or even 5% of the vote, then maybe there'd be some argument, but it's not even getting 1%. There's no reason to mention it in this article. —KCinDC (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What I did in the article was let electoral votes be the guide (as explained in the footnote). For which she will presumably be the third. Maybe it would be notable that she is like the 32nd (or something) woman to run for vice president in all of American History. It makes sense as it is, I was just trying to put it into a more clear perspective that it's not a new concept and niether reps nor dems were the first. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wolf discussion (consolidated)

Alaska's aerial wolf hunting program

Alaska voters, led by Governor Sarah Palin, defeated a ballot initiative Aug. 26, 2008 that would have ended the state’s brutal wolf aerial hunting program. Governor Palin signed off on a $400,000 state-funded propaganda campaign to justify the state’s wolf slaughter from the skies. She worked hard to maintain Alaska's aerial wolf hunting program. Gov. Palin supports the use of aerial killing of overgrown populations of wolves in specific areas of Alaska that threaten other species, specifically the caribou and moose, needed for subsistence hunting by the natives.

Hoping to boost the number of wolves killed this year by permitees, Gov. Palin announced the state would pay $150 for each kill. According to an Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) news release, the bounty was instituted to "motivate permittees to redouble their efforts and to help offset the high cost of aviation fuel, ADF&G will offer cash payments to those who return biological specimens to the department." The state's press release, issued last Wednesday, indicates that "Permittees will be paid $150 when they bring in the left forelegs of wolves taken from any of several designated control areas." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg.cumber (talk • contribs) 19:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds pretty cool - aerial wolf hunting might make a good spectator sport. Kelly ^hi! 19:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This is really not that relevant to Palin, as I have described earlier. These policies have existed for some time and are mostly determined by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. I'm not sure how Alaska voters were "led" by governor Palin to defeat the ballot initiative. Has Palin's stance on aerial wolf hunting ever been mentioned in a general profile about Palin (rather than an article on wolf hunting specifically)? I can't find any. This really is not that important to her governorship. I think it's fine if it goes in a subarticle, but it is undue weight to include it here other than a brief mention. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I heard Palin eats wolf burgers. Any sources on this? --98.243.129.181 (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Animal Issues?

082908

Why is there nothing listed about Palin's basic massacre of indigenous wildlife in Alaska? To the point of putting bounties on the heads of wolves?

Please provide your suggested material with a source to back it up. --Elliskev 01:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: Blogs and activist websites are generally not suitable citations for biographies of living persons. See Wikipedia:Verifiability Veriss (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin in support of aerial gunning of wolves?

[22]

From the page linked above:

"If Governor Palin steps in to authorize it, she will be using her powers to benefit just a few Alaskans against the will of the majority of Alaskans," said Dorothy Keeler who is against the helo wolf hunt."

"It's a slaughter. It can't be justified by science. It can't be justified by ethics. In fact, the department's own research said it's not the cause of the moose decline and it will do nothing to help, unless it is continued forever and forever, is a long time," said Keeler."

To read the history of the issue go here: [23]

I would like to see reference made of these issues in the article, especially since it raises the question as to whether Mrs. Palin may in fact be contributing to the problem of undermining scientific integrity:

"On May 11, 2007, in the final days of the legislative session, Governor Palin submitted identical bills, House Bill 256 and Senate Bill 176, to the legislature. These bills, renaming “Intensive Management” as “Active Management,” attempt to avoid successful litigation by Defenders by weakening the scientific standards to be used by the Board of Game’s in approving control programs. The bills would end the requirement that the Board must determine that “predation is an important cause” for a depressed prey population. Instead, the Board would merely need to conclude that same-day airborne or aerial shooting is “conducive” to meeting a population or harvest objective." --AmandaEP (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with including it if there is a consensus that it's important, I think it needs a link with more substance, to be written more neutrally (i.e. without the word "brutal", that's an opinion) and a more neutral source than "Defenders of Wildlife" though.GatorOne (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

IMO blogs and activist web sites are not reliable sources for a biography of a living person. Veriss (talk) 01:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - needs reliable, neutral sources for claims like that. Kelly ^hi! 01:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Current version looks good to me, except the article being cited says there's a loophole in the ban for Alaska. It's not violating the ban in that case.GatorOne (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is really relevant here. Maybe on the Political positions of Sarah Palin page. It has not be a major issue during her term as governor, and aerial hunting of predators was just endorsed in the most recent Alaska election on Tuesday. Her role in this debate appears to be exaggerated by these activist pages. How much of this is her doing, and how much is the legislature's or the ADFG's? This policy was in place long before Palin came to office. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If people think it should be moved/removed I'm not opposed, I was just fixing the facts in the posted version GatorOne (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved to issues page as per discussion above --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

One wonders how many biologists go hunting wolves with helicopters anyways. Seems like a nonissue to me. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 03:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wolves are dangerous to people. She was making Alaska safer. She also hunts large bears picture which I think is awesome ! What a woman, my new hero. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 05:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the idea is to increase the number of prey animals such as moose and caribou, which are important for subsistence hunting in Alaska. Safety really doesn't have anything to do with it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Right now, it reads as if the program's sole purpose is to have hunters use helicopters to shoot Alaskan wolves for the hell of it. As controversial as the program is, I think some mention that it is an attempt to control the wolf population is necessary. --Andonee (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to take a long swill of strong coffee, not koolaid, and offer some constructive edits. 06:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veriss1 (talk • contribs)

The biggest problem is how addictive this can be. I here some wolf hunters are up to two packs a day.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 06:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If many of you would take a closer examination of my stance on this, it's not about the environmental aspect alone. It is the fact that the game herds' population declines have nothing to do with wolves, but this is the excuse used to cull the predators. Palin has presented two Bills in tandem seeking to bypass the scientific consensus in order to fulfill a private sector agenda. This is undermining scientific integrity. That, over and above the inhumane wolf gunning (I'd rather see normal fire arm hunters and bow hunters than this, what an unnecessary waste of taxpayer dollars), is the issue of ultimate import here, as well as, some might argue, the more important issue of her ignoring the will of her constituents as well as the judiciary of her state. --AmandaEP (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm still looking for an article that covers the fact that both judges AND voters did not support the ballot (they did in fact support measures aiming to STOP aerial gunning). And for those of you that still think about Little Red Riding Hood as the poster child of wolf behavior, try a brief study of biologists that have lived with wolf packs, so you can get a dose of reality, I implore you.

More "neutral" sources, as per request:

[24] [25] [26]

"March 23, 2004 in print edition F-3

Despite two popular votes to prohibit the practice, Alaskan hunters using airplanes have tracked and killed more than 100 wolves to increase moose and caribou herds.": [27]

"Voters in 1996 and in 2000 approved ballot initiatives banning aircraft-assisted wolf hunting, Joslin pointed out.": [28] --AmandaEP (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The unintentional irony of Veriss1's comments notwithstanding, I'm happy to see that there's more context to this on the current version of the page. --Andonee (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought the edits I offered were very constructive, and that I addressed the matter very professionally by posting here for debate before editing the main article myself, especially now that the "neutrality" of the sources I propose are not questionable. I do not drink coffee or koolaid, and I'm pushing thirty, so the "irony" matter is entirely lost on me...unless I'm not the one being referenced there, and if that's the case, then good. Maybe I should log in so I can sign with my user account instead of anonymously. --72.185.241.40 --AmandaEP (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Are the "biologists who lived with wolf packs" kind of like that guy who lived with the bears until they got hungry and ate him? Kelly ^hi! 20:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Animal rights seems off

I think the section of Animal Rights Controversies seems a little biased; not neutral at all. it seems like it was done in hurry as well, having too many formatting errors and layout is not too well

most importantly, here are no citations to back up what it is claiming. Without such, it looks more like someone's opinion.

And it also got removed right away, thankfully, considering it wasn't objective in the slightest. - Cair

Wolves bit

I see the wolves bit has been reintroduced, and expanded, despite discussion to move it to political positions yesterday. This relatively minor event seems to be given undue weight in the current form. I think it either needs shortened or removed. Other opinions? --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It has a bit of flair that it doesn't need to. Let's see if we can just shorten it. .:davumaya:. 16:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Her role is minor - she only appears to have approved a measure that the legislature/Alaskan people wanted. It's not like she personally hired a helicopter and started machine-gunning wolves from the air personally. Kelly ^hi! 18:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? I thought I saw a picture of her with a machine gun somewhere. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be so cool, if she hunted wolves from helicopters herself, but that picture of her with the gun is from her visiting the national guard in Kuwait. Rds865 (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Outrage over censorship on Wikipedia

Miss Palin's page has been sanitized over night and that is an outrage. Important, relevant information about her stances on abortion, gay marriage and such has been removed, and that is clearly POV. Wikipedia is supposedly an encyclopedia, can't we at least pretend the part? Instead of succombing to the republican noise machine? 71.114.19.245 (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Be more specific. Provide links.--William Saturn (talk) 04:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

For example In 2007, Palin agreed with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to allow Alaska state biologists to hunt wolves from helicopters as part of a "predator control" program which was allowed under a provision in a 35 year-old federal ban on the practice granting 700 permits to the state of Alaska. HUNT WOLVES FROM HOLICOPTERS!!! I believe that most people will find this stance unusual and is therefore fit to be mentioned in the article. The sick woman wants to shoot, maime, and destroy animals from helicopters!

Added with sourcing here. rootology (C)(T) 05:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

So do 55% of Alaskans, as of the last election.[29] The idea is that we should be increasing the population of moose and caribou for people who eat them to survive. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

the last comment is clearly partisan in nature =( Veriss (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Good thing they're not hunting cute little kittens from helicopters (ZING!). Okay, seriously, I understand that people get riled up over this issue but in context of the national picture, its not very unusual that politicians from Mayors to Governors are necessitated to approve such actions. In Minnesota, we have approved sharpshooters to limit deer populations due to disease on both city and state levels, but it doesn't mean Governor Pawlenty is a sick man, it's unfortunately part of wildlife management (in reference to Calliope). As well, anonymous IP, you are proposing a synthesis that just doesn't work. .:davumaya:. 11:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

These things weren't 'censored' - rather they were moved to the political positions page, as per community discussion.--ThaddeusB (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design

Is this an appropriate category for the bio? --70.181.45.138 (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I've removed it. Kelly ^hi! 20:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Order of Precedence

first I think the offices table should be above references. Second, the order of precedence is confusing. Palin is not the V.P. so has she really succeeded Cheney?. Shouldn't it indicate rank or something? It seems to be set up so precede means higher rank in the order, but that is wrong Rds865 (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The tables are in there standard location (see other politician pages for reference). If you don't understand "Order of precedence" see the appropriate article. It is based on her being governor of Alaska. Every governor comes after the current VP when in their home state. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

5 billion in education of Alaska ?

some german new media(national public TV has said): that she invested 5 billion dollar into the renewal of the education system of Alaska. Is that true? are there quots on this? german quote: Sie investierte die Rekordsumme von fünf Milliarden Dollar in die Erneuerung des Bildungssystems von Alaska. german source: http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/us-wahl/mccain138.html

i found only this: Under her leadership, Alaska invested $5 billion in state savings, overhauled education funding, and implemented the Senior Benefits Program to provide support for low-income older Alaskans. written by her very self i guess : as she is member of this association. http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.29fab9fb4add37305ddcbeeb501010a0/?vgnextoid=864bb9006da3f010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD&vgnextchannel=d54c8aaa2ebbff00VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD

which would be just a small portion of the 5 Billion for education...

Question: 1)are there other independent sources for that claim of spending billions in education in Alaska?

2) what is meant by "investment in state savings", a) cost cuts in public spendig or

b)incentive to start  private pension savings programs (like in germany) ??
or c)...

thanks --Stefanbcn (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Approval ratings

The approval ratings paragraphs need some work:

Palin frequently had an approval rating above 90% in 2007.[25] A poll published by Hays Research on July 28, 2008 showed Palin's approval rating at 80%,[26] while another Ivan Moore poll showed it at 76%, a drop which the pollsters attributed to the controversial firing of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan.[27]

A subsequent Rasmussen Reports poll from July 31, 2008 showed 35% of Alaskans rated her performance as excellent, 29% good, 22% fair, and 14% poor.[28]

I'm not sure what criteria are being used for choosing which polls to cite. In any case, the first sentence isn't supported by its ref. And it's not valid to compare the ratings between polls conducted by different pollsters asking different questions, especially with "very favorable / somewhat favorable / somewhat unfavorable / very unfavorable" versus "excellent / good / fair / poor". —KCinDC (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Reporter approval rating

The current article reads "According to Gregg Erickson of the Alaska Daily News, Palin's approval rating among reporters and legislators would be 'in the teens or twenties'." The guy making this estimate is clearly not a fan and it seems POV to include someone's opinion of a possible (and very narrow) approval rating, and in any case rather irrelevant. I think it should be removed. Other opinions? --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so. Some other sentences about approval ratings should probably be removed too. There are too many, and comparing results from completely different polls by different pollsters to say they went up or down isn't valid. —KCinDC (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Young Trigg discussion (consolidated)

campaign or family edits ???

Just wondering. The User Young Trigg has been a user just since yesterday and has only contributed by editing this article. On top of that, one edit is headlined in a rather familiar tone, quoting: - Sarah returned to office three days after giving birth -.

The edits are rather positive in tone, as well.

Someone who knew the pick was coming, prepping the article??? Or am I just too suspicious?

Isn't Trigg the name of one of her sons? The edits certainly seem politically motivated. I noticed that her quote mentioning that she has gay friends has been removed just before the big announcement.Kevin mckague (talk)

[[User talk:Name|Talk]] (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably nothing. There are plenty of Palin fans who have been advocating this pick for months. Kelly ^hi! 16:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither is it relevant. Talkpages are for improvements in the article, not for general forum-like discussion. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems relevant to me. Just don't think it's worthy of alteration. MonkeyPillow ^pop 16:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

How about running or requesting a wikipedia:checkuser on user:youngtrigg. The edit history seems to indicate some proficiency with wikipedia. The information edited gives a POV spin or slant that is partisan. There are many questions raised here. Given we are talking about edits to our information about someone who might end up VP or President I don't think it would be unreasonable to know the facts of the matter. Rktect (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It would appear that the edits are also consistent with general scrubbing of other sites that mention Palin's previous relationship with indicted Sen. Stevens. In view of this, it appears the edits are entirely partisan in nature, an intended to harm truth to favor the GOP. Could a Wikipedia Editor restore this article to its original tone and content 48 hours prior to the announcement, leaving the relevant factual evidence of her nomination intact? Erichd (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Per NPR the page was locked because of campaign/family edits. Were the suspiciously favorable edits left in or removed, or ??? Girlgeek z (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, learn the nomenclature of Wikipedia. The page was semi-protected due to a large number of non-productive edits by IP or newly registered accounts. Not due to "family" or "campaign" edits, despite the suggestion of foul play by NPR. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Inside VP Knowledge

I do not understand Elliskev's comment. I can put a link to the actual history page where lobbynoise identified McCain's running mate before McCain announced it. I feel it is important that this information made it out in Wikipedia, because it seems that no media outlet was able to uncover it. --Bertrc (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Original research aside, we have no way of knowing whether lobbynoise had special knowledge or was just trying to prank people. cf. Chris Benoit; cf. also the pranksters who sent false VP reports to the press ahead of Obama's announcement of Joe Biden. - Jredmond (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It is original research and unverifiable claims. It does not belong. Happyme22 (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wasted Time R's Tim Pawlenty links convinced me that many wikipedians had been posting guesses of the VP nomination as fact, but (for future reference) how was my addition original research? I was referencing something that is clearly documented in the Wikipedia History pages: posting . . . Or were you complaining that Lobbynoise had posted was original research? --Bertrc (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Besides which, I read the time/date incorrectly. It wasn't Lobbynoise that spilled the beans Thursday night. It was from an IP address. --Bertrc (talk) 03:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors had even more inside knowledge about McCain picking Tim Pawlenty for veep: this edit and this edit and this edit and this edit and this edit and this edit and this edit and so on. And also this edit told us that McCain had picked Mitt Romney for veep. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The Mitt Romney link doesn't quite equate, (it states that rumors had been floating around, not that Mitt had been chosen) but the Tim Pawlenty links make your case. --Bertrc (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for future reference, a note on my talk might have helped. I just kind of stumbled across this. Anyway, I can't add anything to what's in the answers above. --Elliskev 00:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Busted

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/29/AR2008082902691.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

This is just dumb. Here name was already ~ #2-3 most speculated about by last night. This speculation is likely what led to the edits, not McCain/Palin aides updating in advance of the announcement.--ThaddeusB (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

They don't know what they're talking about, at least relative to the McCain page. The spike at 5 pm yesterday was due to me and Ferrylodge going around on the Naval Academy record and Ferrylodge and someone else going around on which way an image should point, neither of which had anything to do with veep. The only veep edit was this one accouncing that Hillary was the pick. I did do a bunch of editing to the Biden article a few days before he was named, on a guess that it would be him, no inside knowledge whatsoever. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history from the day before she was announced, a massive overhaul was done on the article in the morning and afternoon, by one account, Young Trigg, which was apparently created just to edit this article. I think it's pretty clear that this was done by Palin's or McCain's staff -- if it was a Wikipedian who just wanted to improve the article, why would they create a sock puppet for it? I don't think there's actually anything wrong with this, since the edits appear to be of an acceptable standard of quality, but far from being dumb, it's fairly clear that this is what happened. Politicians do know about Wikipedia. 201.236.144.99 (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Miss Marple. --Elliskev 01:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, what about me? Don't I get any credit for the massive overhaul?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, of course you do. 201.236.144.99 (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, just for the record, I had no idea Palin would be the pick. I assumed that the recent controversy over the firing of Walt Monegan would make her radioactive, either fairly or unfairly. That's why I started overhauling and expanding that section of this article a couple days ago, before Young_Trigg ever showed up. I wanted to figure out if this was a real scandal, or just an insignificant tempest, that was shaping the course of history. Then Young-Trigg showed up just as I was getting ready to hit the sack. Bleary-eyed, I worked with Young-Trigg to substantially upgrade several sections of the article. I have no connection to any political campaign. I did donate to McCain, and will very probably vote for him, but I never met him (saw him in person once in Connecticut but didn't shake hands or get autograph). His staff has never contacted me, nor has Palin's nor the RNC, except to the extent that they contact everyone who they think they can squueze for money. I hope that addresses the matter. I'm just a hopeless Wikipedia addict and political junkie, and none too proud of it. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you get no attention for being a normal editor. :( I'm just piqued because of how much expertise Young Trigg had on a new account. --\/\/slack (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

NPR reports on the gush of flattering edits by User:Young_Trigg

Trigg is a variant spelling of the name of her four month old son. National Public Radio report (link to audio). Hurmata (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This should be listed under controversies, once the controversies section is restored and the offending editors are dealt with. Get on it, Wikipedia, this is a developing story, and people are turning to the site for an encyclopedic bio, not a public relations piece. 72.244.207.149 (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't do "controversies" sections. I saw a lot of Young Trigg's edits gogin up, and they looked ok to me, and sourced to boot. Coemgenus 17:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

NPR story

There is an NPR story (Flash audio, about 5 minutes) about possible COI edits to this Wikipedia article.[30]

Yes. We are definitely in NPOV region. Witness User: Young Trigg, a single-purpose user, whose only contributions have been to make this article more favourable to the subject. Seriously, keep your politics out of my encyclopedia, thanks. EvilStorm (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Scrubbing of Sarah Palin's Wikipedia Entry

Well, let's be honest. It's no mystery. There's almost no doubt that either the McCain campaign or somebody close to Palin is responsible for the unethical whitewashing of history just hours before her candidacy was revealed.

This is of course a major no-no for Wikipedia. And their source is unimpeachable: a pro-Palin Wikipedia editor.

See http://www.jedreport.com/2008/08/the-mysterious-scrubbing-of-sa.html

NPR also ran a story on the topic in their All things Considered segment on friday the 29th. [31]. I believe that there has been sufficient media coverage and controversy related to the topic that it warrants a mention on the article.O76923 (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree it warrants mention and also justifies close monitoring of the entry to ensure further manipulation doesn't take place. Benzocane (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I second Benzocane's opinion. Cyrusc (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I third. Movingboxes (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, there was a scrub effort but not by McCain or Palin campaign officials directly as far as I know. It was organized by one or more commenters early Friday morning to the Draft Sarah Palin for Vice President blog. EvWill (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, true or not, it *is* a news item. NPR and others are reporting it, so it deserves a mention in the article. Something like "On August 30th, 2008, NPR and other news sources reported that thirty mostly favorable changes were made to Palin's Wikipedia biography, one day before her official nomination." This doesn't say that Palin or her supporters made the changes, but does (accurately) state that the changes were mentioned in the news. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 21:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ugh... I love how it now says that "either her or her supporters" scrubbed the entry. Seems that she might have been too busy to do so herself :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.104.140 (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Consolidate the "omg conspiracy" posts?

Anyone mind if I start consolidating the posts related to the NPR or Blogosphere suggesting bias in our coverage of Sarah? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I beat you too it! not quite finished though. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Brilliant minds think alike. :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I was considering archiving, but all this 270kb is since yesterday! This talk page is insane. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Mention in article

The article currently read "On August 30th, 2008, NPR and other news sources[76] reported that thirty mostly favorable changes were made to Palin's Wikipedia biography, one day before her official nomination, leading to suggestions that either her or her supporters had 'scrubbed' her entry." The statement is neutral enough, but is it really relevant? Is this sort of speculation featured in any other article? Also, is anyone disputing that the changes made were relevant and NPOV? --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Also it is currently sourced to dailyKOS, which is clearly not a reliable source. If the comment is to stay, it must at least be properly sourced. I'll resource it to NPR now, but the relevance question remains.--ThaddeusB (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe this should be mentioned in the article. Of all the things that could and should be said about Sarah Palin, wiki editing? This is a minor to-do with brief media coverage, nothing more. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Exxon VALDEZ

Any news on her reaction to the recent Supreme Court decision lowering the damage awards to fishermen from the Exxon VALDEZ oil spill?

Vasa2 (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

She got mad and ate a wolf. Who cares! This is a living bio not a tabloid. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It basically goes to the heart of numerous political issues facing Alaska and the rest of the country. Energy, environment, political power, justice, Supreme Court direction ... That's not tabloid stuff, it's trying to evaluate the fitness for high office of a potentially serious political candidate. Vasa2 (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Note for Flip Wilson

Flipping images is not kosher.[32] We had a similar issue at the John McCain article. See here.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

So, someone told you on some other page not to do it and now it can never happen anywhere else ever again? You'll need to do better than that, Ferrylodge. --I am not Paranoid (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on it. Give me a few minutes. The point is, we're making the right side of her face look like the left side, and vice versa. That's not accurate.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ya, I see what you mean, the huge mole moved to her left side ;) --I am not Paranoid (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, the person who gave me this guidance is one of the most respected editors on Wikipedia. I'll have more for you in a few.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel uncomfortable with this practice too. There are little differences on each side of anyones face, making a flipped picture look slightly off. Pissed off starfish (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent)See MOS:IMAGES: "Images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines; doing so misinforms the reader for the sake of our layout preferences. If an image is ever reversed or otherwise substantially altered, there should be a clear advantage to the reader in doing so (for example, cropping a work of art to focus on a detail that is the subject of commentary), and the alteration must be noted in the caption."

Special thanks to Maralia for this info.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Governance Section

The Governance section should give a brief overview of what being Governor of Alaska entails. There's a lot of discussion about the size of the Alaska state workforce and budget, and this information is not as easy to confirm as one might think (it appears to be 24,500 employees and $11.5 billion budget).DarrylEKk (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that of the four people presuming to take office, she is the only one with governing experience. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Her being the only one in the race with executive experience has been strongly noted by the media, It would be okay to mention it if you can find credible sources (the more the better since a major candidate article is under lots of scrutiny) Sleeping frog (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Clean up needed

The footnotes (starting at #81) are in dire need of a clean up. Would someone who has editing rights take care of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.154.145 (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It was caused by a wiki error that I just fixed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Religion discussion (consolidated)

Palin a Pentacostal? Not according to Palin.

Palin's wikipedia author, no doubt in an attempt to pacify the typical GOP, has taken liberties in describing her religion, as seen in her bio. The author dubs her a Christian Pentacostal. Palin says she attends a non-denominational bible church. Which is it??? (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1837536-3,00.html)

Crob67 (talk) 07:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Where's the contradiction? Pentecostalism isn't a denomination. —KCinDC (talk) 07:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The rest of the interview makes it pretty clear though that she doesn't identify as Pentecostal. This source http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/08/is-sarah-palin-the-first-pente.html also shows that different sources are reporting different things. I've removed the "Pentacostal" bit for now. Hopefully as the news media gets a bit of time to do some research, the details of her religious affiliation can be firmed up. Calliopejen1 (talk) 08:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What part of the interview? The word "Pentecostal" doesn't appear in it. —KCinDC (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I read somewhere she's an Evangelical Protestant. Maybe someone wants to research this more.

EDIT: Here it is: "John McCain's vice-presidential pick, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, is an evangelical Protestant..." http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2008/08/sarah_palin_on.html 69.122.100.82 (talk) 09:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There was a section above this about this issue this area should be merged with...and, again, who cares? Religious affiliation is not under consideration for public office, or have you all forgotten.? See our Constitution for more information, you know, that "piece of paper" our fighting men and women are dying for overseas? --72.185.241.40 (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If constitutional qualifications are the only things that can be included in the article, it'll be pretty short, consisting of only age and birthplace/citizenship. In any case, some people take candidates' religious beliefs into account when voting, and there is of course nothing in the Constitution preventing them from doing that. —KCinDC (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal says she's Lutheran. --Coemgenus 20:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Is she Pentecostal?

The main article does not include any mention of her being Pentecostal, but the "summary section" on the right does. If she is, this should be included in the main article. rich (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Who cares? It's not a condition for public office. See our Constitution for more information. --72.185.241.40 (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether it is a condition for public office has nothing to do with the Wikipedia article. All facts on Wikipedia need to be verifiable or removed. CopaceticThought (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is the information that supports Palin's affiliation to the AoG? Without a source, isn't the alleged connection sloppy at best? I'm also not quite sure using blogs as a source is a good idea, as blogs are usually a collection of thoughts on a subject, as opposed to actual reporting from a trained and less biased source. 99.168.79.111 (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Religious Affiliation of Mrs.Palin

Anyone with citable info on this? I'd sure like to see some in the article. Thanks! --98.243.129.181 (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussed above--Coemgenus 21:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

THanks! --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/08/more-about-sarah-palins-religi.html According to that she attends "Church on the Rock" --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC) http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2008/08/is_palin_an_eva.html According to this.. she says she was baptised a catholic but now claims to be non-denominational Christian. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Today she sometimes worships at ‘the Juneau Christian Center, which is also part of the Pentecostal Assemblies of God.’ Her home church, however, is ‘The Church on the Rock, an independent congregation.’" http://poligazette.com/2008/08/30/palin-reassures-evangelicals/ Anyone want to edit some of this in? Thanks! --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

..and then.. "The 44-year-old mother of five, who led her high school chapter of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, was baptized as a teenager at the Wasilla Assembly of God Church, where she and her family were very active, according to her then-pastor, Paul Riley." http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g4-w_DCWffagBaQb8Il9a0R2hkPAD92SL7E00 So she got re-baptised at an AOG church which is Charasmatic but she doesn't affiliate with that denomination now-adays but is non-denominationally Christian.. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Article should specifically note that she has 5 children.

While the names of the children are given, the total count of 5 children is a significant piece of information that should be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.24.5 (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just thinkig that too. More info on family, etc. Anyone? --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It says three sons and two daughters, which I think is enough (3+2=?). It's discussed in the family section at the bottom. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh.. my bad. I didn't see it down there. Why is it sandwiched in between "Politics" and "Electoral.." ? Shouldn't it be elsewhere, like next to early life or something? Just a thought. :) --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Gay friends

Is the note about how she has gay friends really relevant to the section detailing her political positions? I tried to remove it due to it being unencyclopedic, but it was replaced. --NeuronExMachina (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I thinking keeping it shows a more rounded picture of her as a person. Just saying she doesn't believe in gay marriage makes her sound like she dislikes gays, rather than showing that she simply doesn't believe in gay marriage for religious reasons. I think it's fairer to keep it. Sleeping frog (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Her self-stated opinion on gay people should be as important as her opinion of marraige because it's pertinent now-a-days. It's pretty widely reported that that she is against gay-marraige but not against people who are gay.. youknow the whole Christian ideal of loving people even if you don't approve of what they do? :) It's relevant. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, NeuronExMachina, it's not relevant. The section is supposed to be about her Political Positions, not about offering "a more rounded picture of her as a person" or about mitigating any appearances of nastiness or narrow-mindedness that might be provoked by the anti-LGBT politics she supports. Catuskoti (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly.207.237.198.152 (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the way it's currently worded in the article though it sounds rather silly, to make it seem like she's using that as part of the reasoning for her stance. Would we also have a hypothetical article say, "Such-and-such politician has said he has African-American friends, although he opposes such-and-such affirmative action legislation"? The cited link doesn't include the exact quote from Palin, so it's impossible to say how much it factors into her reasoning. --NeuronExMachina (talk)

00:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad someone brought this up so that we can reach consensus. First, the fact that she has claimed to have gay friends has been a part of this article for a long time. I know this because I've been working on this article for months and months. That being said, this particular issue goes all the way back to her 2006 race for Governor, which is when the cited source was written. The facts are clear. When asked how she felt about the constitutional amendment (banning gay marriage), Sarah Palin herself said that she has good friends who are gay, doesn't judge anyone, yet supports the constitutional amendment. She choose to claim this at the same time that she gave her opinion on the issue of the amendment. She herself tied that claim to her opinion. While it's true the cited source does not use exact quotation marks and quotes, it's clear that they are using Sarah Palin's own words. She volunteered this claim, it's sourced, she said it in context to this particular social issue (the constitutional amendment) and it think it should stay.

PanzaM22 (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC) Mike

Because this will be deleted over and over again

A section that I just added and that survived around 30 seconds even though it was referenced and from a source who himself (Alan Wolfe) has a Wikipedia article. It discusses whether or not Palin's western evangelism type would sit well with southern evangelics. From the BELOW, it may appear that the choice of names was one one of the things they might disapprove of - in fact, within the article, Wolfe makes it clear that this was one of the MAJOR things they would get suspicious of. However, for NPOV reasons I toned it down a little. Apparently I should have been MORE direct?

In a blog entry for ''[[The New Republic]]'', [[Alan Wolfe]], a researcher comparing southern [[evangelicals]] with western evangelicals (like Palin), noted that adherents of the southern type of evangelicalism might be suspicious of Palin's religious credentials, amongst other reasons because of her choice to give two of her children names generally connected to [[witch]]es.<ref name="What The Palin Pick Means">{{cite news | last = Wolfe | first = Alan | url = http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/08/29/what-the-palin-pick-means-for-evangelicals.aspx | title = What The Palin Pick Means For Evangelicals | work = [[The New Republic]] | date = 2008-08-29 | accessdate = 2008-08-30 }}</ref>

Anyone have objections to his passage? And why? Lets clear it up. rootology (C)(T) 22:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The "witch" thing apparently originates with a joke by Andrew Sullivan about Willow and Piper being witch characters on TV series. Apparently Alan Wolfe took it a little too seriously. I don't see how any reference to it belongs in the article. —KCinDC (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The claim that a girl born no latter than 1994 was named after a character from Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series), a TV series that debuted in 1997, is just not credible. --Allen3 ^talk 23:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is relevant. There will always be diffences between charasmtic non-denminational evangelicals and southern baptist evangelicals. They all agree on abortion and gay marraige though. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Also.. this is blog. Hardly reliable. Some persons seem to be on a controversy witch hunt... it's kinda nice to have a candidate with so little controversy that you have to start making junk up. :) --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Although I don't really support any candidate I lean democratic (just to be clear), this witchhunting for dirty facts is getting stupid. I intend to enforce BLP on this article and I invite others to, as well. This is "serious business" as ED like to call it. --mboverload@ 23:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not relevant and engages in speculation. It is also sourced from a blog. That's three strikes and its out. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant...if you want to do this start talking about black liberation theology on Obama's article....yup I thought so.

Three Revert Rule Broken

User:Fee Fi Foe Fum has just broken the three revert rule by removing a picture three times. Two seperate user have tried to add the picture back, and I also believe it should stay. Sleeping frog (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen any logical argument for the repeated removal of the photo. I even cropped it to eliminate the offensive military people... Kelly ^hi! 23:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The military photos were definitely getting out of hand earlier, but I don't understand the problem with having a single photo from her trip to Kuwait. If it were more than one, then I would say it was disproportionate. —KCinDC (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Look at the picture's description. She visited her own Alaska national guard troops to learn about their mission. How anyone has a problem with that I have no idea. Hobartimus (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Since she's visiting her own troops I don't feel we should have to crop them out to make the picture less military like. Uncropped would probably show the context of the picture better. Sleeping frog (talk)

I vote uncroppd to maintain context.--98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Constitutional scholars "stunned"

I'm removing the comment about constitutional scholars being "stunned" by her selection, sourced to this Politico article. The scholar who stated that, Joel Goldstein, is an Obama supporter and has contributed to his campaign.[33] Kelly ^hi! 23:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with removal. Also she has more actual experience in an executive position a decision making type position than her rivals. If talking about experience at all this must be noted. Hobartimus (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Truth be told, under the Constitution both Obama and Palin are qualified for the Presidency, in addition to McCain & Biden. GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Both McCain and Obama have been running national presidential campaigns involving many thousands of volunteers and hundreds of millions of dollars for longer than she's been governor. I think they've been making plenty of decisions, even if you somehow think people don't make decisions in legislatures. Singling out executive experience as the most important qualification is POV (besides the fact that it implies McCain himself isn't qualified). —KCinDC (talk) 23:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't seriously suggest that running a campaign courting donors ,thinking about ads is somehow good training for the presidency itself? McCain was also a high ranking military commander but you are right that he has the same type of legistlative background as a politican. I never implied that being a senator is not enough qualification just that governorship (which let's admit it is a bit more similar to the presidency than voting on laws) should not be discounted at all. Hobartimus (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL was just about to post about that quote, good catch Kelly. Politico articles mix opinion pieces with straight political reporting, so it's important to verify that a given article is journalism and not opinion pieces. Like I said, agree totally with cutting it. Wellspring (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the other "shocked" historian who says she is unqualified, Matthew Dallek, is a former Dick Gephardt speechwriter.[34] Surprise, surprise. Kelly ^hi! 23:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting this article from hawks that want to slant it with biased sources....you will need to be diligent about it because the "NPOV" facade (insert biased controversy in the name of NPOV) will be relentless. a lot of wikipedians want nothing more than to slant this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Those people like Dallek, need to read the Constitution (above). The not qualified stuff in this election, gets flung around too easily. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I just searched the Barack Obama article and it doesn't contain the word experience in any shape or form there is no section or even a sentence dedicated to discussing if Obama is experienced enough or not. So it seems the question is whether to discuss this at all in this article?

Of course you wont find that word in there...and it will never get in there...the guardians of the Obama article are absolutely relentless. But the wiki hawks will try to stuff that word in this article...they will persist without rest to slant this article as much as they can in the name of "NPOV". They will come up with all kinds of logical ploys why this article needs to be stuffed with their 'controversey', but call it for what it is- spin and slant. HEre is a good rule of thumb to be fair and neutral: if in principle Obama's article would forbid such comments that would otherwise equally apply to him, then it has no place here as well. Wiki, as a whole, should not show any bias towards any candidate.

Hobartimus (talk) 23:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - McCain, Palin, Obama & Biden are all qualified. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that anyone isn't constitutionally qualified, but if that's the only criterion then we might as well flip a coin to decide which candidate to vote for, since all natural-born Americans who are over 35 and have lived in the US the last 14 years are equally qualified. "Qualified" has meanings other than "constitutionally qualified". —KCinDC (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, KC is correct about what is meant by qualified in this context. And we should certainly think about including well-sourced, critical commentary by non-partisan sources if there are some. Tvoz/talk 00:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It is irresponsible to decide what we should be saying, especially based on the politics of the commentators. Where are we going to find commentary on Palin which has no alignment at all? and including only Republicans is a recipe for POV, even if we limit ourselves to responsible Republicans. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The real problem is that this article is being presented as a consensus among academics, and that is not true. Criticism and praise are both welcome in a biography, but this is the only source that claims that "scholars are stunned" and it is already being called out for being false. Sleeping frog (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Death Penalty

An earlier version of the article said she opposed the Death Penalty, now it says she supports it, but the ref admits the link is dead. Can somebody find out? Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 01:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin and Abortion in Rape/Incest cases?

"... She opposes the use of abortion even in cases of rape or incest[81]"

The citation provided comes up dead. I've heard from various news outlets that she SUPPORTS abortion in rape/incest cases, and have found no references that this is not the case. I suggest this be deleted or modified.

The only source I see is under the Political positions of Sarah Palin in which she states that she would choose life if she were raped and became pregnant - This is a personal view, and not a political view.