Talk:Sarah Palin

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

__..-- META DISCUSSION: HANDLING THE TALK PAGE --..__

MediaWiki's failings are evident in talk pages that grow to this size. However, we have to find a way to keep this manageable.

I propose that we use the {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} tags to close topics that we are pretty sure are finished and noncontroversial. In addition, we should use the {{resolved|Reason is here --~~~~}} template to signify when topics are resolved. Should this resolved tag be disputed, strike the text out with <s> text to strike </s>. Then put {{unresolved|Reason here --~~~~}} on the next line.

I am going to be attempting some of these on the above topics. Please let me know how you feel about this.--mboverload@ 00:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

!!!!!Demonstration of above tags!!!!!

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

---

Resolved

 – Requested edits and actions made --User:Vetran#409

Unresolved

 – Still not enough cowbell --User:Newbie2390

Resolved

 – Have added the max amount of cowbell this article can take --User:Vetran#409

This article needs more cowbell. Also, mboverload hates America. --User:Newbie2390

Both points taken and applied. --User:Vetran#409

HEY! I SAID it needs more COWBELL!!! THERE IS NOT ENOUGH COWBELL--User:Newbie2390

Fine, I have included more cowbell. This is more than enough so I will be closing this thread since no one will object or because this is a freaking ridiculous request --User:Vetran#409

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

Cowbell or Moose Belle? :) Kelly ^hi! 01:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about this

Agreed, but I think you should show some more good faith in User:Newbie2390's request. Joshdboz (talk) 01:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. It might be nice to collapse them, too, something with that hide/show variable. This talk page is the length of a small novel. However, the moment this is unfrozen I will add cowbell to every last paragraph. Coemgenus 01:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort, but I'm dubious that a significant number of issues could be marked "closed". The current method is that they're effectively marked "closed" just by virtue of being buried by new edits. Software fixes won't affect the underlying problem: We have many editors offering many comments on many issues, where the real-world facts and sources that we must reflect are changing by the hour. (Of course, the problem of too many comments is far preferable to the problem of too few.) We'll just have to grin and bear it until things quiet down a little. JamesMLane t c 01:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

James is right. Tvoz/talk 20:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

__..-- META DISCUSSION: ARCHIVING --..__

Archives

Many threads, 109 to be precise, have been archived by Miszabot due to a 2 hours setting, [1]. I've reset to 12 hours, maybe it should be more. Some threads may still be under discussion and needing to be unarchived. So far, #Dispute_.231:_Alaskan_Independence_Party has been unarchived. Cenarium ^Talk 03:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

12 is the absolute minimum it should be, 18 or 24 hours seems more safe since not every editor comes here multiple times a day.--ThaddeusB (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say 12 is too low. I'd vote for 24, would accept 18.216.106.170.103 (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It is now 24 hours. Cenarium ^Talk 18:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I strenuously object to this overly short archive window.Even 24 hours is not enough - this is way too aggressive. We need a 3 day minimum, which I think was discussed a couple of days ago. With such a short window it is too easy for one side of an issue to game the system with others who don't log into this page as frequently closed out, not even knowing a discussion happened. There's no reason we can't live with a long talk page - and this will all fade away quickly enough. Let's remember this is a biography not a news article, and not the campaign article. Tvoz/talk 20:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the bot only checks the page once per day. If you attempt to set the delay in hours, it will honor that by archiving everything more than that number of hours old when it visits, but it still only visits that one time per day. Given that, I generally think settings less than 24 hours are not very useful. Dragons flight (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Over-agressive archiving

This section: Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_11#Suggested_edit_to_PSC_section was archived last night, even though it was active as of yesterday, and had not been resolved or marked resolved. The one right after it, too, and who knows how many others. Whoever controls that bot should back off. Homunq (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, if you see another section that is unfairly archived, cut and paste it here. Here are the two sections I noticed: Homunq (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

__..-- META DISCUSSION: PROTECTION STATUS--..__

section for discussing protection of article. Kaisershatner (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection Template, again

Did we decide to reduce the protection message? [2]

The first discussion clearly favored a larger message. The second feels like no consensus to me.

Personally, I continue to feel that a larger template is useful (despite being ugly). It identifies an unusual condition on a high profile page, and directs interested parties to comment on the discussion page. It also identifies the underlying policies that got us here (e.g. BLP and protection). I wouldn't put it back myself, but I am a bit disturbed that it would be changed again without a comment, and would like to raise issue for discussion (again). [As an aside, whoever decided to archive all sections older than 2 hours seems to have been rather over-eager.] Dragons flight (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I dropped a note at jossi's page pointing to the recent discussion in which the older discussion is also linked. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Given the traffic we are seeing on this page, I think the reduced profile is beneficiary. -Zeus- 04:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• What does the tag adds? Not needed given the high visibility of the article, and the too obvious lack of consensus for having it protected in the first place. Time would be better spent in researching material for the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Stop being pointy and commit to consensus before making edits, especially when the edit you wish to make has already been discussed. You need an IP user to tell you this? 86.44.27.255 (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

An IP? Seems more like an editor that knows the ropes ...pls stop pretending. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I do indeed know the ropes; i've been editing daily or near daily since january or before, and from time to time for a considerable period going back further. no registered account ever though, so no pretense whatsoever. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 04:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • It is needed especially given the high visibility of the article. Many visitors who are unfamiliar with our policies may be surprised that the page is protected and need help finding this discussion page, where they can contribute to further improving the article. Dragons flight (talk) 04:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with the small tag. Remember that most people come here to read, not edit and most new people couldn't edit anyway even with a semi. The difference between full prot and semi only affects regular editors who are expected to be able to find the talk page. Hobartimus (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • For heaven's sake, small tag. The purpose of the wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia for readers, and not a utopian wikicommunity for its editors. The big ugly tags on mainspace should never be used to extort concessions from fellow editors, and readers come to articles to read about the subject, not to watch wikidramas or the unfolding machinations between its editors. Put readers first.Professor marginalia (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Leave the small tag, as I suggested before. There is no reason for a glaring banner on such a high-traffic page, really. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Full Protection for Two Weeks?

Note: There is a parallel discussion at WP:AE#Sarah Palin. Go there to request to have the article unprotected; doing so here will generally be ignored. seicer | talk | contribs 12:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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

This is absurd. This page is locked from editing for "two weeks." Among other travesties, it is unclear when the two week period started and when it ends. It also keeps the page locked in with incorrect information, poor formatting, incorrect grammar and outdated facts. This is no way to run a site that touts itself as an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" and that should reflect reality. This instead results in the freezing of an incorrect article that will be sourced by individuals and organizations around the world (such is the power of Wikipedia) as "truth." If violations of policy occur, deal with the individual editors that are violating the policy. Whoever has put the page lock in place is throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water. I am very disappointed in this action. --Crunch (talk) 07:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong place to complain about this. Here [3] is the right place to make your feelings known. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposals on the talk page are being discussed, and when consensus is reached, they are posted to the article. This is actually a much better way to run wikipedia than through the flurry of edit warring that was going on. If you think some fact is "incorrect", then bring it here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this an argument against semi-protection too, comrade? :) 86.44.27.255 (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Good the longer it's locked, the more irrelevant it will become. The article shouldn't be viewed as a place to influence voters. I have faith in the American people to vote the way they always do; the way their parents did. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • If you have any specific complaints, bring them here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Er... this sort of thing is absolutely not our concern. What people do or don't do with their vote has no bearing in what we do. And that's speaking as a dirty liberal who's pushed for discussion on including some negative stuff and tried to slam the door as well on some negative stuff. rootology (C)(T) 12:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• My confusion is understandable. This too is symptomatic of the way the controversy surrounding this article has been handled. Why is there not a top banner on the article explaining the lock date, unlock date, and process for discussion? Some of you apparently have been engaged in protect-unprotect wars for several days and assume that all of us are up-to-date on every nuance of the drama. I am really disappointed in the way a few people have handled this situation. It has hurt the integrity of Wikipedia at a time when it is most in the spotlight. As for discussing changes on the Talk page and then bringing them to the article, that's absurd as well. I'm not going to go through the Talk page to discuss every little change in a misplaced comma, spelling error or subject-verb agreement. You all have to understand the wide-ranging reach of Wikipedia articles and trust that, despite the POV tendencies of some, a lot of us just want to get the grammar correct. --Crunch (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Discussing Trivial Edits on Talk Page and Protection Wars

I was editing a post here when it was moved to an Archive page in the middle of my editing, so here's what I was saying: Some of you apparently have been engaged in protect-unprotect wars for several days and assume that all of us are up-to-date on every nuance of the drama. I am really disappointed in the way a few people have handled this situation. It has hurt the integrity of Wikipedia at a time when it is most in the spotlight. As for discussing changes on the Talk page and then bringing them to the article, that's absurd as well. I'm not going to go through the Talk page to discuss every little change in a misplaced comma, spelling error or subject-verb agreement. You all have to understand the wide-ranging reach of Wikipedia articles and trust that, despite the POV tendencies of some, a lot of us just want to get the grammar correct. --Crunch (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the majority of us agree in spirit with what you have to say, Crunch. The problem is that the blatant BLP violations were hurting the integrity of the project itself. This is an encyclopedia not a trashy supermarket tabloid. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a question of how badly he wants to get the grammar corrected vs. how badly he wants to spend energy complaining about it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that the locking down is worse than the POV edits and that the new advice to ask for permission to add a comma (so it seems) is not just insulting and a violation of the spirit of Wikipedia, but discourages good edits (see above). --Crunch (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Given her unknown status, one expected the initial "surge" of fact collection. It's why I first came here. Since, it has turned into a campaign battleground of unsubstantiated claims from both sides (although, from where I sit, more from one side than another), with an occasional plain-old "smear". It's worse than the paparazzi with Britney, probably because pseudo-anonymity affords such without recourse. However, we can make it work. It would be great if people were simply responsible enough to admit whether their intention was solely to bolster or tarnish her credibility and, if so, confine that to a blog somewhere where it belongs. Fcreid (talk) 12:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The Arbitration Enforcement page is open to you to voice your opinion as well. As seicer said earlier, any commentary here is simply ignorable lip flapping. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The frenzy will die down in a few days and then things can get back to something resembling normal. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Kyaa, Can you give us that link again? The one you provided earlier just looped back here. Thank you. --Crunch (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE#Sarah Palin Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Bbat, the page is now locked for two weeks, so waiting "a few days" won't do anything. --Crunch (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Two weeks is not absolute, it's subject to reconsideration. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection update

I proposed going ahead with a respected "by consensus"--that is, all people, admins included going with what we all agree to, no more stupid warring--downgrade to semi tomorrow morning. Weigh in here. If all hell breaks loose again we can always decide to go back to full after. rootology (C)(T) 13:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

To see admins warring like this and meanwhile have a page with errors front and center, if only for another 24 hours, is a big ugly scar on the face of Wikipedia. BTW, if anyone with magic authority into the page can get to it, you might want to fix the grammatical error in the fourth para: "Palin is the second woman to run for vice president on a major-party ticket and the first Republican woman to do so (the first such Democrat was Geraldine Ferraro in 1984)." What this actually says is that Ferraro was the first Democrat to be a Republican woman to run for vice president on a major-party ticket. Such are the dangers of locking down an article. --Crunch (talk) 13:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Way overreaction. What specific issues do you have, besides spelling and grammar? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Would this proposal mean that, on disputed issues, whatever text happens to be in place at the moment of unprotection is given preferred status, changeable only if everyone agrees? or even changeable only based on a broad consensus, which might fall somewhat short of unanimity? Either way, given a preferred status to a particular version undercuts the general protection procedure (which, after all, requires admins to protect the wrong version). JamesMLane t c 13:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We'd be back to the original semi-protection. We'd not have to use the edit protected tag to edit the article. There would not be any preference given to the original document. It would be mostly back to normal editing structure. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Could we not amend the rules just to say that a single <Undo> would make further edit on that point off-limits until consensus is reached in discussion? I don't know how one could measure that arbitration, and I'm not sure how WP actually enforces such things, but my take here is that most folks on both sides have at least been reasonable when presented with facts. Fcreid (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There are several places where even the reasonable people have disagreed, not to mention the POV-pushers on both sides. We need to address the issue of what language appears in this highly visible article while issues are being discussed. The current setup gives a very powerful preferred status to what was in place as of the protection, which is bad, so any change should correct that flaw. JamesMLane t c 13:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What specific issues do you have with the current page? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't canvassed the entire article or tried to monitor all the changes. Off the top of my head, the main one that occurs to me is the deletion of the well-sourced information about Palin's initial false public statements concerning Troopergate. The focus of my comment, though, wasn't on any specific dispute, but on the meta-question of whether the current version gets preferred status. If there's a passage that I think is fine but someone else disagrees with, I could sympathize with the someone else's complaint that my preferred version shouldn't be locked in unless there's a consensus to change it. JamesMLane t c 17:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not over-reacting. Wikipedia is not a plaything for a few admins on an ego trip or editors with too much time on their hands. Some of us actually want to contribute to the "encyclopedia" and are able to do so properly, adhering to the guidelines for WP:BIO. To ask what specific changes we want is a ludicrous question. I don't have all day to list every single change. Let the grown-ups back in, enough of this childishness. --Crunch (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And you are free to propose additions and changes to the article - unless there's a reason you don't want anyone to see them first. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus threshold for editprotect requests?

I think that it is unreasonable to wait for perfect consensus before editing this article. The decision to protect was made to prevent serious violations, not to drastically change the process of editing the article. Any edit that is a good-faith step towards talk page consensus should be implemented provisionally, with further discussion and edit proposals allowed.

Say that the POVs fall on one dimension, 0 is ideal NPOV, and a magnitude greater than 1/C is obvious POV given the developing (increasing) consensus-level C. If C=1 and someone proposes going from -0.8 to +0.4, that should be done; if somebody counterproposes going to -0.6 that should be done; if C grows to 2 then the article should revert to +0.4; then somebody proposes a -0.1 version and that should go in place; and so on.

If that makes no sense, the point is just that you accept edits that are compromises and not by-consensus NPOV. People propose successive compromises until you get consensus. Normal process, but you don't wait until it is all done to change the page, because that sucks. Homunq (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please list disputes that need to be resolved

Could we get a list of those items that are in dispute so we can work to getting the page unprotected? I'll start:

1. Remarkably, overnight, while everyone else was watching the RNC, the article on Sarah Palin has morphed into a puff piece. It completely avoids the treatment of any potentially unflattering issue and ignores well documented facts. Furthermore, all of the discussion of these issues was simply deleted from this page, in one bold stroke and without any explanation. Should this be fixed, or should it simply be left as is, so that any intelligent reader can see how corrupted the editing process has become, and how little credence should be given to this article? Or maybe a new article should be started that documents the facts with the goal of disclosure rather than cover-up? Pulsifer (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

please see FAQ link above. Thanks! Kaisershatner (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasilla Bible Church, Larry Kroon, Wasilla Assembly of God, Ed Kalnins

Wasilla Bible Church, Larry Kroon, and Ed Kalnins links should NOT be sent to the Sarah Palin article. This is grossly unfair for Palin, since it is not established that Palin was present for every controversial remark of Kalnins that is quoted in the the media, and since the church is associated with the controversial David Brickner, and all Palin did was attend a speech of his. Wasilla Bible Church, Larry Kroon, and Ed Kalnins should have their own articles, where information in the media unrelated to Palin can be written and sourced, and links to the Palin article can be put only where they are relevent. Wasilla Assembly of God is up for Delete and redirect here, but it should have its own article by the same reasoning.

(A third Palin pastor is Riley, who is more often quoted in the media, but he only appears in the media talking about Palin, so he does not merit his own article simply by being Palin's pastor.)EricDiesel (talk) 10:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Actual Budget Actions and Voting History

I have been looking up to find the source of claims about her budget actions and voting record.

Most of the claims on the net claim to come for the "wasilla comprehensive annual financial report (year)" and I haven't found the 2003 record, just references to it. The "Politico" document here: http://www.politico.com/enwiki/static/PPM106_palin_doc.html that harshly criticizes Palin's performance is referenced like crazy all over the 'net, and it references FY 2003.

However, the only ones available on the City of Wasillas site are from 2004 to present, for a different Mayor. here: http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=67

Where'd they go? Did they ever exist?

This be fishy. (yet another pun... :P)

Please post verifiable info on her budgets and voting. t1n0

• The City of Wasilla has posted the most frequently requested information (since Palin got the nomination) in the "Documents Central" section of their website. The items are located in the folder City Documents > Recently Requested > Former Mayor Palin. All financial reports from 1994 - 2005 are there:

http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=136 71.210.132.185 (talk) 03:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Palin termed out and left the mayor's job at the end of 2002.--Paul (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Is the Budget section the correct place to mention the sale of Westwind II Jet or Matanuska Maid Dairy Closure?
In an earlier revision the Matanuska Maid Dairy Closure has its own section. --Qmf (talk) 00:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&direction=prev&oldid=235069895

I have just spent 1 1/2 hours typing out the detailed chronology to have the text vaporise.... That my friends, is frustration. t1n0

Well, we shouldn't be doing original research on primary documents anyway. You'll need secondary sources that do the analysis. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What does that mean? As far as I know, we are supposed to be pulling together information from sources we can cite, correct? I was trying to summarrize everything, because it was lenghthy.

Maybe I'm nuts, but I think the fact that she replaced a board that disagreed with her, and replaced it with members that she knew, and would vote the way she wanted, is a major problem. The point they were deciding may not seem so important, but then why did she change the whole board, hold a closed session, wherein they fired the CEO, and reversed the prior decison to her liking? Oh yeah, btw, there's a shitload of funds involved. t1n0

Groomed

{{editprotected}}

At one point the article says that she was "groomed" by the Republican Party for higher public office. ("During her first term, the state Republican party began grooming her for higher office.[19]") The source does not say this. What it says is, "Party officials say Palin was already being groomed for bigger and better things, even as she talked about sewers and road-paving projects." So the source is just quoting the opinion of some unnamed "party officials". I think the whole sentence should be removed. The same thing could be said about any young politician and it is really meaningless. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The source is local and from 2006, though, and can therefore be safey assumed to be a window into that time, uncolored by current concerns. And how is "higher office" really different from "bigger and better things"? The reporter is from a reputable Alaska newspaper, and nobody from Palin's office or the state GOP complained back it 2006. It has meaning, because part of Palin's story is that she bucks the old-boy network; this source says that in the beginning, she was supported by the state party. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to "bigger and better things" being changed to "higher office." I do object to "Party officials say Palin was already being groomed" to "the state Republican party began grooming her." One is just a newsreporter's interpretation of statements by anonymous sources. The other is a statement of fact. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't report truth, it reports what reliable secondary sources say. The source headline is 'Fresh face' launched Palin RISING STAR: Wasilla mayor was groomed from an early political age. I think that if a reporter, his editors, and the headline writer all did that, it must mean something. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the headline too. But the only thing in the article about the subject was the one line. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that Steve Dufour's point is that the article is synthesizing a statement that wasn't directly made in the reference. I think it should be reworded as discussed above, or removed. Pianomikey0 (talk) 03:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think the statement has much value, but I don't object to leaving it in either. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Declined More discussion please; consensus has not been reached. GRBerry 20:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Remove It's just blurb and dubiously rephrased to boot. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • T0mpr1c3, you should read the whole article. Really. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Leave it in The fact is, even if some people might think being "groomed" is bad, in politics it's a major positive event to get noticed and helped by the big players. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • What is the evidence for that though? On the basis of this article, just that one sentence: "Party officials say Palin was already being groomed for bigger and better things, even as she talked about sewers and road-paving projects." I don't think that this vague endorsement from unnamed party officials is notable. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Dispute #1: Alaskan Independence Party

1. The article currently says nothing about Palin's tangential association with the Alaskan Independence Party, but the mainstream news media has analysed the issue. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

We have had lengthy discussions about this material, and while no strong consensus was reached we did seem to be leaning toward not including the (minimal) factual information as not being proven to have any relevance to Palin's career/life.

We don't get to decide; the frenzy of mainstream coverage says it's notable. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually we do get to decide to an extent. We aren't a news source, so what is relevant for their purposes is not necessarily relevant to ours. This page is supposed to be a biography, so things should be relevant to the subject's life for inclusion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't be looking to evaluate topics, but edits. For example, we ought to talk about the weight of someone's treatment of Palin's AIS associations, the edit's verifiability, etc.. If we start trying to evaluate topics, it descends quickly (super fast) into mob rule, utter disregard of argumentation. The Wiki-edit guidelines exist for a reason; we should use them, and allow ourselves to be constrained by them. Catuskoti (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There was no lean toward excluding the info. In fact, it appeared to be 3 to 2 in favor of including it. The only objection to a section on Palin links to the AIP is that they are allegedly not relevant. See discussion above. But the fact that they have gotten so much media and public attention shows they are relevant to many people. Since the items are all factual and well sourced, they should be included. -Pulsifer (author of the AIP links section that was deleted).

There was previously a single sentence in the article about her connection to the AIP. That was sufficient. It's now gone. It could be put back. Anything beyond that is merely an attempt to paint her as a secessionist, which is an absurd idea at this point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I support a single sentence, preferably in the 2008 campaign section, saying that she has not been a member of the AIP, citing to Mother Jones and whatever other sources people think are important. As Bugs said, anything beyond that is merely an attempt to paint her as a secessionist, which is an absurd idea at this point.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to such a sentence. (Nor would I object to its exclusion.) That she was never a member is the one fact that seems well established and possibly relevant. All other points are either debated or irrelevant. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be a single sentence that mentions her attending the convention in 2000, Todd previously being a member and her video tape address for the AIP 2008 convention. zredsox (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There should also at minimum be a mention that her husband Todd, at member of the AIP, was the treasurer of her 1999 mayoral campaign. -Pulsifer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulsifer (talk • contribs) 01:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

One sentence about the AIP convention sounds about right. Coemgenus 01:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is highly irrelevant to the life of Palin as a whole and her BLP and also previous consensus seemed to be to not include it.Hobartimus (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Link to previous consensus? I have been watching this page for days and must have missed it... zredsox (talk) 02:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO, the 2008 convention video is the LEAST relevant of all the facts and "facts" --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The AIM thing has been widely reported by RS. The problem is decideing what exactly to write.Geni 02:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I added proposed text to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin#Palin_links_to_AIP

---

There is no controversy that Palin had links to AIP, including her husband's membership. This is different than claiming she was a member. The links are well documented and certainly relevant. This section should remain available to readers as a well-documented source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulsifer (talk • contribs) 23:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This has already been extensively discussed above. Kelly ^hi! 23:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously not enough as it was removed when it seemed quite clear that the consensus was to have at least a mention of this in the biography. zredsox (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, I have read the complete discussion above. It focuses primarily on her husband Todd's membership in AIP, which was in the end deemed relevant. Similarly, the section I added documents other links to the AIP. None of them were discussed above, and certainly they are all relevant. Your stated reason for deleting the section was that it had been "debunked". This is not the case. All of the items are both true and well sourced. It appears you are trying to hide behind the above discussion to prevent relevant information from being added to the entry. If you have any issue with the truth or relevance of any of the statements, please identify the specific statements. -Pulsifer

Kelly, you keep saying that, but what is being posted is simply *not* contradicted anywhere above. These are WP:V-referenced statements. -- Rei (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Exactly what is the purpose of including all this information on the AIP, as opposed to other organizations, like the Better Business Bureau or the Girl Scouts of America? Kelly ^hi! 23:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Does this straw man even need to be dignified with a response? No, we don't need lot of info about the AIP here. But pretending that the AIP thing isn't a huge scandal is just plain ridiculous. It's real, it's WP:V, it's WP:N, and thus, it can go into Wikipedia. By the book, if those constraints are correct, the only question is *where* it can go (there's no right for WP:N things to go into any particular article; it simply has the right to go into Wikipedia).

And seriously, cut it with the "debunked" stuff. We've all read the previous discussions. Nothing is debunked. If you think something is debunked, cite a source. -- Rei (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly many people think it is relevant because it is all over the news. When links to those other organizations also become news items, they can also be added, but that is not the issue. -Pulsifer

• Some mention MUST be made of the AIP material, it is all over the news. Censoring it on Wikipedia is pointless now. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • ZOMG censorship...please see the extensive discussions we've already have. It's a guilt-by-association attempt that has already been debunked. Kelly ^hi! 23:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Kelly: first you said "debunked", now you are saying "guilt by association". Regardless, there is no guilt by association. It is simply information. There's no claim that she is guilty of anything. -Pulsifer

(undent)It's true that Palin had well-documented links to the AIP. However, those well-documented links are so tenuous as to not be notable here in this article, except maybe a brief mention in the campaign section that her membership was debunked by Mother Jones. I feel like the tenuous links to AIP are being used not to give a neutral description of the subject, but rather to pulverize the subject.

By the way, Pulsifer, are you any relation to this guy? Ferrylodge (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If you believe the links are tenuous, that is all the more reason they should be included in the article. This allows readers to judge for themselves whether the AIP association is substantial or not, and if they decide they are tenuous, it would prove the point that there should be no controversy. -Pulsifer

There is *no* tenousness here. Her husband *was* a member for seven years. She *did* go to at least one convention, possibly two. She *did* record a message telling them to "keep up the good work" this year. The McCain campaign spokesman *did* sidestep a question as to whether she wants a vote on secession. These aren't up for debate; they're confirmed. And they are huge issues, as made clear by the explosion of controversy. -- Rei (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And her husband, a member of AIP, was the treasurer of her mayoral campaign. -Pulsifer

Palin also has tenuous links to the Democratic Party. Shall we create a section about that too? Her mother-in-law is a Democrat, so obviously Sarah Palin's Republican schtick is a complete charade, right?[4]Ferrylodge (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, the is a straw man. When Palin's links to these other organizations become so important to people that they are mentioned in the news, then we can add them. -Pulsifer

This comes up quite often, someone could add something to the FAQ about it. Hobartimus (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a straw man at all. Much ink has been spilled about Palin's willingness to cross the aisle and work with Democrats, and to encourage bipartisanship in her administartion. Smells like a Democrat to me, and I think we need a new section about her ties to the Democratic Party.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

So let's get the facts. One, a party official said she was a once a member, but had to recant when proven wrong. Two, she may have attended one or two party conventions. Three, she sent a welcome video to their convention. Four, her husband appears to have been a member in the past, later re-registered as Independent. So form these 4 facts, you think a 4000 character section, attempting to tie every possible thing she has said in the last 10 years into AIP somehow is justified. Apparently, this isn't original research in any way and is based on the length is the single most important part of her entire career, regardless that it had never even come up before 2-3 days ago? Is that an accurate summary of your position? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is irrelevant to your conclusions, but for the record the various assertions have included her being present at up to three conventions: 1994, 2000, and 2006. Dragons flight (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The only argument that has been made is that these items are allegedly not relevant. But if half of the population feels they are relevant, and half of the population feels they are not, then the material should be included so that readers can decide for themselves. Unless someone can come up with an argument other than relevance, I am going to add the material back in. -Pulsifer

Good luck with that. Coemgenus 00:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Palin has "links" to the Alaska Independent Party. The only relevancy in trying to include this is to suggest through guilt by association that Palin is an extremist who favors succession of Alaska from the Union. This argument started when officials of the AIP claimed Governor Palin had once been a member of the party. These claims have since been withdrawn, and Sarah Palin's voter registration records showing that she has been registered as a Republican since 1982 have appeared. So editors wanting to include this material have fallen back on circumstantial facts. 1) In her capacity as Governor she sent a video to the 2008 convention where she refers to "your party" in the first sentence, 2) in her capacity as Mayor she attended the 2000 convention, and 3) her husband declared AIP preference for several years in his voter registration. Using WP:SYNTH editors claim that these three facts prove that Governor Palin has ties to the AIP. They do no such thing. This is not material that is relevant to the biography of Sarah Palin. It is an attempt to imply guilt by association when there is no association. Inclusion of this material violates WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH.--Paul (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

This is what I propose adding. It accurately describes the controversy which has received much attention in the press; it correctly describes that Palin has never been a member of AKIP, but does accurately describe her association with AKIP and is properly sourced and written from a neutral point of view. It violates none of the rules that Paul has cited. Its seems some people at intent on censoring facts, but that is a violation of wikipedia rules. -Pulsifer

---

The Alaskan Independence Party (AKIP) is an Alaskan political party that calls for a vote on the secession of Alaska from the United States. The motto of the AKIP is "Alaska First - Alaska Always".

On September 1, ABC News reported that Sarah Palin had been a member of AKIP. The sources for this story later retracted these claims, and the Alaskan Division of Elections confirmed that Palin has always been registered Republican.

Palin's husband Todd however was a registered member of AKIP from 1995 to 2002, and served as the Treasurer of Palin's 1999 mayoral campaign. The McCain campaign admits Palin attended the 2000 AKIP convention, and as governor, Palin sent a video address to the 2008 AKIP convention. In addition, two AKIP members recall seeing Palin at the 1994 AKIP convention, although Palin denies attending.

• I disagree with this proposed edit as 1st) Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and 2nd) it is a classic case of "when did you stop beating your wife?" Let's start with Wikipedia is not a newspaper.

  On September 1, ABC News reported that Sarah Palin had been a member of AKIP. The sources for this story later retracted these claims, and the Alaskan Division of Elections confirmed that Palin has always been registered Republican.

  This paragraph contains anti-matter (the incorrect news report) and matter (finally finding the truth which is that the report was false). When you add them together they create a big bang but leave nothing behind. In the discussion of the National Enquirer rumor (below) the consensus is to wait to see if the rumor is true or not. If true, it will be added, if not it will be ignored. That is what should have happened here, but the ABC claim was inserted as soon as it came out, and the truth only came out a day or two later. It should never have been in the article when it was little more than a politically-charged hit, and now that we know it is false, it is not appropriate to add it.

Second there's "when did you stop beating your wife?"

Palin's husband Todd however was a registered member of AKIP from 1995 to 2002, and served as the Treasurer of Palin's 1999 mayoral campaign. and as governor, Palin sent a video address to the 2008 AKIP convention. In addition, two AKIP members recall seeing Palin at the 1994 AKIP convention, although Palin denies attending.

Palin's husband is not Palin, and what is the purpose of sneaking in the fact that he was her campaign finance manager in 1999 other than to insinuate that because a family member with AKIP ties was active in her campaign, she must "have ties to AKIP"? This is clearly POV-pushing and it is also clear WP:SYNTH. Next is mentioning that two AKIP members recall seeing her at the convention 18 years ago. She denies it. I don't know, maybe she was there to get some grocery money from Todd, or to go out to dinner with him. It certainly doesn't prove any "ties to AKIP" and is either trival or POV-pushing. As I said "when did you stop beating your wife?"

And because of the reasons above, the following isn't needed at all.

The Alaskan Independence Party (AKIP) is an Alaskan political party that calls for a vote on the secession of Alaska from the United States. The motto of the AKIP is "Alaska First - Alaska Always".

I strongly object to this proposed edit for all the reasons above and because it gives undue weight by virtue of its length. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Object as well. Serious undue weight for this "incident". Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. Then I propose deleted the 2nd para and the sentence about 1994, leaving the following. This simply states the facts and let's the reader decide the importance. -Pulsifer

---

Proposal: The Alaskan Independence Party (AKIP) is an Alaskan political party that calls for a vote on the secession of Alaska from the United States. Its motto is "Alaska First - Alaska Always". Palin's husband Todd was a registered member of AKIP from 1995 to 2002, and served as the Treasurer of Palin's 1999 mayoral campaign. Sarah Palin herself has always been registered Republican. She attended the 2000 AKIP convention, and as governor, sent a video address to the 2008 AKIP convention.

I disagree with this insertion. First off, it cites an abcnews blog, and youtube. It is also compiling a lot of stuff together that if it were true, should be available as being convered in a single very reliable source. Based on the fact that you need so many sources of questionale reliablility to make the point appears to be a case of WP:SYNTH. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)SYNTH

The multiple sources were included because otherwise you would be arguing that the information was not sufficiently sourced. Most of the sources contain the entire story. This is the first time I have heard an attempt to exclude information because it had too many references. The facts stated are NOT IN DISPUTE, by anyone, and therefore the alleged "questionable reliability" of the sources is a red-herring. The material also does not state any conclusion, it simply lists facts, and therefore WP:SYNTH does not apply. The YouTube video is the actual video Palin sent to the 2008 AKIP convention. It is also mentioned in the other sources. There is no way it can possibly be deemed to be unreliable, and therefore the caution about self-published sources that generally applies to YouTube links does not apply to this video. The reference to the YouTube video of Palin's address is also appropriate as link the reader can follow if they are interested in the content of the video. -Pulsifer

I think this is probably a bit too much weight, not to mention that it is clearly trying to POV push the AIP views onto Palin. I think the more relevant fact is her husband's participation, which if you can imagine hypothetical analogies (if Michelle Obama was Green party), is more than just trivial. I propose the following insertion in the family section right after "...commercial fishing business."

Proposal:

He was also a registered member of Alaskan Independence Party (AKIP) from 1995 to 2002; while Palin has always been a registered Republican, she attended the 2000 AKIP convention, and as governor, sent a video address to the 2008 AKIP convention.

I don't have all the refs from above so they'd have to be chosen. This retains the essential facts, which are more than notable through all the media coverage, but doesn't impose or imply any viewpoints of Palin's. (Update: I suggest using this NYT article as the source of the sentence, as all relevant info is included) Joshdboz (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

While it is better being wittled down into a smaller (single sentence), it also shows how little subtance is involved with such assertions. The article is about her, not her husband (or daughters). Overall, I do not see the significance of it? As a governor I am sure she did lots of stuff with the state of alaska, should we include a blurb for every speech or video she sent to any organization (outside of her party)? I think this is a sever stretch to be included for inclusion. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

 Declined It is clear that at the present time there is no consensus supporting any version of the edit proposed here. If such a consensus forms in the future, and is clearly stable, then it will be time to use the {{edit protected}} template. GRBerry 20:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If you read this entire section you will find many editors who have stated that some mention should/could be included, though nothing was resolved. I have thus removed your "declined" tag until further discussion. As for your comments Chris, it may be a minor detail in her political life, but the amount of media coverage it has received is anything but minor. Now, one could rightly say that we shouldn't allow the media to run our agenda here; on the other hand, we rely on them to determine notability, and these facts, which have been the soul subjects of articles in many top newspapers, are much more notable than other details of her life. Joshdboz (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have restored my own comment to the state I left it in. I declined to implement the edit protected request. The text makes it clear that such declining was a decision as of that time and if there is consensus in the future you would be free to make the request again. GRBerry 13:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There was no edit protect request. There was a proposal looking for comment. Joshdboz (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There was indeed an edit protected request. I converted it from {{edit protected}} to {{tl|edit protected}} (the latter of which displays as the former, the former of which displays as one of those beige-orange boxes) at the time I declined it. It is between Paul.h's comment of 12:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC) and Pulsifer's undated comment immediately below that. Properly used, that template is to request an admin to make the edit immediately - which is why the template says "please discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template." [emphasis in original] GRBerry 14:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As it is is now noted without dispute that Sarah Palin attended the AIP meeting in 2006 and created a video this does deserve mention. If other sources of involvment are identified they should be reviewed on a case by case bases. Proposal from the AIP Website "Sarah Palin's husband Todd Palin was a member of the Alaskin Independant party. Sarah appeared at the AIP Convention in 2006. Sarah sent a welcoming DVD to the membership at the 2008 AIP statewide convention." http://www.akip.org/090308.html Sitedown (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin was campaigning for governor in 2006 and visited the convention as part of the campaign, and as had been said many times, sent the video to the 2008 convention in her role as governor (and no doubt vote prospector). I would like to know what the rationale for including this material in this article. Please note: "There are verifiable sources for these facts" is not the answer I am looking for. I am curious as to how editors think this adds to the narrative of Sarah Palin's biography. What does it show about her? If you had to write a sentence after your suggested insert of this info that drew a conclusion, what would you write? Thanks!--Paul (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Paul, The large number of requests to include or not include this information that has been verified as fact demonstrates there is a level of importance associated with it. As the general public believe this is an important part of her history we have no choice but to include the verified fact in her biography. The only alternative would of course be to make a conscious decision and censor information that the public believes is important and I am not sure anyone believes censorship is the responsabilaty of wikipedia. Sitedown (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Censorship? No one is advocating censorship here. Certainly you aren't accusing anyone of censorship, are you? You may think that there is a wikipedia policy proscribing censorship, but there isn't. However, there are policies on verifiability, reliable sources, maintaining a neutral point of view, proscribing synthesizing opinions out of unrelated facts, and being especially careful and sensitive about accuracy and not making conjectural interpretations or implications when editing biographies of living persions. Wikipedia is not a free-for-all. Just because something is verifiable does not mean it has a free pass into an article.

The proposals to include AKIP info in the article have never achieved consensus because they aren't NPOV. First some editors tried to establish that Palin was a former member of the AKIP. Later proposals put together a bunch of unrelated facts in an attempt to establish that Palin "has ties to AKIP." Simply put, the sources provided do not back that up. I'm perfectly willing to put something in the article but it needs to be factual with a neutral point of view, which none of the prior proposals have been.

The only "fact" that is indisputable is that Palin was reported as having been a member of AKIP, but that isn't true. Beyond that we get into NPOV and the relevancy of the "facts" to this biography.--Paul (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"I'm perfectly willing to put something in the article but it needs to be factual with a neutral point of view Paul.h" Thanks Paul Thats great. I will place a request to craft the appropriate entry and ask for submision based on the facts available. Sitedown (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

---

AKIP Inclusion request

Please assist in creating a single sentence with the appropriate minimal and verifiable facts from reliable sources of Sarah Palin direct interactions with the AKIP.

{{editprotected}} As there has been no objections raised I would suggest the following for submision. Sitedown (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Sarah attended the Alaskan Independence Party convention in 2006 and sent a welcome movie to the attendees of the 2008 AKIP statewide convention.[5] Sitedown (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

N Edit declined. There is currently no consensus for the suggested edit. Please use {{editprotect}} only after a consensus for a change in the article has been achieved (see CAT:PER). The edit request is otherwise not actionable. Also, we don't refer to the subjects of our articles by their first name.  Sandstein  05:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

---

The fact that there is so much controversy both for an against the exclusion or inclusion of this information then it is obviously important. I believe if there is documented evidence of Sarah Palin attending multiple events for the AIP this should be noted as this I believe is simply a documented biography of noteworthy facts. {99.228.151.16 (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)}

Just as a BTW, there is a claim near the beginning of this topic claiming that it is significant because of the frenzy of media attention it is receiving. A query on Google Trends returns the following: Google Trends: Palin "alaska independence party" - do not have enough search volume to show graphs.--Paul (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Try a Google News search for "Sarah Palin" "Alaskan Independence Party". WP:NPOV says "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves," and I don't see how anyone can claim that it is not a fact that the Palins' links with the Alaskan Independence Party have been the subject of extensive media coverage worldwide, and that it is a campaign issue that deserves mention. --Stormie (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The only "fact" about this "campaign issue" is that Palin does not have any ties to the AKIP even though it has been falsely reported that she did. Since there's nothing about this in the article at the moment, and in the interest of closing this dispute, I propose using an update version of Ferrylodge's sentence as follows:

Members of the of the Alaskan Independence Party suggested that Palin was a member at some point, but have since retracted that claim.

This mentions Palin and AKIP and uses as a source for the correction, the same ABC source that was used for the original incorrect charge.--Paul (talk) 06:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Undue Weight on "God" quotes

"In June 2008, Palin spoke at her former church. On the topic of Iraq, she asked that people pray for the soldiers and that "there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan." In regards to a proposed natural-gas pipeline she said, "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built."[136]"

This does not belong in the Personal section. The intent is clearly POV, i.e to paint her as a religious zealot (which she may or may not be), but the simple inclusion of using "God" in such platitudes amounts to no more than someone closing a speech with "And may God bless America" (which every candidate obviously does). Moreover, I suspect the other candidates do not have similar selected quotations in their personal bio where they used "God" in context or platitudes. The narrative that precedes this clearly states what Palin herself believes with regard to the Bible, and these selected quotes contribute nothing more substantive. They may belong elsewhere, but not in this section. Fcreid (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this hasn't gotten nearly the coverage to merit all that quoting, and the paragraph immediately above does a good job of summarizing her religious history. I'd say either whittle it down or strike it out. Joshdboz (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Other editors want this sort of thing expanded. (Not me.) And she did say those things, right? They are reported on by secondary sources, not lifted by a Wikipedia editor from the church circular. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I vote to strike the quote as undue weight. (You should've seen the original version though, it was much worse.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree. It seems obvious that Palin's faith is influencing her personal and political life, with everything from a child's education to the rights of women. Referring to building a gas line as "God's will" is completely bizarre and definitely noteworthy. The same applies to referring to anything related to Iraq as "God's plan" - particularly because you get into questions about which god. These are not the same as "God bless America" speech closings at all. Maybe you are looking at the wrong coverage? Reliable sources for these statements are legion. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I do agree on the undue weight. American politicians invoke God all the time, in nearly every speech. Bill Clinton did it frequently, particularly when discussing military operations with the American people. This is unremarkable. Kelly ^hi! 21:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not an undue weight issue at all. Invoking God is common, but the extent to which faith plays a role in Palin's political views mostly certainly isn't. The two instances described here are unusual and reliably sourced. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not simply an invocation of God, it is a statement that she knows God's will and wants to implement it. Quite a different thing, and noteworthy. Doug Weller (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

How do you know that? She's not saying she knows God's will. Cite, please? And presumably she has given hundreds or thousands or speeches - why only these quotes? Kelly ^hi! 21:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The pipeline quote says it by inference. I think that these quotes should be moved into political positions and merged with other content re: energy and Iraq policy. It is noteworthy to base policy statements in religious terms, particularly outside the area of social policy. These are not quotes about her personal life, and don't belong in this section. They are quotes about her policy views, and belong in that section however. Huadpe (talk) 02:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, the Iraq thing seems less noteworthy than the pipeline thing, but if we take out the Iraq material, then the pipeline material is more prominent. I say we let the woman's words stand. She is who she is. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Why quote only snippets of this particular speech? Kelly ^hi! 21:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason is that secondary sources quoted her. If some IP was getting this stuff out of online videos of her church meetings, it would be a primary source and should go. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of undue wieght of things taken out of context.. look at AL GORE who clearly made crazy statements all the time that were well reported in the news. However keeping the article clean was more important than pointing out little tidbits of wierness for the sake of pushing a POV. It's an isolated comment, out of context, from a church service.. its got undue wieght. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying there's no case to be made, but these quotes don't make it. If there's a case, there should be ample material to put that in a more thorough context (and into another section on political views or something, where it belongs). Fcreid (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I elect that the statements remain. They add relevant texture to the article and are not controversial. zredsox (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say this discussion shows they are obviously controversial. Kelly ^hi! 21:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment I read the pipeline quote as saying it can only happen if it is in God's will. See the full context in the linked source. If so, it is hardly noteworthy. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. You are attempting to define her as a person (and even in the "Personal" bio section) through these quotes, and if that is appropriate these simply don't provide that weight. As an aside, I actually watched her speech last night (and I typically don't follow politics), and I don't recall any invocations that would warrant painting on an extreme. If there's material out there, someone should find it and assemble it. Fcreid (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is some type of synthesis to divine and define her religious beliefs. Only Palin herself can be a reliable source on what she believes, not out-of-context quotes. Kelly ^hi! 21:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the quotes showing her using religious language on specific issues seem to me to be entirely off point. Palin has been forthright about being a strongly believing Christian. We should be quoting her on her religious beliefs, because she has placed those front and center, but not on her using religious language to talk about issues unless those are her key statements on those issues. E.g. if she is talking about abortion in religious terms then it might be relevant to quote that. If she happens to mention God in talking about a pipeline, that is no more relevant than if someone else happened to mention the Constitution or Americanism in a similar context. - Jmabel | Talk 21:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not synthesis; there are 307 Google News hits on the praying for a pipeline material. Much of it is analysis; secondary sources are interested. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well said. If she were quoted saying, "I stand against abortion because I believe that's God's will", it would be noteworthy. These are taken purely out-of-context. Fcreid (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Here is an entire AP article on the subject. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I will point out once again that the amount of news coverage does not determine an item's relevance. If it did, Barrack Obama's article (for example) would look quote different. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Or quite different. In any case, the tone and manner in which a deity is invoked does have relevance. Talk to McCain about that ... &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like the Iraq quotes could be added to Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Iraq. Joshdboz (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I had not seen that. The fact that she believes that Iraq is a holy war is quite significant. zredsox (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that is quite a jump from the actual quote. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Beyond the very selective quoting in this, she was clearly speaking to theology students in execution of her religious "duties". Would you want her to be cursing? It's already well-established and non-controversial that she believes God. Lots of people go to church. Find something that shows she legislated or administered from that perspective. Show where she asked for the pipeline money because she was on a mission from God or something. Otherwise, this is a witchhunt. Fcreid (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Cursing has what to do with claiming to know the will of a deity whose "ways are not our ways"? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

She's undoubtedly a religious person. I don't know how that taints her ability to administer or legislate, and nothing that's been put in front of me provides greater insight. Tie it to specific actions or lose it. Fcreid (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, she told people to go out and do things to bring the pipeline into existence, invoking God. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In a church - I fail to see how that indicates a policy decision in any way. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Bill Clinton invoked God sending soldiers to fight. So did FDR, JFK, Reagan, and every other American leader. Kelly ^hi! 22:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Info from a blog does NOT belong on a BLP. please remove. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The AP is not a blog. There are many non-blog sources, in any case. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources for what? That she mentioned God in a speech? How is that an indication of religious beliefs? Kelly ^hi! 22:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln said "under God" in the Gettysburg Address, and he is thought to have been agnostic or atheistic. It's just P.R. hype. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick canvass

Support inclusion of "God" quotes in religion section

Is it normal discussion to reference "god's will" for a clearly mundane and secular enterprise such as a natural gas pipeline? The fact that she referenced that the pipeline is "god's will" implies that she is extending theological beliefs into clearly secular activities and it is significant that she uses theological arguments to justify actions that are secular.

1. Opposed-- Just giving out of context quotes has very little value. What we need is a notable commentator saying that she is too religious or else that she is a politican who cynically uses other people's religous feelings for her own aims, whatever the point is supposed to be. (Then counter opinions need to be given too.) Steve Dufour (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Strongly Support. - The quotes did occur and the public has a right to know that she is one of the fundamantalist, snake handling, Christian Taliban that are ruining the U.S. These quotes show that she clearly believes she has one on one conversations with an imaginary man in the sky - normal people call that CRAZY. 72.91.113.17 (talk) 12:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that using such colorful language is going to draw much support for your POV. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Snake handling"? That's getting kind of personal. Public officials praying for the safety of our troops is routine. It would only be an issue if she said something contrary to that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Not that it matters considering the consensus below, or that I agree with the above poster's characterization of "Christian Taliban," but the terms "God's plan" and "God's will" are not frivilous terms and do not equal "God Bless America," as another poster suggested, when taken in context of the speaker being at a church, and being the speaker at the church. These are industry terms of church followers alluding to a certain belief system. This is an important point. The executive branch has a not too insignificant amount of weight in deciding law--they appoint Supreme Court Judges. And if elected, Palin and one missed heartbeat would give her control of this important feature. That's only one point, another is establishing sound judgement--decision-making based on fact versus belief-- but I believe that easily falls into conjecture and the media is doing a fine mess of sorting that out. --Stono rebellion (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

1. I'm personally appreciative of the wiki administrator for their balanced approach. But after reading some of the comments, I'm left wondering what the question is in the matter. Are people assessing whether Pallin is a religious fundamentalist/zealot? If that's the question, it's patently obvious if you do even a little bit of research. Even Moveon.org has figured it out. The email they sent out yesterday contained these stories:

http://www.naral.org/elections/election-pr/pr08292008_palin.html
http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/palin-buys-climate-denial_b_122428.html
etc. These articles spell out her character on major issues: anti-abortion, global warming sceptic, evolution denier. These are hallmark topics of the religious right. It's not a controversy, that's their doctrine. There's also the story listed in the email speaking of her tenure as mayor, and trying to get the public library to ban certain books because of language. It was in the email. I don't have it, but I'm sure someone else can qualify. And to the point about Abe Lincoln et al including God Bless in a speech, those arguments aren't even relevant. An address such as God Bless isn't directed at any specific event. The point the one poster made about her decision-making process was right on the money. That's the only point that can be argued. Whether her religious belief could be called fundamentalism is not even a question. --Stono rebellion (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Moveon.org email:

   http://howbourgeois.blogspot.com/2008/09/moveonorg-sarah-palin-letter.html
   

   --Stono rebellion (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion of "God" quotes in religion section

1. Undue weight and apparent synthesis to try to determine religious beliefs. Kelly ^hi! 22:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
2. As I said above, this would fit much better in the relevant section of the article on her policy positions. Joshdboz (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Opposed (if my vote counts... don't know how that works!) This wiki, possibly more than anywhere else, represents a battleground for independent voters. Both sides know a web search for Palin will see this article ahead of all else, so it's imperative that we get it right (NPOV). Those on the left and those on the right have made up their respective minds and are stewing in their respective blogs. These quotes paint her as a religious loony in just two sentences. Now, I've not researched whether she is or she isn't, but these quotes in their original context don't make that argument. If there's fire somewhere outside this smoke, someone should research it and make a compelling case. Fcreid (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Opposed. It is not the image the McCain Camp is currently crafting for Palin (now that the base is strongly in tow) and to echo her religious beliefs (as well sourced and as relevant as they might be) could be off putting to some moderate and independent voters who are currently the focus of the campaign. I think in place of the disputed quotes we should instead have a passage from a PTA meeting (or something inline with that hook) which will play better in the all important battleground states and be directed toward women.zredsox (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   Sarcasm noted. :) Seriously, there's gotta be more than this from her past to raise this specter. Fcreid (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

5. Opposed. The only reason for inclusion is that some editors feel the quotes are more important than the other things she said in all the other public appearances that aren't covered, and the reasons given may or may not be valid but are original research in either case. There may have been a few mentions in new articles, but there have been more articles about other things she said. So again singling these out is undue weight. A.J.A. (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Opposed. It's a small out of context speech at her church. Undue wieght as well. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Opposed. including them gives them undue weight. There is no evidence that these two quotes are more important than any other she has said.--ThaddeusB (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
8. opposed, for reasons cited above Pianomikey0 (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
9. support, It happened, it's well sourced and video of the event is readily available. Palin is clearly a very religious woman so inclusion of this information and quotes is not out of line at all. If asking an audience to pray for a pipeline isn't extending theological beliefs into secular activities, I dont know what is. To remove this information takes out an important facet of the intesection of her religious life and political life.--Rtphokie (talk) 04:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
10. Opposed-- Just giving out of context quotes has very little value. What we need is a notable commentator saying that she is too religious or else that she is a politican who cynically uses other people's religous feelings for her own aims, whatever the point is supposed to be. (Then counter opinions need to be given too.) Steve Dufour (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
11. Opposed - per Steve Dufour immediately above. As one supporter of keeping admitted, the intent of inclusion is to paint Palin as out of the mainstream. There is nothing similar in the Al Gore article, which someone mentioned as a comparison. If she is out of the mainstream, let's quote published commentators making their case, not have an argument by stealth by Wikipedia editors with short out-of-context quotations that are somehow purported to represent her religious beliefs. -Exucmember (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
12. Opposed. It really ought to be in "humor" section. It's God's will that a pipeline get built? That's funny stuff. However, praying for soldiers is not funny, nor is out of mainstream. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
13. Opposed. Undue weight. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
14. Opposed -- Leaving these quotes in will just invite editors to add even more quotes to balance the section. No other Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate's bio has this kind of religious scrutiny. Obama's bio does not even have a "religion" section and we were not allowed to add Obama's quote from Dreams From My Father in which Obama clearly states that he attended a "Muslim School" for 2 years and studied the Koran. Lose these quotes per WP:Undue and WP:NPOV and general fairness to the subject. Freedom Fan (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
15. Opposed. The present article distorts (perhaps unintentionally) what she said. This article says: "On the topic of Iraq, she asked that people pray for the soldiers and that 'there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan.'" But if you look at the source, it doesn't show her asking that that plan is God's plan, but rather shows her asking people to pray that that plan is God's plan.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

{{editprotected}}

I suggest removing the phrase

"In June 2008, Palin spoke at her former church. On the topic of Iraq, she asked that people pray for the soldiers and that "there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan." In regards to a proposed natural-gas pipeline she said, "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built."[136]"

on the basis of the apparent consensus above, Zredsox's sarcasm aside. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of Palin's religious statements because she was not merely describing her faith, but was describing how she, a public administrator, makes decisions. The public has a right to know -- and ought to know -- as much as possible about a given elected public official's decision-making process, and if an official admits to using religious considerations as a primary criteria in her deliberations, then discovering the nature of those religious considerations is in the public's interest. That said, I think the penultimate "God" quote currently in the article represents a distortion of what she actually said. She did not say that the invasion and occupation as planned and implemented was a task from God or God's plan. The relevant section of her speech at Wasilla Assembly of God is available here, three minutes and 35 seconds into the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG1vPYbRB7k

In her words: "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right, also for this country, that our leaders -- our national leaders -- are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for: that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

As you can see, she urged those in the audience to pray that the plan for Iraq the "national leaders" had created and implemented conformed to God's plan. She did not say that "national leaders" had conformed, were conforming, or would conform their plan to God's plan. I think the words she spoke at Wasilla (again, see the Youtube video at 3:35) segment should be used, but used correctly, and used in full, without being partially paraphrased. Medocritus (talk) 08:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So when FDR and Bill Clinton said similar things about sending troops into battle, it meant that religion was the reason for their decision? Please. Kelly ^hi! 08:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, it's quoted from a speech in a church (and, if I recall, to students of theology) and entirely outside of her official roles. Again, we've already clearly established she attends church. While that in itself is a bit foreign to me, I suspect they do use "God" liberally in there, don't they? Fcreid (talk) 10:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Pray for our troups" != calling a war "God's plan" "Pray for our troups" != Pray for our proposed pipeline.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If she said the Iraq War was part of ALLAH's Plan (which is how her phrase translates in Arabic) it would be noteworthy .... why the double standard ??? 72.91.113.17 (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite a red herring (narative) you've reeled in there.--Rtphokie (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If a candidate closed a speech with "May Allah bless America", I assure you that would also be newsworthy, but the current platitude is simply gratuitous as are these selected quotes. Not to be preachy (pun intended) and repetitive, but there's got to be something more substantive in her history than these selected quotes that paint her as a zealot. Fcreid (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Allah" as used in English specifically refers to the Arabic word for God, and which Christians regard as "not the same God" as the Christian God - because true Christians believe that Islam is a fraud. So while it's semantically, arguably the same, it's not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream Christians do consider Islam and Christianity (and Judaism of course) as worshiping the same God. It has been pointed out that all through the Middle Ages when Muslims and Christians were warring across the Middle East and southern Europe no Christian ever made this argument. Redddogg (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I believe that a consensus is present here, yet this edit is more than trivial, so I'd like to give it a few more hours to see if there is any significant opposition based on sound reasoning and Wikipedia's practices. GRBerry 14:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

N Edit declined at this stage. Please only use {{editprotected}} after a consensus has been achieved.  Sandstein  16:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If 14-3 isn't enough consensus, how will we every get ANYTHING approved?

It is not just - or even primarily - the numbers. Strength of arguments matter also. There are also issues of whether enough time has passed that all views have had a chance to be heard (my reason for skipping this one earlier) and how urgent and trvial the item is. Correcting a clear infraction of the WP:BLP policy is urgent. Tweaking the fine details of content are not urgent. Correcting the punctuation to be correct is trivial. Altering the POV balance of the article is normally non-trivial. Keep discussing this issue, consensus may become clearer. GRBerry 18:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how 3 people saying that the quotes should stay because they prove she is a religious zealot is an argument of equal weight to 14 people who say the quotes seem normal enough for a church environment, and that if she is a religious zealot there should be better evidence of it then some quotes from a speech made at a church. I think the real problem isn't lack of consensus, but rather admins being paralyzed into inaction for fear of losing their admin privileges. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought that for BLP's we were supposed to err on the side of not using POV to make a person look like a jackass. You know, the whole add only with concensus, and delete immediately if it's controversial bit. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I brought these quotes up earlier (somewhere in the archives, but I can't find them). I support removing them on grounds that they're really material for news, not for an encyclopedia. The WEIGHT issues are really a consequence of the space the content takes up, relative to the significance of the event (specifically, particular quotes taken from much longer discourses, thus raising the issue of context, etc.). Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I humbly request that administrators, instead of waiting for an impossible perfect consensus, try to keep the actual page in line with the developing consensus. In other words, if there's a 14-3 agreement, do the editprotect, with a note that your resolution is not final and further editprotect requests are welcome. I know it seems like more work for you guys, but I doubt it really is; and it is undoubtedly unhealthy to keep the article frozen on an arbitrary version. Homunq (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I second (as the one who originally started this topic). The statements as they stand are clear POV, and the undue weight is not supported by the referenced documentation. It's embarrassing for a biographical article. While there is presently no consensus, they should be removed in their entirety immediately based on the existing majority of objections until those in the minority can present a more compelling case to paint Palin as a religious zealot in the manner done here. Fcreid (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed per the above consensus. Woody (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Funny that it took someone named "Woody" to have the "balls" to make the edit. Thank you. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Beluga POV Plagiarism

Maybe she didn't like the beluga bill, and maybe something else, and maybe you should just read the source which is quoted directly. 79.74.252.173 (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point I think, repeating Blog opinions on a BLP is against wiki guidelines. Even for an Admin. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You were asked for specific instances of BLP violations. You singled out the sentence on beluga whales. That sentence is accurately referenced to an article in Time magazine. It is not "an opinion on a blog". Can you admit your mistake? 79.74.252.173 (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Allright.. Not only is the sentance "opposes strengthening protections for beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet" POV (she may not oppose thier protection, she apparantly just opposed that particular legal move) but it is also direct plagerism from the editorial piece in TIME (thanks for pointing that out brother). On both accounts, I think it needs to be removed. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sister, it's a direct quote from the source, which is a signed article not an editorial, and the sentence itself is in any case a summary of material in the "Political positions" page which provides a further reference to a State of Alaska document. (Not to be persnickety, but if you like editing can I suggest that you use a dictionary?) 79.74.252.173 (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So.. how is that "direct quote" not plagerism? And how is it that the POV wording doesn't matter? --98.243.129.181 (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I also see your POV point on this statement. If someone further researched, I suspect you'd find she did not oppose protecting beluga whales but rather opposed a bill that included protecting beluga whales (and possibly many other things). It makes it even greater POV not to show why she opposed that, e.g. impact on shipping, project costs or whatever, and thus leads the reader to conclude she just hates beluga whales! That's the insidious POV that you'll find in articles with a dog in that hunt. Fcreid (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, now find a WP:RS to back up what you suspect, and then there can be a basis for a discussion. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I promised myself I wouldn't. It's all the same crap in the end anyway. :) Fcreid (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin Urges Feds to not list as Endangered and the reasons are given within it. Governor Palin said. “Seven years ago, NMFS determined that these whales weren’t endangered, and since then, we’ve actually seen the beginnings of an increase in their population. We are all doing everything we can to help protect these important marine mammals.” And then later, "In addition, state scientists point out that, in 2000, NMFS ruled that listing the Cook Inlet belugas as endangered was not warranted because hunting was the only factor causing their decline, and hunting has since been effectively regulated through cooperative agreements with Alaska Native organizations." Seems like that halted the Alaskan Native from hunting them - you want to include that for context? By the way, that might fall under a foreign policy experience for Palin. Theosis4u (talk) 07:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the document her office put out disputed the scientific basis for listing beluga whales as endangered (as for the polar bears). She also says in the same document that "I am especially concerned that an unnecessary federal listing and designation of critical habitat would do serious long-term damage to the vibrant economy of the Cook Inlet area". So clearly economic considerations played a role in determining her position. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I haven't seen any sources yet in regards to this "scientific basis" she was disputing. And the article is making an illusion of corrupt motives by saying "where oil and gas development has been proposed." without actually proving the corruption. There's more merits to include the fact the State worked out with the Alaskan Native to stop hunting the whales then there is about the oil & gas. Theosis4u (talk) 09:25, 5

September 2008 (UTC)

You can hardly let Palin take credit for policies put in place years before she became governor. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me clue you in then: [6]

"The Cook Inlet beluga whale, Delphinapterus leucas, is a genetically distinct and geographically isolated population whose numbers have plummeted since the 1980s, when National Marine Fisheries Service scientists estimated the Cook Inlet beluga population numbered about 1,300 whales.

The most recent surveys by the agency, now known as NOAA Fisheries Service, show the population is currently estimated at 375 animals, the largest number counted since 2001.

Infrastructure projects - including the proposed Knik Arm Bridge, the Port of Anchorage Expansion, the Chuitna coal strip mine, and the Port MacKenzie expansion - will directly affect some of the whale's most important habitat. Following a 2006 petition from the conservation groups, the agency proposed to list the Cook Inlet beluga as endangered in April 2007. By law the agency was required to finalize the listing rule no later than April 20, 2008.

Instead, on April 22, the agency, bowing to pressure from development interests and the State of Alaska, announced that due to a "substantial disagreement" in the science it would delay the decision by six months.

The federal Marine Mammal Commission has stated that the purported scientific disagreement is "not scientifically credible."

I'll source these quotes to the original documents and post the results here. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 09:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree - if it matters. Your pushing an organizational conflict into a Bio, it doesn't have a place here in my imo. Your source makes accusations, it's not a scientific criticism of the NMFS request. I think all these recent sources are noteworthy for an article on the Beluga whale - not in a politicians bio. Having lived in Alaska before, it wouldn't matter what governor was in office on this issue. They would of supported NMFS request for the extension. Theosis4u (talk) 10:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Another source - NMFS -Final determination regarding petitioned action; 6-month extension. If you read this and the other one above from Palin's office that this is nothing more than a request for more time to investigate the actually population count of the whales before accepting or rejecting the status of the whale as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. It's inaccurate to say, "Palin opposes strengthening protections" at this time in a meaningful way without full context. Theosis4u (talk) 09:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The full context would have to include the fact that the document you source is a self-serving declaration by a representative of the Fishing Industry. The bogus scientific dispute is a fig leaf for commercial interests. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 10:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you just proved my point - this whole topic has no rightful place in Palin's bio at this time. That might change down the road depending on what happens. Theosis4u (talk) 10:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Far from it. It is documented fact that Palin has attempted to block the listing of the Cook's inlet beluga whale as an endangered species. This information rightly belongs under the "Energy and Environment' section in her bio. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Objection "Governor Palin has asked NMFS to work with the state and other scientists to finalize and implement a conservation plan for the Cook Inlet stock of belugas. Adopting this plan will do more good for their long-term survival than an unwarranted listing of them as endangered, she said here. This sentence is pure POV and slanted. Why do you get to determine what is or isn't "strengthening protection"? I could say this about all politicians if I claim that a "strengthening protection" protection plan would involve setting up military units to kill everyone that comes within a 5 mile range of the whales. And again, the inclusion of "where oil and gas development has been proposed" is pure agenda driven. Theosis4u (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Funny how you seem to think that the only statements that are not POV are those coming directly from governor Sarah Palin's mouth. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is my argument at all. Your including a POV as a definitive to motives of Palin. You can either include Palin's and NMFS's point of view and the parties that are "legally" fighting against them or you can dismiss all POV's altogether. I mentioned before, the topic itself is an interesting and it should be fully explored on a article of the whales - but NOT in a political bio of Palin. Theosis4u (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Book Banning

It is noted in the Wikipedia article on Sarah Palin that she "gave up" on banning books at the library. This is not the full truth. Gov. Palin tried to get Librarian Mary Ellen Baker to ban or remove certain books due to "inappropriate language". Ms. Baker was eventually terminated, after refusing to remove 'said' books. She didn't give up, she met opposition that became very public! (Reference: Time Magazine)

Terminated? can you please be more specific, do you mean sacked? And can you give a fuller ref, eg the date this was published in Time Magazine. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Quote from a 9-2-08 Time article, with different person making allegation than the person cited in the article, Ann Kilkenny - “[Former Wasilla mayor John] Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving full support" to the mayor.” http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837918,00.html EricDiesel (talk) 05:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The incident is discussed in the article, but in a more neutral way. Kelly ^hi! 23:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Dude.. Terminated!? Like hit man from the future?? That IS notable. Full Truth Rules! --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah - what a coincidence! :) Kelly ^hi! 23:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sticking with Wikipedia:Verifiability, here are two sources related to this discussion. The Time (magazine) article from above:

• • Mayor Palin: A Rough Record

This article (Sept. 2) offers only a few details of the event. A more detailed article (from Sept. 4) is in the Boston Herald:

• • Palin asked Wasilla librarian about censoring books

The second article does offer more information that could be added to the article to clarify the sequence of events. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What is your proposed rewording? Kelly ^hi! 00:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions. Perhaps it's best to wait and hear from other editors who have read the Boston Herald article first (and any other useful ones) as the source currently being used on the main page does not offer many details. The information below is useful as well - I would suggest however, keeping WP:UNDUE in mind, that this topic only take a few sentences or less (to maintain balance with the rest of the article). On the other hand, since this issue is something that has been referenced in a number of places, the WP should probably offer a bit more detail than it currently does. -Classicfilms (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The article, Wasilla librarian letter of termination is currently separate from Palin's bio, but contains several facts relevant to the discussion:

On Thursday, January 30th, 1997, the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, now Governor Sarah Palin, served the city librarian with a letter informing her she intended to terminate her employment in two weeks. The following day, Palin reversed herself, announcing that the librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, could stay. Palin explained the attempted dismissal by saying that she did not feel she had the librarian's full support, and explained her reversal by saying that Emmons had assured Palin she was behind her.

Emmons, and the Wasilla police chief whom Palin dismissed at the same time, both supported her opponent, the incumbent John Stein, when she ran against him for office the previous year.

But Palin and the librarian also had other disagreements. Soon after Palin was elected mayor, in December 1996, Emmons was quoted by the Wasilla newspaper, The Frontiersman, as saying Palin had asked her multiple times about removing books from the library. Emmons added that she had refused to participate in any kind of censorship.

On at least one occasion, Palin brought up removing books from the library in public. In October 1996, at a meeting of the City Council, Anne Kilkenny, a Wasilla resident, said that Palin asked Emmons: "What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?" According to Kilkenny, Emmons responded: "The books in the Wasilla Library collection were selected on the basis of national selection criteria for libraries of this size, and I would absolutely resist all efforts to ban books." At the time, Palin called her inquiries about book removal "rhetorical."

Emmons resigned in 1999, shortly before Palin was re-elected mayor. Palin is now the vice-presidential nominee of the Republican Party.

ENDIT.

The Anchorage Daily News, published today, cites Emmons herself as saying that Palin approached her several times about removing books from the library. Those two facts, if no others, should be included in any discussion of Palin's interest in censorship.

The references are:

Komarnitsky, S.J. (1997-02-01). ""Wasilla keeps librarian, but police chief is out"", Anchorage Daily News, pp. 1B. Retrieved on 2008-08-31.

White, Rindi (2008-09-04). ""Palin pressured Wasilla librarian, TOWN MAYOR: She wanted to know if books would be pulled"", Anchorage Daily News, pp. 1B. Retrieved on 2008-09-04.

Like.liberation 01:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

By what's presented here, how do we know Palin wasn't simply "testing" her librarian's principles? There doesn't seem to be any verifiable data that she actually requested specific books be removed, and she herself has labeled the incident as rhetorical. Fcreid (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would a person imagine that Palin was testing her librarian's principles? There's no evidence for that in what anybody said or what she stated. If it were the case, then Palin was simply testing her librarian's principles repeatedly, over a period of months, before she even knew she would be mayor.

Palin called her own inquiries rhetorical after they earned her negative media attention -- does that mean she was just joking? The librarian took her seriously. I doubt that Sarah Palin viewed city council meetings, which are on the public record, as times to fool around.

She never named specific books, because the librarian repeatedly refused to cooperate; it would have been pointless. Like.liberation 02:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Apply Occam's Razor here Fcreid, what is more likely? Your invented theory, or that a proven strongly religious person really wanted to ban material that she found offensive? Erik Veland (talk) 02:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It would sure make for a fuller story if there were actual names of specific books. Given the scope of attention this is given, I can't imagine how that never came up between two humans who apparently knew each other pretty well. Really, can you? I also find the librarian's recollection of the incident coinciding with her notification about employment termination to be pretty telling. Think she actually like Palin? Probably not. So, why would we fully accredit her account but completely discredit Palin's? Just food for thought. Yes, Occam's Razor works nicely here. Fcreid (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I humbly propose that we change this sentence:

According to Ann Kilkenny, a Democrat who observed City Council, Palin also brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting, but did not follow through with the idea.

To this:

Soon after Palin was elected mayor, in December 1996, Emmons was quoted by the Wasilla newspaper The Frontiersman as saying Palin had asked her multiple times about removing books from the library, starting before she was elected. According to Ann Kilkenny, a Wasilla resident who sat in on city council meetings, Palin brought up the idea of removing library books at one meeting. Emmons refused repeatedly, and in January 1997, she received notice from Palin, later rescinded.

The sources are in the above Anchorage Daily News articles, one of them published today. Like.liberation 01:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to mention the part about it being rhetorical! Fcreid (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point - it should be put in somewhere. Otherwise, I'd say that this is a good start. We should probably indicate, however, as the Herald article states, that the firing was grouped in with a number of other people and that her notice was received prior to the City Council meetings. In addition, I wonder if the last sentence should read: "in January 1997, she received notice from Palin, which was later rescinded." (I also fixed your formatting a bit for readability). -Classicfilms (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this story is completely out-of-whack in chronology and POV. Personally, I'd write it off to a petty feud if there weren't the actual reported incident of the rhetorical question at the city council meeting. Regardless, it's important to get the chronology correct, because it appears Palin was responding to the city council issue with her "just a rhetorical question" response, and it needs to be clear that occurred after the librarian (and many others) had already been released under the discretionary assignments she enjoyed as mayor. The librarian late recounting that she had been asked directly lacks a whole lot of credibility in my mind, but that's just me. Fcreid (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly today's article in ADN is an important source. I think "three times" is more informative than "multiple times". Also, "Palin had asked... about removing books from the library" leaves open the possibility that Palin was asking for specific books to be removed which is not supported by either source. And the last sentence appears to connect Emmons' refusal with her notice of dismissal, which is also not supported by the sources. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 02:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Problems with the "book banning" issue.

1. John Stein (who later ran against her as mayor) says here that, '"She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them.'. This gives context to her inquiry - it's absence just makes the situation about a crazy mayor wanting to ban books. This references also gives a hint to it was certain books because of "inappropriate language". Problem is, we have no other source that goes beyond this detail.
2. Where's the direct source from this , "In December 1996, Emmons told her hometown newspaper, the Frontiersman, that Palin three times asked her -- starting before she was sworn in -- about possibly removing objectionable books from the library if the need arose. " Other articles mention trying to get a hold of Emmons but she was unreachable.
3. And about Anne Kilkenny, not that she's lying - but I think this gives weight to find another sources before we take her characterizations of the situation. About Sarah Palin: an e-mail from Wasilla By Anne Kilkenny

Theosis4u (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly why I never use people I've pissed off as references in my resume! :) Fcreid (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I move that if we allow any portions of the Kilkenny letter as factual that all portions may be cited as factual, e.g. "According to Ms. Kilkenny, Governor Palin is 'not really pro-life'" and the like. Of course I am being facetious. This source is anything but reliable and rings clearly of an axe grinding from an old adversary. It should be utterly discredited as WP:RS. Fcreid (talk) 03:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. I think practically any candidate, for anything from mayors to national elections, has been criticized as "pro censorship" in some way all the time by previous associates, and duly quoted by mainstream media. It's incredibly irrelevant, RS, and Undue Weight.Pianomikey0 (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I will admit it's a good read. You can tell a lot about a person by talking to his enemies. Fcreid (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed again. Although I shudder to think what some of my former co-workers would say say about me, should I run for office ;) Pianomikey0 (talk) 03:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll be responsible here, considering I share the link of the letter. The link - About Sarah Palin: an e-mail from Wasilla By Anne Kilkenny - does say this, "Editor's note: The writer is a homemaker and education advocate in Wasilla, Alaska. Late last week, Anne Kilkenny penned an e-mail for her friends about vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, whom she personally knows, that has since circulated across comment forums and blogs nationwide. Here is her e-mail in its entirety, posted with her permission." Is that good enough for us to judge it as representative of Anne Kilkenny? Theosis4u (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you advocating for inclusion of its contents as cited reference? If so, I would disagree. It's obviously an extemporaneous and anecdotal account of events without any context for establishing either her credibility or credentials. I believe the legal term is voir dire. If some other RS runs this to ground and provides greater foundation, then we should potentially look to that. Somehow, I find that unlikely. Fcreid (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that the newspaper said they confirmed the email was from her. I hate to find out tomorrow that the "email" turned out to be a hoax. Theosis4u (talk) 04:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Since Palin herself referred to the incident by calling it rhetorical and since it was covered in the press on December 18, 1996 and here [7] it is fair to say that something did happen and that it is notable and worthy of inclusion. The Anchorage Daily News is RS and the issue has been covered by a number of newspapers including the NY Times and others. The WP should include something on the topic. On the other hand, I do agree that it would be a good idea as well to find the original December 18, 1996 Frontiersman article before expanding the sentence. I checked a few online sources and cannot find it. If someone has access to a library which would have a copy of the article in microfiche and wants to do the research, it would be very helpful to this discussion. -Classicfilms (talk) 03:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Concur. The city council statement, while rhetorical (taking Palin at her word), still warrants a mention. It should not include anything unsubstantiated and, frankly, deserves no more than a single line, e.g. "As mayor, Palin was once quoted asking about "removing books from the library" at a city council meeting, later stating it was a rhetorical question." Fcreid (talk) 03:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's a good start - in following Wikipedia:Five pillars and importantly Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, all voices which are documented according to Wikipedia:Verifiability have a place in the article. Thus in addition to Palin arguing that she meant it rhetorically, quotes from the librarian are needed to balance the section. Since the Frontiersman has those quotes, it should be easy to find them (if someone can dig up the article). As for Anne Kilkenny, I'm not certain her email is RS but if she is interviewed by an RS news source and quoted, that would qualify as RS. In other words, a few sentences are worthy of inclusion but they should be well sourced and researched. -Classicfilms (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess in fairness we should also add the other known context, i.e. "As mayor, Palin was once quoted at a city council meeting asking about "removing books from the library" because some voters felt they contained inappropriate language. She later stated it was a rhetorical question." Fcreid (talk) 03:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion and closer to NPOV. Again, however, I'd like to see that 1996 article before making major changes - it will help us to construct an NPOV sentence that is well documented. Thanks for your suggestions. -Classicfilms (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The above seems most appropriate if it's to be included. That's why I include the quote from him - it gave context. Theosis4u (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It also leaves open the possibility that <gasp> she was actually performing her official duties by escalating an issue raised by constituents to the city council instead of unilaterally dismissing it. That lacks the punch of "Palin fires Wasilla librarian for not burning "Darwin's Theory of Evolution", but it could actually be closer to the truth. Fcreid (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That's sorta what I was thinking and thought it would be important to include the references that the inquiry was on behalf of others in regards to specific books about inappropriate language. As a parent, I would hope my mayor would look into something like that -- if I had no children, I would consider it a waste of his time. Theosis4u (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If I read the complaint correctly, there have been no books actually censored, even after the librarian was fired. That indicates the firing really had nothing to do with book-burning, but with personality issues. In short: a "cat fight". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Librarian was never fired. No books were banned. There was a source in this article yesterday that mentioned the librarian had signed some document stating she supported the mayor Palin had ran against. Believe it was the same thing with the police chief. I've been unable to locate it again. Theosis4u (talk) 07:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What? Why does anyone even care? People don't read books from the library, especially not the school's "media centers"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.119.33 (talk) 08:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Besides, what's wrong with banning books anyway? Some of them are stupid. People still think George Orwell's phantasy is believable. People are stupid. Why do we even let them read the internet?

Sarah Palin is a babe. You can't take your eyes off her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.119.33 (talk) 08:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I defy anyone to take their eyes off of Sarah Palin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.119.33 (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think McCain chose her? Rush Limbaugh once said McCain's nomination would destroy the Republican Party. Now he's on the bandwagon. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So, is there consensus to replace this:

"According to Ann Kilkenny, a Democrat who observed City Council, Palin also brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting, but did not follow through with the idea.[18]"

With this:

"As mayor, Palin was once quoted at a city council meeting asking about "removing books from the library" because some voters felt they contained inappropriate language. She later stated it was a rhetorical question."

This presumes consensus that the Kilkenny email is tainted, non-RS. Fcreid (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is not the email (which doesn't exactly fit RS) but the article by the ADN which satisfies Wikipedia:Verifiability. If a change is made, it should only be based upon this article unless other articles are offered. This article does not contain the quote "removing books from the library," thus it cannot be used. Here is what the article states:

"When the matter came up for the second time in October 1996, during a City Council meeting, Anne Kilkenny, a Wasilla housewife who often attends council meetings, was there. Like many Alaskans, Kilkenny calls the governor by her first name. "Sarah said to Mary Ellen, 'What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?" Kilkenny said. "I was shocked. Mary Ellen sat up straight and said something along the line of, 'The books in the Wasilla Library collection were selected on the basis of national selection criteria for libraries of this size, and I would absolutely resist all efforts to ban books.'" Palin didn't mention specific books at that meeting, Kilkenny said. Palin herself, questioned at the time, called her inquiries rhetorical and simply part of a policy discussion with a department head "about understanding and following administration agendas," according to the Frontiersman article." [8]

If the sentence in the main page is changed and a quote used, the quote should reflect what is written above exactly (and in fact can state that the information came from the ADN). -Classicfilms (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, the article didn't mention the fact that this happened "because some voters felt they contained inappropriate language" - this is a paraphrase, which is fine, but I didn't see anything in the article which reflected this idea. If it is used, another RS which states that this is what happened is needed. -Classicfilms (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The closest sentence in the article is "about possibly removing objectionable books from the library if the need arose" - this is what would have to be paraphrased. -Classicfilms (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hard telling what she was up to, without knowing what specific books she had in mind, if any. For example, if they had the nambla official guide to molesting children, she might have wanted that out of there. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what bugs me the most and the only reason I ventured into this topic. However, the quote about "because voters felt they contained inappropriate language" is derived from here http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1837918,00.html which is anything but a glowing interpretation of the event. Fcreid (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No pun intended, Bugs. :) Fcreid (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that helps, thanks. The rewrite can then mix what is offered in the ADN [[9] and TIME [10]. Anything beyond what is in RS, however, would fall under Wikipedia:No original research and is thus beyond the scope of the WP. -Classicfilms (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Not to muddy this water even further but this other quote "St. George worked on Stein's campaign at the time, and while he says he has no reason to dispute Stein's recollection of events, he doesn't remember Palin's conduct being beyond the pale. "Our tax coffers were starting to grow," he says. "John was for expanding services, and Sarah wasn't. That's what the race was about." certainly sheds even further light on this event. Growth, change and reform are hard things to accept, and one's perspective of a specific event more than a decade later might certainly become suspect. I'm glad these folks are not witnesses for a prosecution (at least more than figuratively). Fcreid (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly a fair quote from the Time article if you want to use it. If you can come up with another version of the sentence for the main page which follows Wikipedia:Five pillars, I would be happy to take a look this evening. I have to sign off now. -Classicfilms (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

How about this without getting into all the he-said/she-said an less than credible source quotes? (Sorry for lack of structure.. still learning here.) Fcreid (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"As mayor, Palin was once quoted at a city council meeting asking about "removing books from the library" because some voters felt they contained inappropriate language. Accounts of the incident vary, with Palin later stating it was a rhetorical question." The librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, later stated that Palin asked her three times about removing books from the library, at least once prior to this city council meeting as well as during the meeting. Emmons stated that she refused each time. Prior to this meeting (along with the police chief, public works director, and finance director ), Emmons had received a letter from Palin requesting her resignation. The letter did not refer to the question of censorship as a reason for the request. Palin later retracted this request after Emmons received support from the community. None of the books were banned and Palin later called her inquiries rhetorical.

-Classicfilms (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I should add that if we use this version, we can combine it with the existing paragraph in the main article and tweak both a bit so that material is not repeated twice. I looked at both paragraphs and it seems like a simple matter of a little copy editing that shouldn't create a problem. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I like it, Classicfilms, but I don't think we're quite there yet. In October 1996, Palin asked for Emmons's resignation, along with the resignations of a bunch of other public employees. In January 1997, she sent Emmons a letter telling her her job would be terminated in two weeks. (And of course neither letter referred to Emmons's refusal to remove books.) Let's not confuse the two letters, or their tone. One asked for resignations, the other said you've got two weeks to leave. The weaker letter came before the public confrontation and Emmons's remarks in the newspaper, the stronger one after. Taking your paragraph as a model, I made a couple tweaks that straighten it out, I think, using the same sources.

As mayor, Palin was quoted at a city council meeting as asking the town librarian: "What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?", perhaps because some Wasilla residents felt they contained inappropriate language. The librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, later said Palin had asked her three times about removing books from the library, at least once prior to the meeting. Emmons said she refused each time. Before the October meeting, Emmons received a letter from Palin requesting her resignation; then in January 1997, Palin served Emmons's with a two-week notice, terminating her employment. Neither letter referred to the question of censorship, but only to feeling a lack of support. Palin retracted her letter of termination a day later, after Emmons was backed by the community.

These reflists are acting weird and I don't quite know how to fix them...

ThaddeusB, I'll repeat what I said above. We know from newspapers that Palin and Emmons had one open difference: Emmons refused to consider removing books from the library. The librarian said that Palin inquired about it and was refused before she was sworn in, and therefore before she had the power to ask for employees' resignations. So the censorship inquiry predates the resignation request, and that pattern was repeated again in Dec 1996-Jan 1997: inquiry, refusal, letter. That's the chronology and we should stick to it.

Like.liberation 18:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, Like.liberation - it looks fine. We're still in the draft mode so I expected more tweaks. My only qualm would be "perhaps because some Wasilla residents felt." The Time magazine article quotes Stein as stating that this is the reason she asked so to add the above becomes interpretive. If you don't like my wording, can you rephrase so that it reflects the Time article? I also tried to fix your refs - check and make sure I didn't make it worse. Since I added the reflist tag above, it doesn't need to be added again. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like I ran into the same ref problem - oh well. It should be fine once the final version is pasted into the main article.-Classicfilms (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the letter that speaks of possible termination can't be directly tied to the book issue. Those letters went to employees that Palin thought favored the old mayor, had publicly support the old mayor, or were tied to a position that was going to be removed of the city payrolls. There's also statements that show that their were discussions about this "test of loyalty" and those can't be tied back to the librarian simply because of the book issue. It makes sense to treat both topics as separate events without this collusion. Theosis4u (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Just so the small town politics doesn't get lost to the layman here, these are "discretionary" positions and are absolutely up for grabs to be filled at the discretion of the mayor. There should have had been *every* expectation the new mayor (Palin) would have bounced the incumbents and put in employees who were "loyal" to her agenda, particularly if the incumbent employees vocally supported the losing party. (The police chief learned this in his failed lawsuit.) If Palin wanted to "clean house" of the cronyism to advance a "different direction" agenda for which she was elected, she was totally within her bounds. Emmons should be thankful she ended up with a job. Fcreid (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The Time and ADN articles mentions both but indicates that the ties are ambiguous. I think if we are quoting these sources, we need to include both but state, as the articles do, that there are no direct links. Also I just noticed the "rhetorical" statement was missing. That needs to be there since it is Palin's official response. We are reflecting articles, not interpreting them.-Classicfilms (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Sarah_Palin#Clarity_About_early_.22firings.22_in_Wasilla about details. Theosis4u (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, some public employees hold discretionary positions, but the post of librarian is usually not highly politicized. I doubt that most librarians appointed by mayors would consider themselves "cronies," and if they did, they wouldn't be very useful ones. What's the mayor going to do -- get a deal on wigs? Most mayors don't have an agenda for the library, or put book removal at the top of their list. But Palin did, and Emmons resisted. Emmons had been librarian for seven years in a town of less than 5,000 people. She was president of the entire Alaska Library Association at the time. How many people do you think there were in Wasilla, Alaska, that could compete with those credentials? Do you think that Palin had the best interest of the community in mind when she tried to get rid of Emmons? No. And here's the ADN:

Palin herself, questioned at the time, called her inquiries rhetorical and simply part of a policy discussion with a department head "about understanding and following administration agendas," according to the Frontiersman article.

So Palin said she had a library agenda. That involved, among other things, seeing if the librarian would remove books upon request, books that had been approved under national standards, but which weren't clean enough for Wasilla. In most towns, that's not even an issue, but Palin made it an issue. Her agenda failed to win the support of Emmons, who preferred to resist censorship rather than show her "loyalty." The letters and the censorship issue all took place in those first few months, and should be presented together. We're not saying because, but there is a clear chronology here, and bending over backwards to avoid putting those events in order only muddles them. Along those lines, we will be reflecting articles -- particularly those coming out of Alaska -- not interpreting them, because that's how they related the events.

Classicfilms, I propose this wording in response to your tweaks.

As mayor, Palin was quoted at a city council meeting as asking the town librarian: "What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?", because some Wasilla residents felt they contained inappropriate language. The librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, later said Palin had asked her three times about removing books from the library, at least once prior to the meeting. Emmons said she refused each time. Before the October meeting, Emmons received a letter from Palin requesting her resignation; then in January 1997, Palin served Emmons's with a two-week notice, terminating her employment. Neither letter referred to the question of censorship, but only to feeling a lack of support. Palin retracted her letter of termination a day later, after Emmons was backed by the community, and said her book removal inquiries were rhetorical. The letters themselves did not mention Emmons's refusal to consider removing books, but simply her lack of support.

Like.liberation 20:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks great - as I mentioned above, we should add one line about Palin's response that it was a rhetorical comment as reported in the ADN. As part of the WP's NPOV policy, we need to state all sides and this comment should be quoted. Otherwise, it looks fine. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, we should somehow indicate that she wasn't the only one to receive a letter - that other public officials did as well. This is referenced in the sources and should be mentioned here. The key point is that we are summarizing sources in a way which reflect all key points and all sides. Otherwise, good work. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Concur with caveats above if we *must* go into this much detail about the flap in Hooterville. Thanks. Fcreid (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The comment on rhetorical is in the second-to-last sentence. The Wasilla section already amply covers the other letters served, and briefly mentions Emmons. I don't think we need to restate it. But if we choose to, it could read like this:

As mayor, Palin was quoted at a city council meeting as asking the town librarian: "What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?", because some Wasilla residents felt they contained inappropriate language. The librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, later said Palin had asked her three times about removing books from the library, at least once prior to the meeting. Emmons said she refused each time. Before the October meeting, Emmons received a letter from Palin requesting her resignation; then in January 1997, Palin served Emmons's with a two-week notice, terminating her employment. Both times, other public employees were also served with letters. Neither time did Palin refer to the question of censorship, but only to feeling a lack of support. Palin retracted her letter of termination to Emmons a day later, after Emmons was backed by the community, and said her book removal inquiries were rhetorical. The letters themselves did not mention Emmons's refusal to consider removing books, but simply her lack of support.

If we all agree, I think that's a wrap.

Like.liberation 20:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I missed the "rhetorical" in your draft above. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Object: the proposed version is far too wordy and if the current paragraph was left largely in tact (and it has to be because others are involved with resignation request/firing) it would mention the same basic facts regarding the firing incident 3 times. I will try to write a version that addresses everyone's concerns without being so wordy shortly --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We're not proposing to replace the paragraph about resignations, we're proposing adding this one on after it. It's wordy because we have to be careful with the language, and there's so many nuances to cover. We've spent a lot of time hammering it out, so to save time and not duplicate effort, it might be best to work with the present wording. Like.liberation 21:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Except it is way too long, and addresses the same fact 3 times which are both UNDUE WEIGHT. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I want to congratulate Like.liberation for doing as NPOV job as possible, given the apparent impetus to put such explicit details of the "Wasilla Library Shake-up" in here. One final comment but not a request for further change. I understand "inappropriate language" is all we know about these books. While we don't actually say it, everyone knows the obvious inference people will take is that the questionable material was religiously offensive. And it may have been--St. George himself admits the area was evolving into a "Bible-belt", and it wouldn't surprise me if citizens raised that issue to Palin. My problem is I think we're reading Palin wrong on this religion thing. The case for it is far too thin from everything I've seen--even the extemporaneous stuff like the biting critque from Kilkenny doesn't paint her as a zealot. The real "meat" out there just doesn't seem to support the inference made here. Whatever, though... I guess of public service and getting into your constituency's shoes. Fcreid (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

N Edit declined. There is currently no consensus for the suggested edit. Please use {{editprotect}} only after a consensus for a change in the article has been achieved (see CAT:PER). The edit request is otherwise not actionable.  Sandstein  05:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggested version

Here is what I suggest. Hopefully this version covers all the facts/concerns without being too wordy/repetitive.

While Palin was mayor, she raised the subject of removing some books from the town's library. According to the librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, Palin asked her three times about removing books from the library, beginning before she was inaugurated. At an October 1996 city council meeting Palin asked "What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?", adding that some Wasilla residents felt the books contained inappropriate language. Emmons, who had received a request for her resignation from Palin four days prior, strongly rejected the idea. Palin later stated that the question had been rhetorical in nature. Ultimately, no books were removed from the library.

In October 1996, she asked the Wasilla police chief, public works director, finance director, and Emmons to resign, saying that she felt they didn't support her administration. She also instituted a policy requiring department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters. In January 1997, Palin notified the police chief, Irl Stambaugh, and Emmons that they were being fired. She stated that she wanted a change because she believed the two did not fully support her administration, but declined to be more specific. She rescinded the firing of the librarian the next day, after community outcry, stating that her concerns had been alleviated when Emmons agreed to support Palin's plan to merge the town's library and museum operations. The police chief, however, was fired and filed a lawsuit. A court dismissed the suit, finding that the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason.

Comments? --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I like it. I think it covers all of Ike's points. Fcreid (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, the source has portions of the letter that was sent out. The letter didn't say they were fired or terminated. It says that Palin had the intent and from other parts of the source materials it's clear she meet with individuals (Librarian and Police Chief are specifically mentioned). There isn't reference to the said individuals giving public support to the mayor that was defeated. There is a conflicting report about why Emmons wasn't terminated - 1. Palin and her worked it out in the mentioned meeting. 2. "Outcry" for the public - how many was that they "outcried" exactly? I would recommend swapping the order of the two paragraphs and then removing the lines about termination in the "books" paragraph. Theosis4u (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

ThaddeusB, thanks for this. I agree with you in large part. I'd like to propose a couple tweaks, with explanations in parentheses.

While Palin was mayor, she raised the subject of removing some books from the town's library. According to the librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, Palin asked her three times about removing books from the library, beginning before she was inaugurated, and three times she was refused. At an October 1996 city council meeting, according to one Wasilla resident, (Anne Kilkenny says this. We don't have Palin directly one record saying it.) Palin asked "What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?", because (adding that, we have no record of her adding this. John Stein made the claim in the Time article) some Wasilla residents felt the books contained inappropriate language. Emmons, who had received a request for her resignation from Palin four days prior, strongly rejected the idea for the second time (otherwise it would seem as though she were doing it out of spite). Palin later stated that the question had been rhetorical in nature. Ultimately, no books were removed from the library.

In October 1996, Palin asked the Wasilla police chief, public works director, finance director, and Emmons to resign, saying that she felt they didn't support her administration. She also instituted a policy requiring department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters. In January 1997, Palin notified the police chief, Irl Stambaugh, and Emmons that they were being fired. She stated that she wanted a change because she believed the two did not fully support her administration, but declined to be more specific. She rescinded the firing of the librarian the next day, after community outcry, stating that her concerns had been alleviated when Emmons agreed to support Palin's plan to merge the town's library and museum operations. The police chief, however, was fired and filed a lawsuit. A court dismissed the suit, finding that the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason.

Theosis4u, you're harping on semantics. ADN said there was a "wave of public support" for Emmons after she received the January letter. Here's a direct quote from that letter:

"I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern the city of Wasilla. Therefore I intend to terminate your employment ..."

Now tell me, is she firing them or not? Employers fire employees by giving them notice. What is notice? It's saying: "Your job will end in a short period of time. I intend to terminate it." All firings happen in the future and are therefore based on intent. Let's please move on.

Thaddeus has included both reasons why it is thought that Emmons was kept on: the reconciliation and the outcry. I see no other objections. Now it's a matter of adding the references.

Like.liberation 00:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks great. Thanks ThaddeusB for the rewrite and Like.liberation for your tweaks and suggestions. Perhaps one of you could create one more version with the refs and if it is approved by everyone, we can ask for it to be copied to the article. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the tweaks. On a side note, if we actually get this approved I would consider that a minor miracle - consensus on a hot button topic, imagine that. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Update - Just saw this, might be relevant before going forward. Offical city responses - one is pdf about the book issue. Theosis4u (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on this site? -Classicfilms (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Which document are we supposed to be looking at? Also, wouldn't using direct source constitute original research? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Didn't want to link a pdf directly, for those that don't link the surprise. The document didn't have much to offer other than confirming no books were ever "banned" and gave the library policy about these situation. Theosis4u (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I've come up with - I know it's to long and I expect cuts to it. I believe it does give a good account of the three situations though. 1. Resignations. 2. Books 3. Terminations. I didn't focus on proper quoting and syntax, that should be reviewed for necessities.

In October 1996, newly seated Mayor Palin asked police chief Irl Stambaug, public works director Jack Felton, finance director Duane Dvorak and city librarian Mary Ellen Emmons to resign. Saying that she felt they didn't support her administration. Stein, the now ex-mayor, hired many of these department heads. It is known that both Emmons and Stambaugh had publicly supported him against Palin during the mayoral elections. [upcoming source questionable?] Stambaugh also was at odds earlier with Palin, when she was on city council. He wanted the local bars to close sooner, she didn't find it necessary. And again when the Alaska legislature proposed expanding Alaska’s laws to expand the right to carrying concealed weapons. Stambaugh had publicly opposed it while was Palin in favor. 3 Palin also instituted a policy requiring department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters during this time. In summary about the request of resignations, Palin told the Daily News that the letters were just a test of loyalty as she took on the mayor's job. Alluding to the support they had given to the ex-mayor. We know that Stambaug and Emmons stayed on after this.

Palin inquired in the last quarter of 1996 about the subject of removing some objectionable books from the town's library. Stein, the ex-mayor, said that it was because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. In December 1996, Emmons told the hometown newspaper, the Frontiersman, that Palin asked three times about possibly removing objectionable books from the library if the need arose. Once was before Palin had sworn in. Emmons continued saying, "she flatly refused to consider any kind of censorship." One of the later incidents, was in October 1996 at a city council meeting. It was described by a Wasilla resident, Anne Kilkenny. Kilkenny recounts that Palin asked Emmons, 'What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?" . Kilkenny accounts that, "Mary Ellen sat up straight and said something along the line of, 'The books in the Wasilla Library collection were selected on the basis of national selection criteria for libraries of this size, and I would absolutely resist all efforts to ban books.'" Kilkenny said Palin didn't mention specific books at that meeting. Palin herself, questioned at the time, called her inquiries rhetorical and simply part of a policy discussion with a department head "about understanding and following administration agendas," according to the Frontiersman article. Ultimately, no books were removed from the library.

On January 30th 1997, a Thursday, signed letters from the mayors office were dropped off at Emmoms and Stambaugh's desk, telling them that their jobs were over as of Feb. 13. 1997. The letter stated, 'I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern the city of Wasilla. Therefore I intend to terminate your employment .... The next day, Friday, the three met briefly at Wasilla City Hall in the afternoon to discuss the situation. Palin also called them twice at Stambaugh's home later before making her decision. Palin announced her decesion later that Friday, stating she now felt that Emmons supported her but didn't feel the same about Stambaugh. Palin claimed she now had Emmons' assurance that she was behind her and would support her efforts to merge the library and museum operations. John Cooper, the ex-director of the city museum, resigned earlier hearing that Palin would eliminated his job. Palin announced though that Stambaugh would be terminated. Her conversation with Stambaugh was short, both later said. He had asked, "What's the basis for this?" She gave him no details he claims and that he didn't understand why he's been fired. There never was an appropriate response, he said. How did we not support the administration? In regards to his support of the past mayor, Stambaugh said he thought any questions had been resolved. Stambaugh filed a lawsuit after this, believing he had a contract that prohibited the city from firing him without cause.. A court later dismissed the suit, finding that the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason.

Sources used to compile above : Wasilla keeps librarian, but police chief is out (2/1/1997) , Palin pressured Wasilla librarian , Mayor Palin: A Rough Record , and Fear And Retribution: Palin’s Pattern Of Governance Apologies if that was horrible, still getting the learning curve down. Theosis4u (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Goodness, that's a lot of text. Its certainly a more compete history, but is all this detail necessaery? Which specific facts do you think are both releveant and missing from my version above? --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I had the same reaction. While I realize that you are hoping to trim this down, the excessive amount of detail can still lead us to WP:Undue weight and I'm not certain how it improves the existing version by ThaddeusB and Like.liberation. Was there a particular objection you have to their version? Is there a detail you would like to add? That might prove more effective than a complete rewrite again. It would be nice to add this section to the article soon. -Classicfilms (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

My intent was to break down the three issues and have each issue stand on it's own within the paragraph. Hopefully I provided all the evidence/context within each paragraph for this. I've seen all three of these issues addressed in the news - resignations letter , book censorship , and terminations (poorly I might add). If all three inclusions become intermeshed in one or two paragraphs it seems to cause never ending edits. For example, the reasoning behind Emmons getting the termination letter I believe is now self supporting in the third paragraph without bring up the book censorship issue - those readers are still free to infer this because it's addressed in the second paragraph. Not sure if I'm communicating myself well here, sry. Theosis4u (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Should the header of "Wasilla" be broken into two sections - "Wasilla - City Council" and then "Wasilla - City Mayor" ? Theosis4u (talk) 02:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture change requested

I think the picture of her family under "Personal life" should be changed. Left, original; right, proposed new.

Palin family members at the announcement of Palin's vice presidential selection, August 29, 2008. From left: Todd, Piper, Willow, Bristol, and Trig.

File:Palin Family.jpg

The Palin family. From left: top: Track, Sarah, Todd; bottom: Willow, Piper, Bristol

-Zeus- 23:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Copyright and source of new suggested image are doubtful. Vey nice picture though.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose pending verification then Support Looks like its the official picture. It's credited to US gvt and has public domain status. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Edit.. I took description to be gospel. If it's ever verified as government or public domain, i vote yes. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - I've flagged the image for speedy deletion at Commons. No indication it's a work of the federal government. Kelly ^hi! 00:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment I believe that pic is on the Alaskan state gov't site. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The Alaskan state govt doesn't release its work into the public domain. Kelly ^hi! 00:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose http://gov.state.ak.us/photos/PalinFamily_Outside_Med.jpg is the source and there is no release on the image. patsw (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC) I marked it copyvio sd. patsw (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the page where the file is shown; http://gov.state.ak.us/bio.html

Release for the Alaska state photo

I just sent an email to the webmaster asking for permission. -Zeus- 00:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok people this should be good enough; Message 1/252 Mills, Andy J (GOV) <andy.mills@alaska.gov> Sep 4, 2008 04:46:56 pm -0800 Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:46:56 -0800 Subject: RE: Bio Image To: Matthew Momjian <matthew@momjian.us>

Matthew-

Please feel free to use the image for Wikipedia if it's a non-partisan and non-campaign related use (which is the requirement for this release).

Thank you for your permission request. Please note that newest member of the Palin family (Trig Paxson Van Palin) is not pictured in that photo.

Kind Regards- Andy Mills Office of the Governor Webmaster

---

Original Message-----

From: Matthew Momjian [11] Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 4:41 PM To: Mills, Andy J (GOV) Subject: Bio Image

Hello,

I am representing Wikipedia and requesting permission to use the file located at http://gov.state.ak.us/photos/PalinFamily_Outside_web.jpg on the Sarah Palin Wikipedia page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

I found the file on http://gov.state.ak.us/bio.html

Thank you, -Zeus- 00:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am not a Wiki-lawyer but I'm not sure that a release for the Wikipedia is valid. When I have done this myself, the grantor needs to reference one of GFDL, CC-SA, CC-BY-SA, or FAL explicitly for it to be a valid release. See commons:project:Email templates for the sort of release expected. patsw (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • So what do I need to do now? -Zeus- 01:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by -Zeus- (talk • contribs)

• • • Try again. Use the boilerplate we suggest be used, and ask that it be returned, verbatim, with their signature at the bottom. Explain why the current permission is insufficient. Hope that helps.++Lar: t/c 01:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Well according to that template he can't release that file because I doubt the webmaster is the copyright holder of the file :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by -Zeus- (talk • contribs) 01:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The form of release that is the easiest to explain is http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ But this release is explicit in granting usage that could be partisan or campaign-related. As far as I know, the Wikipedia can't use images that have such usage restrictions. My suggestion:

To permissions-commonswikimedia.org

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK http://gov.state.ak.us/photos/PalinFamily_Outside_web.jpg

I agree to publish that work under the free license LICENSE [choose at least one from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Choosing_a_license#Common_free_licenses ] (patsw suggests CC-SA http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

DATE, NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER

This is the form of release expected. patsw (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

See also Commons:Email_templates which gives (too?) detailed instructions, and has a link to further example emails you can use. If he is an "authorised agent" of the copyright holder, (the State of Alaska) he can release it. But you need to be clear that it's a release in accordance with our license. As incentive, remind him that if we can't get permission, we may have to use other freely licensed pictures which might not be as nice to look at, and also remind him that this page got 2.5M views a few days ago and is on track to get well over 20M during the month of September. Does he want a nice picture used, or one we scare up from someone??? ++Lar: t/c 01:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Ok I sent as you guys suggested let's hope he agrees. I think he will.— Preceding unsigned comment added by -Zeus- (talk • contribs)
    • You might want to forward that email response (if you get another) to at least one or two administrators for record as well. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
      • You can if you want, but the better thing to do is make sure it gets into OTRS so it can be tagged with the {{OTRS}} template and ticket number. forward it to permissions@wikimedia.org as the instructions I referenced explain and it will get processed. That's much more solid than a few admins having a copy, it's in a trackable system that way. ++Lar: t/c 04:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

All images on US Federal government sites are in the pubic domain, unless stated otherwise. Most=, if not all state sites have similar licenses. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, most states do not place their copyrightable material in the public domain. It is either explicitly copyrighted, or automatically copyrighted, since a copyright notice is not required to establish a copyright. patsw (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The non-posed picture should be retained, assuming it's a free photo, unless there is evidence that it's standard wikipedia practice to include P.R. family photos for politicians. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh go on, it's a cute pic. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 09:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's from "happier times", before the daughter managed to get knocked up and hence is all smiles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

College Career Needs Editing

Associated Press reports that SP attended five colleges in six years before being granted her degree in 1987: Hawaii Pacific University (fall 1982), North Idaho College (spring 1983 and fall 1983), University of Idaho (fall 1984 to spring 1985), Matanuska-Susitna College (fall 1985 to spring 1986), University of Idaho (spring 1986, fall 1986, and spring 1987). The article is locked but I thought I'd post the info here, if anyone would like to add this information when it is unlocked. The article can be found at: http://www.adn.com/palin/story/516085.html Kitchawan (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is what is in the article:

Palin attended Hawaii Pacific in Honolulu for a semester in 1982, majoring in Business Administration. She transferred in 1983 to North Idaho College.[10] In 1987,[11] Palin received a Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism from the University of Idaho, where she also minored in political science.[12][13]

. I think what we have now is fine. It doesn't need all of that detail.--Paul (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please post here your proposed rewording for the applicable section. Kelly ^hi! 00:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We can't leave incomplete info on there. We can either say them all, or say she went to several schools before settling on UIdaho. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be simply acceptable to state the school from which she recieved her degree - thoughts? Kelly ^hi! 00:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I went to 7 schools before getting my undergrad. I only put 2 in resumes. The one I started at and the one I graduated from. We don't need to be exhaustive. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's just one more, it should be added. (U Idaho stay was interrupted.) If it was seven, maybe not. Or it can stay the way it is, she might have just been saving a little money that one semester. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We need to put them all in if it's verified. What we do in our own resumes of course is irrelevant, as is our speculation on why she attended so many schools. The list of schools is notable because it is unusual. Including only some of the schools does not make sense, and putting only the one she graduated from would be misleading and therefore could appear to be biased. So we should include them all, assuming this is verified fact. Here you go - may be able to pare down the refs, but we need to include all of the info:

Palin attended Hawaii Pacific in Honolulu for her first freshman semester in 1982, transferring in 1983 to North Idaho College for two semesters. In 1987, She then transferred in Fall 1984 to the University of Idaho for two semesters, returning to Matanuska-Susitna College in Alaska for the Fall 1985 semester. She returned to Idaho for her last three semesters and in 1987 received a Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism from the University of Idaho, with a minor in political science.

<- Ugh. Awkward as hell and too much detail. Better to leave it as her degree-issuing school, I think. Kelly ^hi! 01:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• It would be misleading to mention only the school which granted the bachelors degree. Certainly there should be no speculation about why she changed schools so many times. If it said she received a bachelors degree from the University of Idaho after attending three other named schools starting in 1982, with the inline footnotes at the end of the sentence, that would be enough detail. The reader could check the refs if he wish to learn her entire academic history. For an example of how much detail about a Vice President's college studies is found in a mature and stable article, see Dick Cheney which says He attended Yale University, but, as he stated, "[he] flunked out."[7][8] Amongst the influential teachers from his days in New Haven was Professor H. Bradford Westerfield, whom Cheney repeatedly credited with having helped to shape his hard-line approach to foreign policy.[9] He later attended the University of Wyoming where he earned both a Bachelor of Arts and a Master of Arts in political science. He subsequently started, but did not finish, doctoral studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison." Al Gore has quite a detailed section on his college education as well. The schools are stated, but not in the semester-by-semester detail proposed. Edison (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Yeah, either leave it as is, or just add, "a one semester stint at Matanuska-Susitna College" somewhere. Which semesters were spent where isn't important. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree; there is no speculation about why she transferred, only fact that she did, which cannot be denied and is certainly not POV by any means. I agree with the suggested rewrite.Kitchawan (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

{outdent] No, Kelly, that won't do it, as has been said by several people. I was trying to keep to the structure that was already there, but how about this rewrite. Note that there is no confirmation in the sources that she minored in political science - and no indication of how much she studied it or where - that has to go unless we find more information, as including it smacks of POV. And there were way too many sources that add no additional information. So try this:

Palin spent her first college semester at Hawaii Pacific College, transferring in 1983 to North Idaho College and then to the University of Idaho. She attended Matanuska-Susitna College in Alaska for one term, returning to the University of Idaho to complete her Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism, graduating in 1987.

Tvoz/talk 04:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's concise and readable. Me likey. :) Kelly ^hi! 05:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

An improvement, to be sure. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

{{edit protected}} YAY - will a kindly admin please replace the entire 4th paragraph about her education in "Early life" with this paragraph (refs and wikilinks as in the edit screen):

Palin spent her first college semester at Hawaii Pacific College, transferring in 1983 to North Idaho College and then to the University of Idaho. She attended Matanuska-Susitna College in Alaska for one term, returning to the University of Idaho to complete her Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism, graduating in 1987.

Thanks. Tvoz/talk 07:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cenarium ^Talk 02:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Need breakout page for "Speeches and Public Appearances of Sarah Palin"

I added Palin's Aug. 29 debut speech, but it is a bit long for this main article, and since then she has made her acceptance speech at the Republican Convention, and can be expected to make more. There are also several past appearances that are significant that should be included. On the other hand, her interview in which she asked what a vice-president does now seems somewhat insignificant. Therefore, I would like consensus from other editors about creating a new page, "Speeches and Public Appearances of Sarah Palin", to include the following, among others as they occur (in chronological order, which the list below is not):

• Her interview asking what a vice-president does, removed there from main article.
• Her debut speech of Aug. 29, 2008.
• Her acceptance speech at the Republican Convention.
• Interview, favorite SCOTUS justice, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOU8GIRUd_g
• 2006 Debate among Palin and her opponents, Tony Knowles and Andrew Halcro, in campaign for election as governor, http://gregransom.com/prestopundit/2008/09/sarah-palin-debates-tony-knowl.html
• (Future) Transcript of debate with Joseph Biden.

The page might also have discussion and cites to commentary, such as analysis of language (e.g., the biblical origin of the phrase "servant's heart"), rhetorical technique (e.g., use or non-use of teleprompters), political significance, and cites to origins of phrases (e.g., the unattributed quote of Adm. Grace Hopper, who is reported to have been one of Palin's role models). Bracton (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: The phrase "servant's heart" is from Mark 10:44, "whosoever would be first among you, shall be servant of all." See http://www.bible-researcher.com/erv/mark.html#10 .Bracton (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

ZOMG BIBLE! ;) - Kelly ^hi! 01:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Bracton, perhaps you could transribe Palin's speeches into WikiQuotes so we can link to them from here. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A breakout page would be appropriate here, to avoid the "listing" that wiki frowns upon.Pianomikey0 (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless she comes up with an iconic phrase like Truman's "the buck stops here", quotes should be sent to wikiquotes. And before anyone gets too gushy about the acceptance speech, keep in mind it was written by someone else (though presumably with her input). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Which reminds me: With her funny about eBay, I could imagine the internet-challenged McCain turning to one of his advisers and asking, "Where's eBay? Is that in Alaska?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You should stamp that one before Leno steals it. :) Fcreid (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

All my jokes are released to public domain. Including the ones I've stolen from elsewhere. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This article generally shouldn't contain multi-paragraph quotations, but retaining short quotations (or paraphrases) is appropriate. For example, her comment about wanting to know what the VP does has drawn attention and should be included. I could go either way on the "servant's heart" bit. By the way, any such breakout page should be titled in sentence case per MoS. JamesMLane t c 17:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Convention speech

It's almost a day later and the reaction to her speech has been covered by a number of sources. I think it's time to begin working out a paragraph or so to cover it here.

BTW, if you do a Google search on "speech", one of the suggested searches is "Palin speech", so people are interested. A.J.A. (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree. Maybe we can start with this Associated Press article as a base.[12] zredsox (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What a partisan hack job!--Paul (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, not surprising that would be his pick. A.J.A. (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I assume that was a slight? Thanks. I appreciate your civility.zredsox (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That speech was the partisan hack job. The AP article separates fact from fiction. I figured I'd help work toward balance by jumping out in front with a link to a solid WP:RS so it would be clear what type of affronts to a fluff section on the speech would be brought to bear. zredsox (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

For comparison, here's what is in the Obama article

On August 28, Obama accepted the nomination in a speech that received praise from many media commentators and political analysts.[104] The speech, delivered in front of 84,000 supporters in Invesco Field, contained pointed criticism of McCain and President Bush and added details to his stances that were not mentioned in previous campaign speeches.[105][106] The speech set a record as the most-watched convention speech in history, seen by more U.S. viewers than was the Beijing Olympics opening ceremony.[107]

Sarah is in 2nd place in the Nielsen speech sweepstakes:

CHICAGO (MarketWatch) -- Wednesday night's acceptance speech by Republican Vice-Presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin drew more than 37.2 million combined viewers on six networks, just short of Barack Obama's 38.3 million viewers last week at the Democratic National Convention, according to Nielsen Media Research.

However, I'm not sure we need a paragraph about the speech.--Paul (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Like Obama, a reaction should say more than just how many people saw it, of course. Dragons flight (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the Obama article has anything about his speechwriter. A.J.A. (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

See above -- Need breakout page for "Speeches and Public Appearances of Sarah Palin".Bracton (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with your proposed structure. It seems more natural to cover her speeches and debates under the campaigns they happened in. A.J.A. (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning them, perhaps, but quotes of entire speeches overload a main article, and it is marginally POV to summarize things like speeches, when we have the speeches themselves.Bracton (talk) 02:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey everyone, Wikipedia says Associated Press is a reliable source, so its a reliable source on anything. Yes most journalists in United States like almost all support Obama and you can't help having a slant when it is like that. But Wikipedia is not about being fair or right it is about being reliable, verifiable. On a topic like Obama or Palin where the media has a big slant it is going to have that slant to, deal with it. Don't like it? become a journalist. RetroS1mone talk 02:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Except Wikipedia has a policy called NPOV that doesn't allow "slanting" you seem to advocate here. Hobartimus (talk) 03:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

RetroS1more can restate the point, but allow me to offer that the Associated Press, Reuters, and other reliable source bring a POV of their own to their news reporting. We don't have to accept the slant the AP and call it the neutral point of view. An summary analysis of the Palin speech would include pro- and anti- Palin points. patsw (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really want to see very much on this in the article, it's too newsy. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A speech heard live by 37.2 million people given by the first GOP VP nom. is certainly of historical and therefore encyclopedic significance. patsw (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Better would be a list of some sort of recent noteworthy appearances, with footnoted links to objective news coverage, for those who are interested. Each appearance can have a single sentence description.Pianomikey0 (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Make sure to include the name of the guy who actually wrote the speech. According to this [13] it was a GOP writer named Matt Scully. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, somehow I didn't see your comment in Talk:Barack Obama urging that the names of his speechwriting team be included in the article. The USA Today account simply states Scully wrote the speech. Baseball Bugs adds two sneers: "wrote" becomes "actually wrote" and "Matt Scully" becomes "named Matt Scully". For a different (and balanced) account see TIME here http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1838808,00.html which discusses how "Horror! Palin used a speechwriter" was the talking point de jour of the Obama campaign yesterday. The use of speechwriters is routine and in an NPOV does not need to be commented upon. patsw (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not bothering to compare this section to those in other articles, either well-written or poorly-written. I'm just concerned with this article and wonder what substantiation there is for the statement "the speech was well-received by the crowd and media analysts"? Neither of the references corroborate that media anaylsts in general were receptive to the speech. The consensus from the many reviews I've read boils down a speech focused mainly on attacking the opposition, that was well-delivered. I request that the opinionated "and media analysts" be stricken from the sentence. 216.170.33.149 (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Paul

Passive voice in "Political Positions" category

I'm new to this, so please bear with me :) The sentence "Palin has been described as supportive of contraception" is passive voice, and should be changed to something more like "Palin is supportive of contraception"[citation]. Or maybe "ADN describes Palin as supportive of contraception." Pianomikey0 (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Except Anchorage Daily News is clearer than ADN, if that option is taken. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

How about just Palin supports contraception? Fcreid (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Even though it's almost certainly true, I don't think that rephrase is quite supported by the reference.Pianomikey0 (talk) 03:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I take it back. The referenced article says: "Palin said last month that no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child. She is pro-contraception and said she's a member of a pro-woman but anti-abortion group called Feminists for Life." "She is supportive of contraception" would be almost directly quoted from the article.Pianomikey0 (talk) 03:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Okeydoke. Nice and simple non-urgent request: {{editprotected}} remove the passive voice per pianomikey0. "She is supportive of supports contraception" 86.44.27.255 (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, make it "She supports contraception." Pithy that way. Now I'll shut up.Pianomikey0 (talk) 04:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Aye. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Except that contraception is not a notable political issue in 2008 in the United States. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 04:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That was good, Steve. Sometimes we get so caught up in nuances that we miss the obvious. :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's already in the article, in the passive voice. This is about removing the passive voice. Seperate issues, separate sections? You're against removing the passive voice? Sheesh. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 04:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If the article must say something about this how about: "She is in favor of contraception." The source says, "She is pro-contraception." Steve Dufour (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Contraception is less of an issue than abortion, but the Catholic Church, last I heard, still opposes contraception. It's also obvious that Palin's family doesn't use it, even if they favor it. Keep the quote on the matter to one sentence. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"ADN reported in 2006 that Palin was pro-contraception" is accurate and reasonably brief. The ADN article from 2006 seems to be the only evidence that Palin is pro-contraception - I can't find any direct statements that Palin has made in support of contraception. To say "Palin is in favor of contraception" seems to go beyond what is known at this point. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 09:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Add information on Monegan firing

At the time Palin fired him, the governor said she wanted the department to move in a new direction. Later, after Monegan said he felt pressured to fire Wooten, Palin at a news conference said Monegan wasn't a team player, didn't do enough to fill trooper vacancies and battle alcohol abuse issues in rural Alaska.

Saki2 (talk) 02:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This section needs to be rewritten, or reverted to an earlier version, so that facts crucial to any summary of this issue are present. There were numerous sourced references included previously that described the investigative stage of this topic as occuring in the following order: 1. Governor Palin denied any pressure had been applied to fire Wooten. 2. The state legislature announced it was conducting an investigation. 3. Gov. Palin directs her Attornet General to conduct an internal investigation. 4. Gov. Palin admits that around two dozen contacts had been made regarding Wooten.

As modified, the article implies no initial denial, and that the Gov. admitted to the contacts prior to the announcement of the legislative investigation, rather than as a result of that announcement [14]. Removing key facts, and only those that imply the possibility of wrongdoing, in the name of maintaining this sections "summary" status has imparted a bias upon this section that is in opposition to the established facts. Placing the occurance of events into an accurate timeline, and including the fact that there was an initial denial, then, after the State announced an investigation was planned, an admission to over 20 contacts regarding Wooten would require the addition of only a few words, and result in a concise overview of the isuue, rather than a whitewashed version. 75.88.83.220 (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Paul

The site floppingaces.com has done [full encyclopedic and scholarly writeup on "Troopergate"] complete with links to the relevant court documents. I think it would be appropriate to simply refer the reader to that writeup. I would propose the sentence be added that refers the reader to that site or that wikipedia obtain permission to reprint the article in its entirety here. -- Robert 76.120.109.174 (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable source. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 09:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As above, blog posts don't cut it. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I would think the important part would be whther the journalism attained the proper levels of journalistic research, fact checking and referencing. The source is irrelelevant if the information is complete, scholarly and correct. If the identical text appeared on the Washington Post and Floppingaces, would that text be more valuable from the newspaper? Given that the vast majority of newpapers are liberally slanted, this would impart a defacto liberal slant to this site. At any rate the story should be evaluated on the journalistic value of the piece. Floppingaces has linked to the actual official depositions and documents which this obviously POV article has not done. As it is, this article is spouting liberal POV and excluding important relevant facts. -- Robert12.23.96.197 (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Saki12 has correctly summarized Palin's post hoc rationalization for the firing. If our article includes her contention, however, then it must also include this information from our daughter article on the dismissal: "Monegan responded on July 18 that the two most recent trooper graduating classes had the most recruits in years."

I also agree with the anon that the Sarah Palin article should include her initial statement, which she later had to retreat from. In our daughter article:

Initially, Palin denied that there had been any pressure on Monegan to fire Wooten, either from herself or from anyone in her administration.

I'll have to recheck the sources -- I think she initially denied any contacts, not just pressure, but whatever the specifics of the denial are, it should be included. JamesMLane t c 12:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding this information of her reasons for the termination of Monegan (including ineffectiveness in battling alcohol abuse) is important because the article earlier states that after the termination, "She then offered him an alternative position as executive director of the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, which he turned down.[83][84". Saki2 (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a level of detail more suitable for the spinout article on the dismissal and subsequent controversy. The section here is just a summary. Kelly ^hi! 13:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel an extended "he said/she said" session as to each parties perceived reasoning for the firing is appropo to a summary. Also not worthy of inclusion in a summarization are: facts about her offering him an alternate position, tidbits about his successor and his failings, or legal arguments being used to challenge the legislatures authority to conduct an investigation. All of those belong in the full, detailed, sub-article. All a concise, chronologically-correct, well-sourced summary need say is:

On July 11, 2008, Palin dismissed Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan, citing performance-related issues.[82] Monegan alleged he had been pressured to fire Palin’s former brother-in-law, Alaska State Trooper Mike Wooten, and that his dismissal was retaliation for his failure to do so.[85][86] Palin publicly denied that any pressure to fire Wooten had been applied on Monegan. On August 1, the Alaska Legislature hired an independent investigator to review the situation.[91] Palin then asked the Attorney General to launch his own internal investigation which led to her acknowledging that there had been over twenty contacts made by her administration relating to Wooten. Palin stated that most of those calls were made without her knowledge, and reiterated that she did not fire Monegan because of Wooten.[85][88] The legislative investigation is scheduled to be completed in October 2008.[85]

Tweak some verbage, add in a couple dates if you like, replace a couple references that were previously in the section, and I think this would make a much more accurate, easy-to-read, summarization of the issue 216.170.33.149 (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Paul

I endorse the summary given by 216.170.33.149. However, there are those that feel the Kopp detail is notable in its own right, so perhaps that should either be worked into the summary or placed elsewhere in the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarity About early "firings" in Wasilla

It seems like some sources are leaving out the details of this situation, I'll admit it's confusing to track down. In Wasilla keeps librarian, but police chief is out it says this, 'The mayor told them she appreciated their service but felt it was time for a change. I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern the city of Wasilla. Therefore I intend to terminate your employment ... the letter said.'. Notice the word "intend" with this letter she sent out. There was meetings Palin and the others had about "working out their issues"... in the end, only one person was fired, Police Chief Irl Stambaugh. I think another person resigned. The current wiki article states, "She rescinded the firing of the librarian...". To rescind, she would of had fired her (librarian) in the first place. Theosis4u (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Posted today, the Anchorage Daily News has a much fuller story about the librarian episode at http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/515512.html Kitchawan (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

She also notified them of the day they were supposed to stop working -- February 13th, 1997 -- two weeks after she served them the notice. That's a two-week notice to pack up and leave, and traditionally, that's how you fire someone. You don't walk into their office and tell them to leave their desk that instant. You give them notice, and notice of being fired always predates the person physically leaving the job. Palin simply retracted the termination before the date at which Emmons was supposed to leave. That seems like a firing to me. But if the language is more agreeable, we could call it a notice of termination.Like.liberation 17:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"a letter of notification with an intent to terminate" That sounds like the most accurate way to describe it. We could go farther if we had a FULL copy of the letter, but we only have the little bit that was referenced by the police chief. Who knows, the parts after the intent could of gone on to say that she would like to discuss the matters with the people and so forth. Theosis4u (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Total Viewers Of Palin Speech - Beats Obama?

Palin Ratings [http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/09/04/mccain-speech.html Towards the end. I'm having a hard time finding a apples to apples comparison. Would it be notable if she did beat Obama's total viewers numbers? Theosis4u (talk) 04:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What I heard, she was like 37 million to his 38 million, but she was on four fewer networks, making her number more impressive. Still worth noting.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 04:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Worth noting, but I'd prefer it be part of a somewhat meater "response to her speech" paragraph. There is a thread proposing that somewhere around here. Dragons flight (talk) 04:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The article says PBS reported an extra 4 million which would take Palin to 41.2 million total viewers. Hobartimus (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This should be noted in the article on the campaign, if at all, I think. I really also must say that curiosity about a new person could have helped her TV ratings, Obama has been in the public eye for years. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The other side of the "curiosity" coin is that it could of been larger if people did know her for 18 months? Either way, it's cool to watch these two historical situations happen before our eyes within a week of each other. Theosis4u (talk) 04:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Politics has been kind of boring lately, before this year that is.  :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness Palin shouldn't be compared to Obama who had the main slot at the convention, she should be compared to Biden the other VP pick, who had 24 million viewers. Hobartimus (talk) 04:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to compare Palin to Obama, star to star. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 04:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

All that proves is that no one wants to listen to old, white guys. ;-) Of course if that really is the case, maybe her ratings will beat McCain's. It will be interesting where he falls in comparison to Obama and Palin. Dragons flight (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I certainly find her more interesting McCain... hell I've already fought with my wife about that issue. I'd call it noteworthy =D

Somebody else has to make this Obama (or McCain) comparison for us to use it in any article, we can't really do it as editors. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what your asking for here? Theosis4u (talk) 05:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, were we to find reliable figures for both, and put them side by side in an article, that would probably be what people around here call "Synthesis of published material which advances a position". Whereas if we find a reliable source doing the same thing, it's good to go if editors think it important enough. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 05:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Her ratings also could have been helped by the large number of WP editors doing research for this article. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 05:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And by the curious, to see how well she could read someone else's speech. Obama is a known quantity. She was unknown to the general public. And with that over with, she'll probably disappear again. This is about Obama and McCain, lest y'all forget. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's reign it in. There is not really any encyclopedic reason to compare Palin viewers to Obama viewers because the variables were so different. Different event, different days of week, different competing shows on other channels/networks, different curiosity issue, different office, different party. In other words, it's apples and oranges. I would leave out any comparison altogether. --Crunch (talk) 07:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Um. Same day of the week. I no know my days of the week. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Her speech's TV ratings vs. Obama's is of no relevance whatsoever. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sean Hannity did make note of the fact that Palin had almost the same number of viewers as Obama, and she was only the VP pick and had fewer networks with her speech, but he may be a little partisan in favor of Palin.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 08:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ya think? The report I just saw on TV indeed said Obama's acceptance speech was 38 million and hers was 37 million. It's still irrelevant. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ratings don't imply anything beyond curiosity. For example, Johnny Carson often had important political figures on his show, but his highest rated show for many years was Tiny Tim marrying Miss Vicky. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit I watched, and I'm usually loathe to do so. No matter how this goes, you've got to be amazed that we have a woman and a black man in our presidential race. What a country! Fcreid (talk) 10:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Summary : Palin Numbers and Obama Numbers . Obama's numbers still appear to be higher, but only because 4 other networks aired Obama's speech which Nielson's tracked. I think some people are reporting the Palin PBS numbers on top of the Neilson ones unfairly against the Obama Neilson numbers. Addition of PBS numbers puts both of them over 40 million.

Total Viewers Of 2008 Convention Speech From 6 Primary Networks

Person	NBC	ABC	CBS	FNC	CNN	MSNBC	Totals (In Millions)
Obama	6.1	6.6	4.7	4.2	8.1	4.1	33.8
Palin	7.7	5.9	4.9	9.2	6.2	3.4	37.3

Nielson's also collected numbers from BET, TV One, Univision, and Telemundo. These networks didn't air the Palin speech. Neilson's total numbers reported for both candidates with all airing networks that they tracked was: Obama at 38.379 and Palin at 37.244 [in millions]. It has also been reported that Obama had about 4.0 and Palin with 3.9 [in millions] viewers from PBS. PBS didn't participate in the Neilson study - nor does C-SPAN (numbers unknown). Theosis4u (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If an anon can make a comment: How is this pertinent to the main article? Other than interesting chat on the "Discussion" page, I don't see how you would expect to draw any meaningful conclusion from these numbers. There are far too many factors involved to derive anything of value out of this. If this gets included as a section in the article are you going to delve into why the difference in viewership on all-but-one network is 25% or less, yet on FNC, 220% more of their viewers watched the Palin speech and not the Obama? Let's get into the psychology of the viewers of different networks, debate their openness to opposing views, discuss how much curiosity each side displays in hearing what the other side has to say, eh? (Not!) Thank you for your time. 216.170.33.149 (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Paul

If it was deemed worthy for inclusion, like on Obama's page. It could be written as, "On September 3, 2008, Palin delivered a 40 minute acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention that was well-received by the crowd and by media analysts. The speech set a record as the most-watched [U.S viewers] convention speech in history by a women. It would also be the most watched convention speech in history if compared only against the tv channels that view both Obama's speech and Palin's. [As collected by Nielsen Media Research]" Then include the two sources above. Theosis4u (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing one-sided about your interpretation! "well-received... by media analysts"? Good luck getting that in there! 216.170.33.149 (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Paul

That's in there now. I just added sentences onto the existing section of the article to show placement. I believe there was a talking point on that issue earlier, wasn't involved though. Theosis4u (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

One thing that I'm seeing above frequently repeated is that Obama was carried on 4 more Neilsen networks than Palin and conflating that to mean that if you did a one to one comparison of only the networks the two speeches shared that Palin actually had more viewers than Obama. While based purely on numbers this is true, the problem is, it also comes with the assumption that the viewers on the 4 extra stations that Obama was on would not have viewed his speech on one of the other stations. There's literally no way that we can make that assumption. While it is more likely that the viewers on the other 4 networks would have viewed Obama's speech on another network than not, we have no way of knowing how many of them would or would not have watched it on a different channel. The only thing that can be said is that according to Neilsen Obama's speech was viewed by 38.3 million and Palin's was viewed by 37.2 million... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it's hard to come up with any apple to apple comparison. I don't believe there's even a weak argument to suggest though that the missing 4 channel viewers would of watched it on one of the other 6 though. Spanish language viewers are from - Univision, and Telemundo. Theosis4u (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it does state that palin's speech "was well-received by the crowd and media analysts"! I request that be edited to remove "and media analysts" as that is a judgement call and not corroborated by either of the attached references. The overall concensus of the many reviews that I've read would boil down to the speech was "well-delivered, and mean-spirited". Someone stating is was well-received by the media in general is a fabrication. 216.170.33.149 (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Paul

All mute now because McCain draws record 38.9 mln viewers, bests Obama Theosis4u (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox for article improvements

The Sarah Palin sandbox can be found here at the link provided for article improvements. Talk:Sarah Palin/sandbox. After consensus is reached an admin can edit it in the real article.

Regards, QuackGuru 04:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not see much need for this... {{editprotect}} is working quite well. In any case, if editors want to attempt a massive re-write, a sandbox may be handy. But I doubt this would be the case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

An editor by mistake edited the sandbox in mainspace instead of the talk page. It needs to be deleted and salted. Sarah Palin/sandbox‎ QuackGuru 05:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with jossi. There is no need to further splinter out focus from the article to a third page. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A sandbox will just be a target for more libel, slander, filth, and POV-pushing. That stuff isn't allowed there, either. Kelly ^hi! 05:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with jossi. There's no need to add to the confusion by adding more pages out there. J Readings (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The sandbox is a great idea. The mainspace version can continued to be protected for a week or even a month and we can improve the article by working towards consensus in the draft version. QuackGuru 05:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course you would think it's a great idea, isn't it your idea? I don't. Have you been here dealing with the horrific crap on this article? There's no need to propagate this stuff to pages that are not well-watched. Kelly ^hi! 06:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Better yet, let's have a whole bunch of sandboxes. We'll call it "content forks R us". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Eldest son's middle name

According to the Anchorage Daily News's 2007 high-school graduation announcements, her eldest son is Track CJ Palin (no periods between C and J). See http://dwb.adn.com/life/hometown/graduations_07/story/8931787p-8831967c.html and look under Wasilla High School students. Kitchawan (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

CJ? What kind of a name is that? Track, I could see. But CJ??? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A middle one (badum boom). Its a middle name, who cares? :P Unless it was like Hussein or something! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, as in King Hussein, an ally of ours, in case you've forgotten. Or Nasser Hussein, a world-class cricket player. At least it's not "Danforth". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Danforth is a mighty name, like Davron or Spencer. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the Bible: "Go, Danforth, and do likewise." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Support for Obama

On August 4, 2008 Palin issued a press release indicating her support for Barack Obama's energy policy, but it has since been deleted from her website. However an archived version can be found at http://versionista.com/diff/JJ2w@!EyRIzwBhWF7@qt6Q/?showscript 71.95.17.217 (talk) 05:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What's your point? Kelly ^hi! 06:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Did any news orgs notice? If so, please provide links to them. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was noticed. A few links from a quick check, not trying to be comprehensive: msnbc.om [15], Real Clear Politics [16], and Politico [17]. Although the campaign website was indeed scrubbed, the press release is still available in the "Press Archive" section of the Alaska governor's website: [18]. JamesMLane t c 12:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Obama and McCain's energy policies aren't terribly different, McCain's simply adds more alternatives. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Travels abroad, part of her governor job

After becoming governor, Palin obtained her passport and traveled to Kuwait and Germany in 2007 to visit with members of the Alaska National Guard; she has also made multiple trips to Canada.

This is included in the #personal_life section. I think this should be shifted to the #Governor section, as these travels seem to be part of her job rather than part of her family life. Teofilo talk 06:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's also notable that she's *only* visited four foreign countries (Canada, Germany, Iraq, Kuwait), and never traveled out of the US until 2007. 24.16.145.189 (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the last? It does not seem plausible that she moved from Idaho to Alaska and never stepped foot into Canada prior to 2007. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe her airplane from Idaho to Alaska flew over Canadian ground, but that doesn't require a passport. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever moved? You don't move furniture with aeroplanes. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've moved. The furniture (and the car) went by truck, and I flew an airplane to the destination. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Having lived in a border state (not Alaska or Idaho, Wisconsin in my case) I find it unlikely that she'd never travelled into Canada for a fishing or hunting trip. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but was a passport required on your trips to Canada? I think certain types of ID's are necessary (thanks to 9/11) but I don't think a passport itself is an absolute, at least not yet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And I would imagine that there is special dispensation for those who are moving from the lower 48 to Alaska. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Her parents moved in the 1960s. There was definitely no passport needed then. Things were rather friendlier with Canada at that time. You just had to state your reason for being in Canada. That was still true in the early 1990s when I last visited Canada. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't need a passport the last time I went to Canada. She went to college in Idaho though and probably had some belongings to move. (And I don't think most recent college grads ship their belongings, but I could be wrong.) But its smoke break time, don't burn the article down while I'm away! :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Depends on what you're smoking. If she graduated 20 years ago or so, she still wouldn't have needed a passport. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't think its really notable for an article about her... it is great for giving the whole thing a subtle slant though o.O Why isn't it noatable? I don't see many articles about people that list where a person has travelled in the world. It doesn't have any bearing on her international capacity, it doesn't mean she isolates herself. Really... its trivia :)

It's part of the "hick" meme that her opposition is pushing, I think. Kelly ^hi! 07:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they don't seem to get that it only reminds Palin's crowd that Obama has it in for small town types who are "clinging to their guns and bibles." Reinforcing gaffes for fun! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of her supporters said she has international experience because Russia is nearby, if we are reinforcing gaffes instead of being NPOV. In any case, Wikipedia's job is to report what secondary sources are saying. Secondary sources are not interested in her opinion on Puerto Rican statehood, so we don't report on it. Secondary sources are reporting a lot on her not getting a passport until 2007. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm definately not suggesting we reinforce gaffes, just using this talkpage wrongly. Sorry. :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Republicans often try to paint themselves as being poor and uneducated, for example being unable to count how many houses they own. The wealthy can still feel for the poor, although I'm reminded of this, from Richard Armour: "When Richard Nixon turned 21, his father gave him a gold watch. When JFK turned 21, his father gave him a million dollars, because he already had a watch." Despite that, JFK managed to connect with the underprivileged. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

After the fifth house or so I tend to forget the pads I own. Besides, I'm too busy swimming in my pool o' gold to bother. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of gaffes, here's some idiot Congressman from Georgia who said Obama is part of an "uppity" class. [19] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait. Uppity is an ethnic perjorative? WTF? I cry oversensitivity. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I find Kelly's comments to be incredibly partisan. It seems to me that she is pulling out all the stops to keep this article as Pro-Palin as possible. She engages in Original Research when it suits her, and argues that certain commentary from the mainstream media has no place in the article, again using specious arguments. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC

I have been complaining to the refs for days on this issue, especially about the top 3 partisan editors who are steering this article - but nothing has come of it and every 24 hours that passes this bio becomes ever more Pro-Palin. zredsox (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I really wish you'd stop pushing that crap. Making a lot of edits, doesn't make me (or anyone else) partisan. try looking at my actual edit - of the 128 you'll find at least 100 are to correct grammar and similiar problems. I have also pointed out specific times I sided on the "anti-Palin" side to you more than once, yet you have ignored my request for even one time you have sided on the "Pro-Palin" side. Just because you say I'm partisan, doesn't make it so. Did you ever stop to think that you are pushing an anti-Palin agenda far more than "everyone else" is pushing a pro-Palin one? --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you ever stop to think that I am only talking about positions here rather than acting on them and making large scale continuous edits? Sure you made grammatical fixes. You also wrote a Political Summary that was quite dubious. As for my stance on issues, I get the impression if I wasn't here making a case the clear majority rule would be that much more overwhelming. At least I am offering counterpoints to the choir preaching and back patting. That being said, I am not going to argue this any further right now Thaddeus, as it is not productive. zredsox (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop claiming I have made POV/partisan edits and we won't have an issue. Again, the vast majority of my edits were for grammar and style. For other edits, I have always posted on the talk page anything I viewed as controversial, no matter how sure I was of the article being in err; and I only made such edits after what I viewed to be talk page consensus. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

PS The political summary was written at the request of many editors who felt simply repeating her positions was a poor way to do the section. The reason I wrote a summary was for style, not to hide her positions. I am quite tired of you implying my motives were otherwise. When I made the summary, I fully admitted it wasn't perfect and asked others to fix it as they saw fit. The first thing someone else did was remove the criticism of Palin that I had included to try and balance the section. I strongly maintain that the summary I wrote was better than the list we reverted to, even if it wasn't 100% NPOV. Our current section is utter crap stylistically and is nothing like McCain, Biden, or Obama's page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note to All if there are sufficient sources, yes even if it is something the "opposition is pushing", it belongs in the article, as long as the sources aren't the opposition's webpages. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • If you've got any specific complaints, bring them here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I just did, but the only thing that matters is the Political Positions section. I'll say here that you can count my vote not to water the Political Positions section down even when I'm not here to vote. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I said a specific complaint. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor change requested

{{editprotected}} "Palin served two terms on the Wasilla, Alaska, city council from 1992 to 1996, then won two terms as mayor of Wasilla from 1996 to 2002." The comma after Wasilla, Alaska does not belong. Thanks, Enigma ^message 07:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Kevin (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Since when? Wasilla city council. Wasilla, Alaska, city council. Not Wasilla, Alaska city council. Alaska does not have a city council. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What about "...on the Wasilla (Alaska) city council..."? Reads a little smoother to me. Kevin (talk) 08:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Proper English writing, last I heard, would be, "...served on the Wasilla, Alaska, city council..." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Units

{{tl:editprotected}} "5K and 10K" should be in lowercase, or even better read "5 km and 10 km". --Slashme (talk) 07:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Done, though I think "5K" and '10K" are standard terms for those races. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • 5K and 10K are common usage. I've never heard anyone say "5 km" race. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between spoken and written English. You might not say "5 km" but you can still write it like that. Anyway, whether you write "k" or "km", the k is definitely lowercase, as it's a contraction for km, which is lowercase. --Slashme (talk) 07:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's called a 5K race or a 10K race. It is not wikipedia's place to try to re-invent how people use terminology. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wolf hunting

I'd like to wikilink wolf hunting. I could edit through protection, but given the, ahem, high-profile stuff about recent admin actions here, I thought I should double-check that typos, minor copyediting and grammer fixes and wikilinking and markup corrections can be done without talk page consensus? Am I right to say that? Carcharoth (talk) 07:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be a nonissue. You have my seal o approval! :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. Kelly ^hi! 07:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be for those readers who don't know what a wolf is nor what hunting is? Well, it seems harmless enough. Go ahead. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit made here. I wikilinked Alaska Department of Fish and Game (a short stub), wolf hunting [Bugs, you might want to read that article to see the history and the controversy surrounding wolf hunting - or maybe see Elmer Fudd? :-)], and Cook Inlet (rather a nice article, actually). We don't seem to have articles on the Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority or the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act, though we probably should. If anyone notices these turning blue, or writes a stub, please link from this article as well. Carcharoth (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Object. The wolf hunting wiki article references old source data in regards to Alaska. Also, "wolf hunting" should be removed under the context of Governor Responds to the Protect America's Wildlife Act. Alaska's argument was it wasn't "hunting" or “aerial hunting”. It sole purpose was for game management. It is different than going to apply for a license every year to hunting a whitetail deer. Theosis4u (talk) 07:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Other sources in regards to "Management"

• The Wolf in Alaska
• Management & Harvest Reports

Theosis4u (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I did look around for a predator control article, but hadn't realised that wolf hunting might be a controversial link. Will remove it until talk page discussion concludes here. Actually, on second thoughts, the text is the problem, rather than the linking. So will leave as is, and urge any passing admins to implement any changes requested here in the wording (not just the linking) of the article. I have to leave now, unfortunately. Please use {{editprotected}} if you need to ask for an edit. Again apologies about that. Someone could also link Gravina Island and Ketchikan, Alaska if that is not overlinking. Carcharoth (talk) 08:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This issue might of been struggling to get on Palin's bio page for the last couple of days because of this - The measure went down to defeat Aug. 26, 2008 . Let the dust settle? Theosis4u (talk) 08:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've reverted that addition I made. Carcharoth (talk) 08:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Track Palin's name

Did she really name her kid after the Track and Field season, as is claimed at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4669290.ece ? --Slashme (talk) 07:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. I have a friend who named her kid after Sailor Moon characters. Mothers are crazy people. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There's the Phoenix family and the Zappa family for other odd namings. And I once read that Ron Howard said his kids' middle names came from the hotels they were conceived at. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Track is in the Army now, he's not behind the plow... and it would be ironic if he ended up driving a half-track. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Palins Speaking in Tongues at Wasilla Assembly of God

Her former church, Wasilla Assembly of God practices speaking in tongues.

Does anyone have know any links to videotapes of Palin or her pastor [speaking in toungues]? Does anyone know if she were to be vice president, white house services would have speaking in tongues? Does her new church, Wasilla Bible Church, also have speaking in toungues? The article for Wasilla Bible Church was deleted and directed here, and all of the information on it is no longer available. A videotape of Palins should go on the Palins page, while one of others in the church should go on that church's page, which is an argument to un Delete that page. EricDiesel (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

How is the normal religious observances of her church related to the notability of this person? Other than a veiled attempt to bash her for being religious, I don't see any reason this material would be encyclopedic. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Strictly prejudicial, does not belong. And keep in mind that Bush often speaks in tongues, without the help of any church. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Aren't religious beliefs normally a part of biographic information? If verifiable, seems like something that should be there. Why would it be prejudicial? Some people may have trouble with it but others may not.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Have we got even a single solitary bad source that even alludes to the Palins doing this? Once we have several good sources that say they did it and specifically that she did tongues, it's something we can look at. But this would be like saying "Sarah Palin speaks in tongues, because, you know, thats what Christians do." rootology (C)(T) 12:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This keeps getting better and better. Maybe it should read "The Tongues Speaking - Snake Handling Sarah Palin" WTF !!! Scary Stuff. 72.91.113.17 (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you stupid crap like that even if it somehow sneaks in is going to be pulled really quick. rootology (C)(T) 12:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't write for National Enquirer, do you? :) 12:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

::::I struck my own inquiry, since as I am NOT suggesting that if she speaks in tongues should be on her article. I was actually just curious, since cable news reported her church's [speaking in toungues]], and I have never heard it. There is no Wikipedia related video. Obama's black church initially looks pretty kooky, but if you have ever gone to one, your atheism would be challenged by your getting the spirit forcibly put into your body by the amazing drumming and singing. Speaking in toungues might be similarly interesting, especially if it is an exotic remote Alaskan version that includes the singing. There must be a reason why Palins chose to go to such a church.EricDiesel (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You can actually delete this whole section if it's not about the article. This would be per the "not a forum rule" --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't strike my comment at the very top without everyone's comment going. If anyone knows what is wrong, you can strike it for meEricDiesel (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki request

Resolved

 – the wub "?!" 10:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please add a link to the article et:Sarah Palin. Andres (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasilla Bible Church, Larry Kroon, Wasilla Assembly of God, Ed Kalnins Redirect

Wasilla Bible Church, Larry Kroon, and Ed Kalnins links should NOT be sent to the Sarah Palin article. This is grossly unfair for Palin, since it is not established that Palin was present for every controversial remark of Kalnins that is quoted in the the media, and since the church is associated with the controversial David Brickner, and all Palin did was attend a speech of his. Wasilla Bible Church, Larry Kroon, and Ed Kalnins should have their own articles, where information in the media unrelated to Palin can be written and sourced, and links to the Palin article can be put only where they are relevent. Wasilla Assembly of God is up for Delete and redirect here, but it should have its own article by the same reasoning.

(A third Palin pastor is Riley, who is more often quoted in the media, but he only appears in the media talking about Palin, so he does not merit his own article simply by being Palin's pastor.)EricDiesel (talk) 10:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC) EricDiesel (talk) 10:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Refactored BLP violation away. Will be warning Eric. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I created the redirects, it would be nice if the discussion would stay here rather on the individual pages to keep the discussion centralized. I created the redirects per a request on my talk page, but they can stand to be pointed elsewhere. I'll be away for the weekend, so if any admin wants to take it up, you have my blessing. seicer | talk | contribs 11:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If the church ones aren't notable, send them to the Wasila page. If they're notable, the Kroon and Kalnins can go to the churchs. If the Kroon and Kalnin AND the churchs arent notable, nuke the Kroon and Kalnin. Not one of those should go to Sarah Palin. rootology (C)(T) 12:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Education

2 schools are missing from the list of colleges/universities that Palin attended before receiving her bachelor's degree from University of Idaho in 1987. An AP story that came out last night and is in most US papers this morning adds Matanuska-Susitna College in Palmer, AK. A biography of Palin "Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down" by Kaylene Johnson also add University of Hawaii at Hilo to the list of schools Palin attended. Any objections to adding this information to the paragraph on her education? --Rtphokie (talk) 11:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed above. Kelly ^hi! 13:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Which section? I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing another section below this one but nothing above.--Rtphokie (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

{OUTDENT} What happened here? We reached consensus last night on this and I left an edit request here: now I see the edit was not made and I can't find the section in the archives where we discussed it - this was at 7:19 AM UTC today - it is now 20:47 UTC - just 13 hours later. I don't know why this section was removed, why the edit was not made, or where the discussion was put - maybe it is a mistake but there may be other things that have been agreed on that have been lost as well. If I'm missing it in the archive which is certainly possible, please tell me, but I think we need some assistance on this page to get things straightened out. Tvoz/talk 20:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I found the missing material - it had not been archived, but was just deleted, perhaps by mistake. I reinstated the sections here and aked for the edit again. Tvoz/talk 21:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Trivial edit, image alignment

{{editprotected}} Can someone just shift this image, first in this section to standard right alignment? Lead images in sections, especially tall ones, just look funky and not so good. Probably super-trivial. rootology (C)(T) 12:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No, because the images are meant to alternate between left and right per the MOS. It should be "upright" though, which will shrink it which I will do now. Woody (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the intent of the left alignment is that the first image is on the right, and the second on the left, and then the third (in Iraq) is on the right again. The images alternate, which is consistent with the MOS. I'd actually want to reverse the first and second images in that section (Governor of Alaska), since the top image looks to the right, and the second image looks to the left; in theory, they're supposed to face the text. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ultra's way to fix it is better, yeah. Can we do that? rootology (C)(T) 12:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Currently, the Lead image is on the right, then the next on the left, etc as it should be. Preferably, images of people should have the subject looking inward, but it is not always possible. Currently, the only one not alternating is the 2008 VP campaign one, which should switch to left alignment. Woody (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I meant to switch the first image in that section for the second, rather than switching alignments. There's enough separation between this section (Governor) and the VP section that I think we can leave it alone for the moment, or maybe we can find a free image to use in the intervening section? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Done now. Woody (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Track Palin's deployment

{{editprotected}} Please add the provided source to the Personal Life section related to Track's deployment. Thanks! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The sources cited do not state that he is being deployed to Iraq. Someone please remove "He is set to be deployed to Iraq in September 2008.^[120][121]" Lincoln F. Stern 12:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Why can you not do this yourself? This page is the grossest violation of the WP tenet against not owning articles ( see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles ) I have run across. People are so scared they are asking permission to change a comma into a semicolon. --Crunch (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the feeding-frenzy will died down soon. Meanwhile, what specific changes would you be making to the article? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Beelezubub man, this is NOT THE RIGHT PLACE to discuss that. We've linked you to the right place and continuing to complain about the full protection is wasting everyone's time. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please add this source then: http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5g6GYPrhDjOw_MnIFo_4wj1Qwc65Q. Thanks! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh please, BBugs! You cannot be serious in wanting me, or any other editor, to list all specific edits however minor we want to make. That is exactly my point. I am very frustrated. For starters, the edit suggested above. Next, about a dozen or more some extremely minor. Some grammatical and formatting. Some a little more substantial. Once again, I refer everyone to Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. --Crunch (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Kyaa, who are you addressing your request to? Who appointed themselves God who owns this article? --Crunch (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection was requested and granted. The protection itself was debated and went back and forth until it became clear that semi-protection was insufficient. Go to that other page and make your voice heard. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And the reason for the separate page is to prevent this one from getting too long. It's long enough as it is. You could almost have a separate spinoff page for each of the POV-pushing topics listed herein. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS. Nuff said. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There are endless articles with grammar and spelling errors that the user could spend his energy on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Two points: While we've been talking here, someone just put full protection on again. Again, you who are fully engaged in the Protection Wars may enjoy this game, the rest of us and the vast majority "out there" who just use Wikipedia as readers are finding it very frustrating. As for other articles that require grammar and spelling cleanup, let me clarify: I am interested in editing the Sarah Palin article. Much of what I am interested in editing is grammar and spelling. But that is not all. I am also interested in adding to the article and believe I can be trusted to do in a nPOV way that adheres to WP guidelines. I am not particularly interested in editing random articles for spelling mistakes at this time. That should have been clear. --Crunch (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Your reluctance to specify what you want to change, combined with your seemingly excessive frustration at editing this one article for grammar, makes me wonder what you're really up to. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Baseball bugs, please WP:AGF. The reasons you give are entirely inadequate to justify the aspersions you are casting. Homunq (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

N Edit declined. The request is not specific enough (add what where?). Also, if a reference is to be added, it should be provided in the proper <ref>{{cite news|...}}</ref> format.  Sandstein  16:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate Description of "Bridge to Nowhere

The bridge had been cancelled before she had gotten to office. See references from the Wiki page on the Gravina Island Bridge, which state the bridge as having already been removed as of Sept 21, 2005, before Palin took office. The funds were not cancelled, and Palin was the person to actually allocate them to other projects. The way this is written as/is sounds as if Palin cancelled the bridges, when infact they had already been cancelled, and just needed to have the funds utilized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.169.195.238 (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Factcheck has a bunch more details on this, including cites. It does appear that she was supporting it until there was no point in doing so and it became more politically expedient to be against it. But then she kept the money allocated to this project and redirected it to other transportation projects. --Kickstart70-T-C 14:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No Mention of Lifetime NRA Membership..?? Seems notable

No Mention of Lifetime NRA Membership..?? Seems notable

I think that's mentioned in Political positions of Sarah Palin. Kelly ^hi! 13:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be briefly noted here as well, as being a member of the NRA is not necessarily a political position. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

How about adding it in the personal life section as such "Palin is a self-described "hockey mom" and mother of five. Among her common activities are hunting, ice fishing and riding snowmobiles; she has also run a marathon. She has a lifetime membership to the NRA." Any other notable memberships that surface could then be added "and is a member of such & such." --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, she has been described as a life-long member of the NRA, which is not the same as being a Life Member, which is what I assume you mean by “lifetime membership.” —Travis^talk 15:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The sources seem dubious, so how about just "She is a member of the NRA." --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions - broken link for reference

The link for the following reference appears to be broken: <ref name="eagle-forum-questionnaire">{{cite web | url=http://eagleforumalaska.blogspot.com/2006/07/2006-gubernatorial-candidate.html | publisher=[[Eagle Forum|Eagle Forum Alaska]] | title=2006 Gubernatorial Candidate Questionnaire | date=July 31, 2006 | accessdate=2008-09-01}}</ref> Pingku (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Where is that in the article? (Reference # & text section)
2. What is the correct link?
3. Separately from the minor issue of fixing this, do the editors think any version of that link should be used; I note the "blogspot" in the url... GRBerry 13:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

1. It's in 'Political positions'. Second paragraph, sentence "She backs abstinence-only education and is against "explicit sex-ed programs" in schools." Currently ref #106 - it is the third of three references for that same claim. Without seeing the link I don't know what it adds to the other two, neither of which is a primary source.
2. My on-site search on the title ("2006 Gubernatorial Candidate Questionnaire") couldn't find a match.
3. On consideration, I'd like to draw editors' attention to the fact that the justification for the claim is an answer to a question in a questionnaire. (The questionnaire was sponsored by Eagle Forum: hence, apparently, the relevance of the original url.) To the question "Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?", Palin replied "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support." The political position should perhaps be put into context as pertaining to the gubernatorial contest, and a definitive reference would be a complete text of the questionnaire and responses. Pingku (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, I'd thought this was going to be an easy and non-controversial correction of some silly typo. You are right that the primary source url is not working at all. They internet archive/wayback machine only has versions of that site from June 30 2007 and earlier. I'd suggest we remove that link completely at this point; the MSM sources are adequate for the sentence; heck even the MSNBC source by itself is adequate. GRBerry 16:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Pingku (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, no fact needs 3 references - esp if one of them is dead. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done I left both main stream media sources in. GRBerry 18:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Gov. Sarah Palin's National Security Credentials

I just picked up some little known info on Palin's National Security Credentials. Some have shrugged off her position as Commander of the Alaskan National Guard but see this:" Alaska is the first line of defense in our missile interceptor defense system.

The 49th Missile Defense Battalion of the Alaska National Guard is the unit that protects the entire nation from ballistic missile attacks. It's on permanent active duty, unlike other Guard units.

As governor of Alaska , Palin is briefed on highly classified military issues, homeland security, and counterterrorism. Her exposure to classified material may rival even Biden's.

She's also the commander in chief of the Alaska State Defense Force (ASDF), a federally recognized militia incorporated into Homeland Security's counterterrorism plans.

Palin is privy to military and intelligence secrets that are vital to the entire country's defense. Given Alaska 's proximity to Russia , she may have security clearances we don't even know about.

According to the Washington Post, she first met with McCain in February, but nobody ever found out. This is a woman used to keeping secrets.

She can be entrusted with our national security, because she already is."

Terry Cochran USN Vietnam Veteran

Sounds like an op-ed piece. Kelly ^hi! 13:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Terry, please separate "credentials" from "Republican talking points". -- Yekrats (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"I just picked up some little known info" is not a basis for including claims in Wikipedia. There have been cited on this page wire service stories quoting a National Guard general and the adjutant of the Alsska Nation Guard to the effect that a state governor has no real role in the national defense activities of the state's national guard, but has the authority to call it out for flood's forest fires, and other such emergencies. Is there reliable sourcing for the occasions when she called out the Alaska National Guard? For riots? For blizzards? Edison (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Palin hasn't ordered Alaska National Guard to do anything". From McClatchy/Kansas City Star. The idea that the Governor of Alaska plays a meaningful executive role in the nation's missile defense certainly requires a source. MastCell ^Talk 16:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Levi Johnston's age

The article contains the phrase "17-year-old Levi Johnston" with one relevant Washington Post reference. However, Johnston's age is reported by multiple sources as 18, so the age provided in the article should be considered an error or at least under dispute (or even removed given its insignificant relation to the subject matter.)

A selection of contrary references:

• New York Times, "Now, the Bad News on Teenage Marriage"
• Washington Post, "Palin delivers star-turning performance at RNC"
• Washington Post, "Blogger, Author, Palin Booster: Meghan McCain's New Chapter"
• Washington Post, "Palin Comes Out Fighting"
• Washington Post, "Kids and Kaboodle"
• San Francisco Chronicle/SF Gate, "Levi Johnston to join Palin family at convention"
• New York Daily News, "Bristol Palin's pregnancy was an open secret back home"

It's also been pointed out elsewhere that his exact birthday may be obtained via the Alaska Court System site, but that probably falls under original research.

(Sorry about the nonstandard citation format - easier to copy & paste) --Robort (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate your diligent research, I think a simpler solution would be to omit this irrelevant detail entirely. JamesMLane t c 13:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I suggested that option, but since I can't edit the article someone else needs to do so. --Robort (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll do it, if there are no objections? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

ok w/me. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP would seem to support this. I can't quickly see a better wording than just dropping the hyphenated age. GRBerry 14:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP says no such thing. In this case his age is fairly important in that people would be reacting differerntly if it was more than a couple of years to either side of what it actualy is.Geni 14:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If the sources don't agree, then you have to straddle it and say 17-some-sources-say-18 or some such. The age doesn't matter very much unless there's an issue of statutory rape - which I gather there isn't, as someone had said the age of consent in Alaska is 16. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Late teens" would cover it no?Geni 14:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Geni, his age may be fairly important for some purposes, but I don't think it's important for Sarah Palin's bio. JamesMLane t c 14:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact of her teen daughter's pregnancy is important. Unless there's a legal issue, the exact age of the father is not especially important. However, if someone could determine when his birthday was (maybe it was last week?) the 17 vs. 18 question might at least be answered and we would have some closure here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

One tyop or misstatement of fact saying "the campaign said he was 17" does not trump numerous other reliable sources with an age which agrees with court records cited above saying 18. The incorrect reference should be removed and a reference with the 18 age should be cited. It removes any salacious speculation that he is much older (or younger) than the girl. Even the Washington Post can make a mistake, which was corrected in several Washington Post and other newspaper's stories in subsequent days. A footnote to The Telegraph follows the misstatement of Johnston's age, but the cited article does not give any age for Johnston. Edison (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Bristol is important. She is important due to the pregnancy so the father is important. Going by the various teen pregnacy articles I've seen it would appear that his rough age is of some importance.Geni 00:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I vote to remove the age entirely, as it is no relevance to Palin's bio anyway. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Concur. Fcreid (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"We must get the article right." Until/unless there's consensus on changing the age, it should be removed. --Robort (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick canvass

What should we do about the reference to Levi Johnson's age?

Remove it

1. Seems the only sensible thing to do since sources disagree; also it is not relevant to Sarah Palin's biography what his exact age is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
2. What Thaddeus said. Kelly ^hi! 18:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Although I'm satisfied with the sources that state his age is 18, it isn't relevant to the subject whether he's 18 or 17. --Robort (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Remove it as irrelevant per Thaddeus Keeper ǀ 76 18:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Remove. Irrelevant to Sarah Palin's biography. Kaisershatner (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Remove. It's not relevant to the subject of the article (Sarah Palin). --Clubjuggle ^T/C 19:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Remove. The discrepancies in published information about the date aren't that big an issue. If there were such discrepancies about an important fact -- such as, for example, the birthdate of the subject of a bio article -- then we would simply provide the information available to us, as we do for Ann Coulter (see this section). Here, however, even if we had rock-solid information, there'd be no reason to include the birthdate of the bio subject's prospective son-in-law. JamesMLane t c 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Change to 18

• Just go with the majority of the sources. The Washington Post just put down what the Palin campaign said, and said 18 in later articles. The other sources must have had some colleagues in Alaska do fact checking; they have BLP concerns too, you know. Getting it "wrong" in this instance is a non-concern, we are just reporting what major newspapers have said. His age should be in there; the age of consent issue means that users will be looking for it. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Change to agree with reliable sources. We do not remove facts from articles just because one source gave incorrect discrepant information. If her pregnancy and her age are encyclopedic, then his age is encyclopedic. Edison (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Get it right

• If you can determine for sure what his birth day and year actually are, then go with that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Education history

The following is accurate, not what is in the article:

Palin attended one semester at Hawaii Pacific University, then transferred to North Idaho College where she attended for two semesters. From there she transferred to the University of Idaho, then transferred to Matanuska-Susitna College, and then transferred back the University of Idaho where she graduated with a bachelor's degree in broadcast news journalism.

Booksnmore4you (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically, her semester at Mat-Su College wasn't really a transfer: it's a DK talking point claming she "changed colleges 6 times in 6 years" to try to paint her as unstable. She went with a group of Wasilla High students to college in Hawai'i, didn't like it; and then went to her birthplace area of Sandpoint, Idaho to the community college, and then transferred to UIdaho. Her semester at Mat-Su was what most of us would call "a semester off, take a class at home"... I'm not sure how UIdaho counts a two colleges: this must be the logic that counts Grover Cleveland as two presidents. (Forgot to login, Sturmde

Great, another POV-pushing meme. I really wish people would understand that stuff published by the Daily Kos is libelous trash. Kelly ^hi! 14:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically, this is probably published at DKos, not by them. Homunq (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, you should've some of the libelous trash that's been posted at DKos about such poor maligned innocents as Scooter Libby, Duke Cunningham, Larry Craig, Bob Ney.... My point is that a DKos posting isn't generally a source we'd cite, but the presence of an argument on DKos doesn't disprove it, either. JamesMLane t c 17:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Meh, they were the ones who were publishing the Trig Trutherism bullcrap that gave us no end of headaches here, and Moulitsas defended that in the press. I used to regard that site with some respect, but something has transformed them a source for gutter-licking trash. It's sad. Kelly ^hi! 17:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a forum, not a site like Salon that decides what to "publish". On Democratic Underground, some people were pushing this speculation about Trig, and others were calling them morons (and worse). That's the nature of a forum. Both those sites get thousands of posts per day. Thus, there's some crap (unlike, say, Wikipedia, where every post in every talk page is polite and well-reasoned). JamesMLane t c 01:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, don't let any facts get in the way of your POV-pushing. The article is by the AP and was caried in the Anchorage Daily News. Booksnmore4you (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The language is a bit clunky. How about this:

Palin enrolled for one semester at Hawaii Pacific University, then attended North Idaho College for two semesters. She later transferred to the University of Idaho for the remainder of her collegiate career, excepting one semester in which she studied at Matanuska-Susitna College. Palin she graduated with a bachelor's degree in journalism.

Coemgenus 19:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

[OUTDENT} This was discussed last night and consensus language agreed upon - see here - and it is discussed a few sections up as well. The section seems to have mysteriously disappeared. Tvoz/talk 20:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I found the material that had been removed and reinstated the edit request. Tvoz/talk 21:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggested edit to PSC section

"Monegan alleged that his dismissal was retaliation for his failure to fire Palin’s former brother-in-law, Alaska Mike Wooten. Wooten is a state trooper who was involved in a child custody battle with Palin’s sister, Molly McCann, and who had also been disciplined for breaking department policy several times.[87][88] Monegan further alleged that contacts made by Palin herself, her staff, and her family had constituted inappropriate pressure to fire Wooten.[87][88] Though acknowledging that her staff had contacted Monegan or his staff a number of times regarding Wooten, and that at least one contact could be interpreted as pressure,[89] Palin stated that this call and most of the rest were made without her knowledge, and reiterated that she did not fire Monegan because of Wooten.[87][90]"

"Monegan alleged that his dismissal was retaliation for his failure to fire Palin’s former brother-in-law, Alaska state trooper Mike Wooten, who had violated department policy during a child custody battle with Palin’s sister, Molly McCann.[87][88] Monegan further alleged that contacts made by Palin herself, her staff, and her family had constituted inappropriate pressure to fire Wooten, because Wooten had already been disciplined and the case was officially closed.[87][88] Though acknowledging that her staff had contacted Monegan or his staff a number of times regarding Wooten, and that at least one contact could be interpreted as pressure,[89] Palin stated that this call and most of the rest were made without her knowledge, and reiterated that she did not fire Monegan because of Wooten.[87][90]"

3rd version's the charm? Includes edit suggested in following section.

"Monegan alleged that his dismissal was retaliation for his failure to fire Palin’s former brother-in-law, Alaska state trooper Mike Wooten, who had violated department policy and had been in a child custody battle with Palin’s sister, Molly McCann.[87][88] Monegan further alleged that contacts made by Palin herself, her staff, and her family had constituted inappropriate pressure to fire Wooten, because Wooten had already been disciplined and the case was officially closed.[87][88] On August 1, the Alaska Legislature hired an independent investigator to review the situation. On August 13, Palin acknowledged that her staff had contacted Monegan or his staff a number of times regarding Wooten, and that at least one contact could be interpreted as pressure.[89] She stated that this call and most of the rest were made without her knowledge, and reiterated that she did not fire Monegan because of Wooten.[87][90]"

I think this edit rounds out the story with both pro-Palin (Wooten's poor record) and anti-Palin (the Bailey call) essential facts, without overly extending it. Homunq (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This revision does not address the faulty chronology raised previously: Palin did not acknowledge that her staff had contacted Monegan until after the investigation was instigated on August 1. 79.74.252.173 (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

One thing at a time. Please, any admin who is handling editprotected requests, this is a key article. If you looked at the request and would have done it if you loved the edit, the only reason NOT to do it is if you can cite a specific wikipedia policy that it violates. The page is NOT protected to make admins into the quality police; it is protected to avoid serious, recurrent violations of WP:BLP. Homunq (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I endorse the version given by Homunq above. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. If we include Wooten's misconduct, with an implication that Palin therefore had good reason for pressuring Monegan to fire him, we must also include Monegan's response, which specifically pointed to the prior disciplinary action against Wooten. One earlier version included this sentence about Palin's first conversation on the subject with Monegan: "In response, Monegan told Palin that Wooten had been officially reprimanded and disciplined in 2006 for these matters and that the subject could not be reopened."

Good point. How about we add, "for which he had already been disciplined"? --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As to the point raised by the anon, this sentence was in prior versions but has now been scrubbed from the article: "Initially, Palin denied that there had been any pressure on Monegan to fire Wooten, either from her or from anyone else in her administration." It was cited to this story in the Washington Post. This fact is important and should be restored. It seems somewhat inefficient to set up another whole section just for that, but if that's the procedure this protection folly requires, I suppose it can be done. JamesMLane t c 17:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Both of the counterarguments to my edit are about what it is not, not about what it is. Please propose your own edits (which I'd probably support) instead of opposing mine. This may be an editprotected article, but this is still Wikipedia. If we had to vote on edits before they could happen, this would be Knol or something. This article is protected only to prevent serious violations, and this proposed edit is NOT one of those violations. Homunq (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought my objection and proposal were both clear. The proposed edit is a violation of WP:NPOV because it doesn't give Monegan's side of the dispute. My suggested revision was to add this sentence at the end: "In response, Monegan told Palin that Wooten had been officially reprimanded and disciplined in 2006 for these matters and that the subject could not be reopened." That would render superfluous one of your additions, namely "and who had also been disciplined for breaking department policy several times". JamesMLane t c 18:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess I have a slightly looser definition of WP:NPOV than you do, or something, because I can't see a violation in either case. We have to draw the line somewhere on counter-counter-arguments, and as editors we need at least a little flexibility to avoid edit wars. (If this were a forum, I'd respond about how the dispute is not about whether Monegan's or Wooten's actions were appropriate, because she had the right to fire Monegan regardless; the only question is, did the contacts from her office constitute undue pressure.) But sure, I accept your suggestion as a friendly addition to my requested edit. (please strikeout your "opposed" and put your preferred version as a response to mine). Homunq (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I did it for you. The sentence you suggested didn't quite fit (both "response" and "these matters" have unclear referents) but I think the second version addresses your concerns. Please strikeout your "Oppose:". Homunq (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I approve of the new version. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I Strongly Oppose the new version. zredsox (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Zredsox, do you have a reason? Homunq (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing the proposed edits, I am moving my position to Neutral. I have a feeling this entire section is soon going to need a rewrite anyway. [20] zredsox (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• I approve of the suggested changes. It looks like each individual edit will need a new section, so I'm going to start another section to address the chronology issue. After that maybe we can deal with JamesMLane's suggestions. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• More discussion please; consensus is not clear. In particular, I'd like to see the opinion of more editors. GRBerry 20:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• I was about to point out an inaccuracy in a passage that's new in Version 2: "who had violated department policy during a child custody battle". That suggests that his violations were in connection with the child custody battle, which is certainly false, and I think it's false even if it merely means during the pendency of the battle. (The divorce proceeding was going on but "the child custody battle" usually refers to the custody dispute after the granting of the divorce.) Also, the context of "because Wooten had already been disciplined and the case was officially closed" is confusing. Those facts are why Monegan refused to fire Wooten, not why he thought the pressure was improper. Homunq, I take your point about the referents. Really, the easiest thing would be to restore the prior version that was perfectly fine before the Palin partisans set to work trying to sanitize it, but now to get that result we apparently have to go sentence-by-sentence and start several different subsections. I hope the geniuses who decided on protection are happy. I'll try to propose a Version 3 but right now I have RL issues to attend to. JamesMLane t c 20:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

re: custody battle - at least some of his violations (death threat, perhaps also taser) related to the custody battle. I agree that the moose hunt did not, but we are trying to summarize, and it is technically true that he violated policy during the battle, and the details are all in the sub-article. The inte rest here is to give a feeling for the he-said-she-said without going into every detail, and I think this phrasing works. Homunq (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Having read this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/03/AR2008090303210.html?nav%3Dhcmodule&sub=AR ... I think that it is necessary to add: "Though acknowledging that she and her staff...". Homunq (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this section is misleading because it gives the reader the impression that she wanted Mike Wooten dismissed simply because she was upset about the divorce. I think it would better round the story to state that she believed Wooten tasered his son and made a death threat against a retired school teacher http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4663977.ece To not include her motivation for the firing leaves the read to assume her motivation. --RobertGary1 (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Does version 3 address this concern? Note that we can't be going into detail on all the accusations against Wooten, as this is a summary section, yet I now see it is important to pose them as separate from the custody battle. Homunq (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

N Edit declined. It is not clear what edit is requested and/or has consensus. Please use {{editprotected}} only after consensus has been achieved.  Sandstein  16:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandstein: there is not consensus on a final version. There is consensus that an edit is needed, and there are no voices opposing anything about the current proposed version of the edit. I understand the desire to be conservative with regards to an article that has been subject to edit wars, but I propose that the standard of total consensus is unattainable for anything beyond simple copyedits. I suggest that we should try to stay as close as possible to the normal process of editing, with successive imperfect versions, as WP:BLP allows. That is, any good-faith editprotect request that is not an obvious violation of WP:POV, WP:BLP, or some clear talk page consensus should be carried out. The remedy is not fewer edits, it's more. Nobody even remotely alleges that any of the above edits would constitute the kind of violation for which this page was protected, so lets let a thousand flowers bloom, or a thousand points of light, or whatever. 216.106.170.103 (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, the complainant won't specify what he's complaining about. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Is your honor talking about me? I am saying 2 things.

1. I think that the above version 3, immediately preceded by {{editprotect}}, should be added to the article.

2. I think that the threshold of perfect consensus before putting an edit in place is unreasonable given the controversy involved. I think that anything which is clearly a good-faith attempt at compromise within the principles of Wikipedia should be implemented provisionally, and that debate should continue if warranted.

Is that clear enough for the court? Homunq (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I oppose "version 3". It takes this section off on a tangent. The title of the section is "Public Safety Commisioner dismissal". This issue involves Governor Palin, the Alaska Legislature, former commissioner Monagan, charges of abuse-of-power, and the resulting (and on-going) investigations. The messy, multi-year, family feud between the Palin's and Trooper Wooten is immaterial. I'd like to hear objections to using the version at the bottom of this post in place of the existing paragraph. It's considerably less obfuscated, eliminates text not consistant with a summarization of the section title, lists occurances in the correct order, and is entirely sourced. (the two links I recovered from an earlier version of this article would need converting to proper references).

"On July 11, 2008, Palin dismissed Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan, citing performance-related issues.[82] Monegan alleged he had been pressured to fire Palin’s former brother-in-law, Alaska State Trooper Mike Wooten, and that his dismissal was retaliation for his failure to do so.[85][86] Palin publicly denied that any pressure to fire Wooten had been applied on Monegan. On August 1, the Alaska Legislature hired an independent investigator to review the situation.[91] Palin then asked the Attorney General to launch his own internal investigation [21] which led to her acknowledging that there had been over twenty contacts made by her administration relating to Wooten[22]. Palin stated that most of those calls were made without her knowledge, and reiterated that she did not fire Monegan because of Wooten.[85][88] The legislative investigation is scheduled to be completed in October 2008.[85]"

216.170.33.149 (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Paul

I agree with you, Wooten is immaterial. If this were a court room, his misdeeds do not belong. But it's not. Part of the defense of Palin is that Wooten deserved it. That may hold no legal water, but apparently it holds water with some people. It is not our job to decide for them. Wooten being disciplined belongs in, because it is clearly WP:V and WP:N for this article.

Also, your version is light on the actual nature of the contact from Palin to Monegan. There are two specific contacts - the taped Bailey call, and the emails from Palin herself - which stand out as not fitting under a blanket "over twenty contacts" statement. I would be OK with choosing one of these two cases as representative, and covering it in a subclause. Probably the Bailey call is the right one, as it is also the basis for the separate Police Union ethics complaint against Palin. Homunq (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Homunq, I haven't seen any source for your assertion, "Part of the defense of Palin is that Wooten deserved it." My understanding is that, although Palin believes that to be true, she also asserts it to be immaterial, and expressly disclaims that it's part of her defense. Her actual defense is that Monegan's firing had absolutely nothing to do with the Wooten issue. If she's now defending the firing by saying that Monegan was being slack about Wooten's misdeeds, that would be a shift in her position, and we would need to document that she's actual argued that. JamesMLane t c 01:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say "palin's defense", I meant other people defending Palin. Wooten's conduct is a significant portion of the sub-article and it deserves some mention here. Just look how many times drive-bys say "he tased his son!!!" - if we leave this information out completely, we are practically asking for those same people to put it in. (I also think that she (or her lawyers) actually does mention Wooten's misdeeds in her own defense - not that he deserved it, but that she was keeping Monegan informed of death threats and other ongoing issues, or something.)

However, I don't want to be taking ownership of this section. I consider this counter-proposed edit to be a clear improvement over the status quo, and would be happy to see it implemented - and then improved further. Homunq (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the Hatfield/McCoy (Palin/Wooten) dispute deserves mention somewhere, but I disagree that this is the place. This controversy is based upon alleged misconduct by the governor. Do we want to go insert lines into the Clinton's Lewinski section noting that "by the way, Monica often wore tight sweaters"? Whether citing claims that Wooten tortures puppies and pulls the wings off flies, or that he was suspended for letting his son volunteer for an asinine taser demo, or fined for dropping a moose on his then-wife's (Palin's younger sister) tag after she said "Here! You shoot it!", just injects a sympathetic slant that is contrary to any statements made by Governor Palin regarding the "Public Safety Commisioner dismissal". Do we wish to impart that "Well, if it turns out she did break the law, she was justified"?

As to "Your version is light on the actual nature of the contact from Palin to Monegan": I'm asking that additional information, regarding contacts, be added to what is now posted in the article. That facts that were scrubbed be replaced. The fact that she denied that any contact had taken place, then had to admit to two dozen contacts is a huge aspect of this investigation. Any mention of the intiial denial was recently edited out, and "two dozen contacts" became simply "contacts". Removing those key facts, just a few words, renders this summary a hollow, over-simplified misrepresentation of the facts. Specific details of the individual contacts ought to go into the sub-article?

75.88.83.220 (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Paul (216.170.33.149 when at the office. I can't remember my old WP login from my old email address... I'll go signup for a new one.)

OK. I still think Wooten's misconduct should go in, and something specific about the Bailey call (she admits it's pressure but disciplined Bailey?), but let's start somewhere. I approve this change. Homunq (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello all. I'm the former anon who shuffled the lines around a bit for this last version that seems to have some support as an improvement over the status quo (thanks!). I did neglect a couple things: A good reference to follow "Palin publicly denied that any pressure to fire Wooten had been applied on Monegan" would be useful. There are satisfactory examples from the Washinton Post, the Washinton Times, the Anchoorage Dialy News... I could dig one up if you like. Also, I was remiss in identifying the "Attorney General" that Palin instructed to perform an inquiry. Clarification is in order to ensure a reader doesn't get the impression that Michael Mukasey is involved ;) The firng and investigation are logically one event, a part of Palin's public life. The long-term Palin/McCann/Wooten dispute is certainly relevant as a preamble, or lead-in, but needs it's own paragraph to describe this part of her private life. Frankly, it would need it's own section, if the title of this section is to remain the same. Kopp seems to logically fit best as a one-liner kept seperate? Spiff1959 (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Just a few brief comments. This talk page section is messy and unclear, and it starts with the title, which uses the acronym "PSC". I just assumed it referred to something very tangential, given that no "PSC" is mentioned in the article. But no! "PSC" refers to the Public Safety Commissioner Dismissal. Why on Earth not put that into the section heading?

Also, it's unclear what the big gripe is with the section as currently written, or what the pending suggested alternatives are.

And, it's unclear why the section begins with three different versions of a paragraph starting with "Monegan alleged that his dismissal...." Shouldn't there be some introductory explanation or something? Some of us are dummies here, and we need things to be user-friendly.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggested edit to PSC section (2)

{{editprotected}}

I propose that the PSC section be reordered to address the faulty chronology. On August 1, the Alaska Legislature hired an independent investigator to review the situation. Palin's acknowledgement that her staff had contacted Monegan dates to August 13. . The reordered text would read:

... He further alleged that contacts made by Palin herself, her staff, and her family had constituted inappropriate pressure to fire Wooten. On August 1, the Alaska Legislature hired an independent investigator to review the situation. On August 13, Palin acknowledged that her staff had contacted Monegan or his staff regarding Wooten. Palin stated that most of those calls were made without her knowledge, and reiterated that she did not fire Monegan because of Wooten. ...

T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, this is just reordering, not expansion. Homunq (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Included in version 3 above, template here gutted. Homunq (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Is topic #15: "Add information on Monegan firing" now officially dead, and this where the Monegan dismissal issue is to be discussed? The other thread appeared to be on-going. If not, I think anyone reviewing it would find it pertinent. 216.170.33.149 (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Paul

Proposal for splitting up history/talk pages while leaving article together

I have a proposal which would help this article return to semi-protected status at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Another_proposal:_transcluded_subpages. Please post your opinions for or against it there. Homunq (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture change requested

Resolved

 – Image deleted - impossible to get proper license

I think the picture of her family under "Personal life" should be changed. Left, original; right, proposed new.

Palin family members at the announcement of Palin's vice presidential selection, August 29, 2008. From left: Todd, Piper, Willow, Bristol, and Trig.

File:Palin Family.jpg

The Palin family. From left: top: Track, Sarah, Todd; bottom: Willow, Piper, Bristol

-Zeus- 23:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Copyright and source of new suggested image are doubtful. Vey nice picture though.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose pending verification then Support Looks like its the official picture. It's credited to US gvt and has public domain status. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Edit.. I took description to be gospel. If it's ever verified as government or public domain, i vote yes. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - I've flagged the image for speedy deletion at Commons. No indication it's a work of the federal government. Kelly ^hi! 00:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment I believe that pic is on the Alaskan state gov't site. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The Alaskan state govt doesn't release its work into the public domain. Kelly ^hi! 00:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose http://gov.state.ak.us/photos/PalinFamily_Outside_Med.jpg is the source and there is no release on the image. patsw (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC) I marked it copyvio sd. patsw (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the page where the file is shown; http://gov.state.ak.us/bio.html

Release for the Alaska state photo

I just sent an email to the webmaster asking for permission. -Zeus- 00:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok people this should be good enough; Message 1/252 Mills, Andy J (GOV) <andy.mills@alaska.gov> Sep 4, 2008 04:46:56 pm -0800 Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:46:56 -0800 Subject: RE: Bio Image To: Matthew Momjian <matthew@momjian.us>

Matthew-

Please feel free to use the image for Wikipedia if it's a non-partisan and non-campaign related use (which is the requirement for this release).

Thank you for your permission request. Please note that newest member of the Palin family (Trig Paxson Van Palin) is not pictured in that photo.

Kind Regards- Andy Mills Office of the Governor Webmaster

---

Original Message-----

From: Matthew Momjian [23] Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 4:41 PM To: Mills, Andy J (GOV) Subject: Bio Image

Hello,

I am representing Wikipedia and requesting permission to use the file located at http://gov.state.ak.us/photos/PalinFamily_Outside_web.jpg on the Sarah Palin Wikipedia page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

I found the file on http://gov.state.ak.us/bio.html

Thank you, -Zeus- 00:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am not a Wiki-lawyer but I'm not sure that a release for the Wikipedia is valid. When I have done this myself, the grantor needs to reference one of GFDL, CC-SA, CC-BY-SA, or FAL explicitly for it to be a valid release. See commons:project:Email templates for the sort of release expected. patsw (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • So what do I need to do now? -Zeus- 01:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by -Zeus- (talk • contribs)

• • • Try again. Use the boilerplate we suggest be used, and ask that it be returned, verbatim, with their signature at the bottom. Explain why the current permission is insufficient. Hope that helps.++Lar: t/c 01:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Well according to that template he can't release that file because I doubt the webmaster is the copyright holder of the file :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by -Zeus- (talk • contribs) 01:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The form of release that is the easiest to explain is http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ But this release is explicit in granting usage that could be partisan or campaign-related. As far as I know, the Wikipedia can't use images that have such usage restrictions. My suggestion:

To permissions-commonswikimedia.org

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK http://gov.state.ak.us/photos/PalinFamily_Outside_web.jpg

I agree to publish that work under the free license LICENSE [choose at least one from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Choosing_a_license#Common_free_licenses ] (patsw suggests CC-SA http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

DATE, NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER

This is the form of release expected. patsw (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

See also Commons:Email_templates which gives (too?) detailed instructions, and has a link to further example emails you can use. If he is an "authorised agent" of the copyright holder, (the State of Alaska) he can release it. But you need to be clear that it's a release in accordance with our license. As incentive, remind him that if we can't get permission, we may have to use other freely licensed pictures which might not be as nice to look at, and also remind him that this page got 2.5M views a few days ago and is on track to get well over 20M during the month of September. Does he want a nice picture used, or one we scare up from someone??? ++Lar: t/c 01:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Ok I sent as you guys suggested let's hope he agrees. I think he will.— Preceding unsigned comment added by -Zeus- (talk • contribs)
    • You might want to forward that email response (if you get another) to at least one or two administrators for record as well. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

All images on US government sites are in the pubic domain, unless stated otherwise. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Works of the US Federal Government are public domain, not state governments. - auburnpilot talk 15:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, most states do not place their copyrightable material in the public domain. It is either explicitly copyrighted, or automatically copyrighted, since a copyright notice is not required to establish a copyright. patsw (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that, if Alaska prohibits use for partisan or campaign purposes, the official probably can't give a GFDL or similar license, because that license would enable a campaign to use the photo in a GFDL-compliant document. JamesMLane t c 16:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So, what was the reply from the state of Alaska? patsw (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur with JamesMLane. The first response already precludes what we need for inclusion.--Appraiser (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No release under a free license. We are not going to get a valid release. Image deleted.Geni 01:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

incorrect spelling

Palin addresses the 2008 Republiican National Convention

That was description of one picture. After I noticed it I checked "big picture" - there Republican was spelled correctly.

I can't modify it myself - perhaps a moderator is willing to do so.

done. my one big contribution to this page so far. --barneca (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Pastor Paul Riley, Pastor Ed Kalnins, Pastor Larry Kroon, and Pastor David Brickner

Add this to religion section of article- Paul Riley was her pastor for most of her time at Wasilla Assewmbly of God Associated Press reports “Her pastor for most of her time at Wasilla Assembly of God, Paul Riley”. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jCeGgS4vbVt6qpxTpahCgGn_R-dQD92VOKVG0

• 1. Paul Riley is NOT notable, as he only appears in the media talking about Palin as far as I know, and notability cannot be inherited. If he becomes controversial, or is the subject of media stories for some other notable thing, only then he should only then get an article.
• 2. The “controversial figure” Ed Kalnins IS notable, since the content of the many media articles in which he is featured regards his controversial remarks. These remarks should NOT be on the Palin page, as there is no information I am aware of that directly links Palin to the controversial remarks. E.G., USA Today reports “The Rev. Ed Kalnins had no way of knowing he'd be a controversial figure in the 2008 presidential race.” http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-03-palin-pastor_N.htm . So Kalnins should have his own article in which his controversial remarks can be documented, as well as his bio, and any information about him that can be sourced.
• 3. Larry Kroon IS notable. He is in many major media stories linking him as far back as 2004 to the highly controversial Jews for Jesus and David Brickner. The Atlantic Monthly magazine reports this Jews For Jesus pamphlet (PDF) from 2004 that reveals more details about Palin's pastor.” This is a year 2004 association, long predating Palin’s rise from mayor. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/palins-pastor-a.html Numerous other news articles report on Kroon, e.g. The Chicago Tribune http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-alaska-palin_monsep01,0,3504940.story . The 2004 stuff is unrelated to Palin, so Kroon should have his own article. It is unclear Palin knew Kroon would be speaking when she recently sat through his sermon.

• Therefore, articles should NOT be created for pastor Paul Riley, but articles SHOULD be created for Ed Kalnins and Larry Kroon. Links from the Sarah Palin article should be established to the Ed Kalnins and Larry Kroon articles, and the controversies should NOT be in the Palin article unless someone meaningfully associates her to the controversies. A link to from Palin’s article to David Brickner or Jews for Jesus should exist, but the ONLY information that should be in Sarah Palin article, unless more information emerges, should be that she attended a Jews for Jesus Fundraiser with the sermon given by David Brickner.
• Wasilla Assembly of God and Wasilla Bible Church should have their own pages, where information reported on them in the media (controversial or not) that is unrelated to Palin can be reported, without tarring other pastors, like Paul Riley, with information on Ed Kalnins or Larry Kroon.

EricDiesel (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Eric, please stop flogging this church thing in multiple forums. You already know what the answer is from the fact that the articles you have been creating keep getting deleted. Knock it off. Kelly ^hi! 17:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • Kelly. I do not "already know what the answer is". The articles are not deleted. Please correct your remark.

• It is not fair to Sarah Palin to put controversial quotes of pastors on her page, as is being argued for by some, just because they are her pastors, as is being argued elsewhere. This is guilt by association!
• Palin might not have even been there for Ed Kalnins' controversial remarks! She deserves same neutrality and respect as any other living person.
• I do not already know what the answers are, as you assert. It is kind of disrespectful for you to say this, when Paul Riley was not the subject of anything I wrote, except to include a statement that he is one of her pastors on her page. No one is responding to my comments because a few people are making statements like "[I] already know the answer" and claiming a meaningful response is "elsewhere", when it is not. Either respond or don't respond, but don't try to get me ignored by INCORRECTLY stating that the issues were addressed.
• My David Brickner article has been getting 100% keep, after the intitial delete. Why should the years of controversy about him be put on Palin's page. All she did is go to church once, and he started speaking. She never went anywhere to see him since then. Why tar her with his controversial remarks from 2004?
• I added the names Ed Kalnins and Larry Kroonan to the Palin article in a completely neutral way, and my exact wording is still there. Why shuold Pual Riley not be added also, as I wrote. How would I "know the answer" about him. Why should I not put this here? Should he is not be NOT be mentioned in her article just because he made NO controversial remarks. Do only the controversial people get included?

Kelly, you should strike your incorrect statement about my knowledge, strike your remark if it is not responsive to what I wrote.

• It would be better if you responded, though since we are likely to agree with each other if each of us looks at what the other is saying. As an experienced user, you could probably teach me the ropes in less time than the time it takes you to deride me.EricDiesel (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

EricDiesel (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia edit controversy??

Has there been any mention of the allegations that somebody from the McCain campaign favorably edited Palin's wikipedia page before the announcement was made? I heard the story on NPR over this past weekend, and haven't seen anything on this page about it. Here are two links

NPR story[24]

NYT article[25]

AstroZombieDC (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry--I did not see the table titled "this article has been mentioned in the press".

AstroZombieDC (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Add redirect to disambiguation

Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, Palin should redirect to Sarah Palin. In order to do this, however, we'll first need to add {{Redirect|Palin}} to the top of this page. Since the article is fully protected, much to my chagrin, could a sysop please add the above template to the article? —  X  S  G  16:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Let's wait for 24 hrs to see if there are any objections, after which in none are forthcoming I will make the edit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking Michael Palin would disagree with that. While Sarah Palin is rather popular in the search engines right now, she just jumped on the scene in a very public and high profile way, it is too soon to determine if she is the primary usage of "Palin" over a protracted period of time. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, good point. Maybe a disambig page would be best for this, with Michael, Sarah, and Todd Palin. Any others? Kelly ^hi! 16:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin is already a disambiguation page. There's a fair number of names on there already. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Plus, there's no consensus in the existing discussion at Talk:Palin to redirect here. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin, by itself, should not link to any specific person. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ebay error

Resolved

The current article states about the governor's jet:

In August 2007, the jet was listed on eBay and later sold for $2.1 million.

While technically correct, this is misleading, because it was never actually purchased on eBay; instead, it was sold through an aircraft broker. See No bidders on eBay; sold it offline Joshdboz (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, although I am not much of a wordsmith so can't offer a compelling alternative. Maybe, "In August 2007, the jet was listed on eBay although a buyer was not found and later sold for $2.1 million through a private brokerage firm. "zredsox (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I created this particular wording because I felt it accurately and succinctly captured the transaction. It was listed on Ebay, and then it later traded. Further details, such as the specifics of the transaction including whether EBay received a commission or a broker, seemed superfluous. I'm happy to change the wording, but not at the expense of wordiness. Ronnotel (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If we do not want to succinctly define the transaction to remove ambiguity, we should just remove the eBay part altogether.zredsox (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a slight tweak: "In August 2007 the jet was listed on eBay, though with no buyer found it was later sold for $2.1 million through a private brokerage firm." If there's not much controversy I'd appreciate if an admin would clarify this in article. Thanks, Joshdboz (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Done--Appraiser (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Ronnotel, I agree with the need to stay crisp, but since the line has found its way into official campaign talk, we might as well state it completely to avoid POV one way or the other. Joshdboz (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

John McCain parroted this misleading lie. "You know what I enjoyed the most?" McCain said in Cederburg, Wisconsin, according to ABC News' Bret Hovell. "She took the luxury jet that was acquired by her predecessor and sold it on e-Bay. And made a profit!" http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/the-ebay-myth.html Macshill (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC) macshill

Don't you think "lie" is a bit harsh, in light of the fact that it could easily be a misunderstanding of the exact chain of events? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarification on the Bridge to Nowhere

It should be mentioned that Palin reversed her decision on the bridge to nowhere mainly because she thought the federal government would pay for most of it. She only opposed it because she later found out that the state of Alaska would be paying for most of it instead.

66.71.54.51 (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I see. So she was for it only if paid for by earmarks? Source? zredsox (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Source? --Robort (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there's some confusion here. My understanding is that she was for it while running for Governor, and then after it became the poster child for pork barrel spending she came out against it. Then, when she was Governor the federal money was redirected to other Alaska highway projects. The road leading to the bridge was built with federal money under her watch however, because THAT money would not have been able to be spent elsewhere ("use it for this or lose it").[26]--Appraiser (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Major government and military construction projects are funny (in an ironic sense) that way. As wasteful as it is, they cannot legally be "turned off" once the spigot has been turned on upstream (usually many years earlier). I won't profess to understand all the legalities, but I have known of many similar including, coincidentally, an entire road that was build on the island of Adak (in the Aleutians) and scheduled for completion the year after the base there was closed! Perhaps that is one of those areas in government contracting where one of these folks will affect some desperately needed change. Fcreid (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Press Conferences

Is it normal practive for political figures running for election to talk to the MSM. Is there any truth in the statements that Sarah Palin will not be providing any press conferences (or has not for 7 days) and will only be providing approved statements? If this is a case is it worth mentioning this ? [27] Sitedown (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on the complete and utter trash that the media has been publishing about her and her family, could you blame her? But I'm not sure how we would include a statement about that in the article. She was only officially nominated two days ago, give it some time. Kelly ^hi! 19:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the paragraph about Trigs birth?

The article used to say (on the Sep 3rd)

Palin's announcement in March 2008 that she was seven months pregnant generated publicity and surprise, as did the circumstances of Trig's birth.[123] More than a month before the baby was due, she was in Texas to deliver the keynote address at a conference. While at the conference her water broke[124], reportedly at about 4:00 a.m. local time. She remained in Texas to deliver the speech before taking the eight-hour flight back to Alaska. She landed in Anchorage at 10:30 p.m. and drove to the Mat-Su Valley Regional Medical Center, arriving an hour later. She gave birth at 6:30 a.m. the next day; her physician induced labor but there were no other complications.[125][126] Palin returned to work three days later.[47]

1. ^ Wesley, Loy (March 6, 2008). "Secret's out: Palin pregnant", Anchorage Daily Times. Retrieved on 2008-08-:29.
2. ^ Lori Tipton (April 18, 2008). "Welcome to Alaska, Trig Paxson Van Palin", ktuu.com.
3. ^ George, Rebecca (April 22, 2008). "Palin says she felt safe flying to Alaska to have baby", Daily News-:Miner. Retrieved on 2008-08-30.
4. ^ Demer, Lisa (April 22, 2008), "Palins' child diagnosed with Down syndrome", Anchorage Daily News

Mystic eye (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

PS if this section is in the wrong place I am sorry, its a little confusing in a talk page this big and I'm not sure where to put things.

This is a fine place to ask the question. Some editors argued to have the section removed because it is too personal, Joe Biden doesn't have a similar paragraph, and readers might WP:Synth an opinion about her judgment from that information even though they are not medical experts. I believe that when a person is asking the voters to evaluate her fitness as a potential president, that a well-sourced chronology of facts is appropriate, even if it IS personal. And any issues that speak to Biden's judgment should be included in his bio too.--Appraiser (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No, we will not ever be synthesizing original research to express a point of view about her judgment based on her reproductive system. Kelly ^hi! 19:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Make the case that this hour-by-hour chronology is part of a summary of her biography and and not merely a news story relevant to their readers on April 18, 2008. patsw (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Reasonable people can differ about the importance of the information, but Kelly's criticism of the pasage is completely false. There was no synthesis. There was no original research. The passage summarized material that had been published in the Alaska newspapers at the time.

There were two practical problems, however. The first was that, at roughly the time we were considering this language, there was an unfounded speculation floating around about the birth. Most editors thought that the speculation had no place in Wikipedia. I concurred. Unfortunately, some editors took it further and overreacted against anything relating to the birth, lest we be seen as fueling the speculation (more often referred to, incorrectly IMO, as "rumors").

The second and similar problem was that, in the contemporaneous newspaper articles and in other contexts, the argument was raised that Palin's decision to fly back to Alaska was ill-advised and reflected on her judgment. There was medical opinion on both sides of the question. At one point that controversy was noted. As the discussion developed, it seemed more sensible that, at least until we had better information from reliable sources, the controversy be dropped in favor of a simple recitation of the facts. The story was told, not because of any controversy, but simply because it was an unusual event that some readers would be interested in. Discussion in several threads produced the version that you quote. There was still this strong reaction, however, that any mention of the subject must be intended to cater to the evil incarnate that is the Daily Kos, where the speculation arose, or at least to support a covert POV attack on Palin's bad judgment. These views prompted some editors to expunge the information entirely.

Here are some, though almost certainly not all, of the prior threads: Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 5#Excess details about Trig's birth, Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 5#Vague aspersions of prenatal endangerment, Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 8#Blow-by-blow account of youngest son's birth, and Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 8#This is an encyclopedia biography, not a campaign document.

As the hysteria about the prior speculation dies down, we can hope that this unusual incident in Palin's life -- which has been commented on from the podium at the Republican National Convention and on Meet the Press -- will be restored to our article. Evidently, however, it will take a while before people can address the text on its own merits, without reading things into it. JamesMLane t c 19:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that summary JamesMLane. I also disagree with Kelly's characterization of the now-deleted information as a 'synthesis'. It seemed to be a straightforward presentation of facts related to the unusual events surrounding the birth of her youngest son. No matter how one looks at it, a mother's decision to fly to her home town in another state to give birth in those circumstances is a noteworthy part of her biography, but it needed to be presented without editorializing, as indeed it was when I first read it. The decision to delete is disappointing and diminishes the relevance of the article to real readers who will now have to look for this information on other websites, many of which do have overt political agendas. Wikipedia's great strength has been its ability to present information from a NPOV, so that ordinary people aren't completely obliged to rely entirely on biased internet sites, or corporate or national news organizations. As long as that information remained in the article, I was prepared to believe that the editing process was working reasonably well.Corlyon (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Corlyon

I forgot about one of the other sideshows that gave this subject a bad odor. Some versions of the article played up the fact that Palin boarded the plane without telling the flight crew anything about her condition. Some people were editing the article to try to throw mud at Palin over that fact. Even that wasn't completely OR or synthesis, because the point was raised in the newspaper accounts, but most of us thought it didn't belong in the Wikipedia article. It doesn't appear in the version you quote, which I think is the last good version before the expungement. JamesMLane t c 20:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

All of it amounts to certain wikipedians playing Dr. Spock and telling the world what she "should have done". It's totally inappropriate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Bugs, for proving my point. JamesMLane t c 21:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with JamesMLane 100%. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Should Release the Article for Publish Editing?

I think it's against Wikipedia's original spirit to lock this article from editing. I hope you all agree with me and appeal to the board to stop blocking this article from editing!

What you guys are afraid?

Dreamliner888 (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Mostly afraid of violations of WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR and maybe one or two I haven't listed.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And of course the old favorite WP:VAND.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we should trust the community, if there is any violation, we should lock up the offender's account.

Dreamliner888 (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like to express your opinion on this, see Wikipedia:AE#Sarah_Palin and Wikipedia:AN#Please_help_on_Sarah_Palin. There is plenty of discussion to be had. Oren0 (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the page history frenzy earlier this week, and that might give you a clue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Political position section

Resolved

{{editprotected}} I have not changed any information (other then pronouns). I just tried to convert it out of list mode and removed the tag. It is just to make the page read easier. Thanks Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions (1)

Main article: Political positions of Sarah Palin

Palin has described the Republican Party platform as "the right agenda for America," adding "individual freedom and independence is extremely important to me and that's why I'm a Republican."

She has called herself as "pro-life as any candidate can be " and would permit abortion only in cases where the mother's life is in danger, and supports mandatory parental consent for abortions. Palin is a member of Feminists for Life. Palin has been described as supportive of contraception. She backs abstinence-only education and is against "explicit sex-ed programs" in schools. She supports capital punishment and opposes same-sex marriage and supported a non-binding referendum for a constitutional amendment to deny state health benefits to same-sex couples.

Palin has said she supports teaching both creationism and evolution in public schools, but not to the extent of adding creation-based alternatives to the required curriculum. She has strongly promoted oil and natural gas resource development in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). She has opposed federal listing of the polar bear as an endangered species warning that it would adversely affect energy development in Alaska. Palin does not believe that global warming is human-caused.

Palin, a long-time member of the National Rifle Association, strongly supports its interpretation of the Second Amendment as protecting individual rights to bear arms, including handguns. She also supports gun safety education for youth.

Palin's foreign policy positions were unclear at the time she was picked as McCain's running mate. When asked for her views about troop escalations in Iraq, she replied "…while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place…"

Comment

I support this change in principle, because it reads better. I would further suggest, however, rephrasing the gun issue section as "Palin supports the interpretation of the Second Amendment as protecting individual rights to bear arms, including handguns. She supports gun safety education for youth. She is a long-time member of the National Rifle Association." (with sources moved appropriately). This avoids any subtle synthy connotations that she is an advocate for the NRA (although if that can be sourced, it may too be fair game). I particularly like the rephrasing of the education content. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You totally beat me to this. It makes it sound like she supports the NRA's position on gun rights rather than a more general individual right to bear arms. an advocate for the NRA. Plus, the cited source indicates her praise of the Heller decision from DC, it explicitly does not support "Palin supports the NRA's position," but rather evidences her support of her own position on gun rights and the approval of the Heller decision. How about "Palin supports the right to bear arms and applauded the Supreme Court's recent decision in "Heller". She supports gun safety...and is a long-time member of the NRA." Kaisershatner (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Not disagreeing with either of you since this is such a heated article right now could we take baby steps and agree to my version above with no content change and then work on the content? Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. Section has been reworked by an admin. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A good point, but now moot due to Talk:Sarah_Palin#Political_positions_section... Kaisershatner (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Grammar nit-pick: hyphenation

Resolved

{{editprotected}} I know it pales in comparison to other matters here, but unlike the one in "vice-president", I don't believe the hyphen in "vice-presidential" is optional. This appears many times on the page. I don't think this calls for a consensus, unless someone out there knows something I don't about hyphenation. BBrucker2 (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you're correct; phrasal adjectives should always be hyphenated. Coemgenus 19:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And maybe throw a comma (or two) in the following: "In August 2007 the jet was listed on eBay, though with no buyer found it was later sold for $2.1 million through a private brokerage firm." One is needed after "with no buyer found", and one could be added (although it's not 100% necessary) after "In August 2007". --198.185.18.207 (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hyphens and comma added.--Appraiser (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions section (2)

I've rewritten this, turning the list into prose per some guideline or other. I know it's not perfect, but it can be improved and is broadly accurate and fair. One thing though: I very much think that that section should not be very long: not when we already have a whole article dedicated to her political positions (Political positions of Sarah Palin). The stuff about the polar bears belongs there not here. BTW, are we sure the stuff about abortion is actually 'political as opposed to just a personal preference. What I mean is, the NRA membership is obviously related to her politics, because as veep she would obviously try to block attempts to limit the right to bear arms, but has she actually said she would like to see Roe vs Wade overturned? If not, the abortion stuff is more tangential than anything else. Moreschi (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure you should bypass edit protection by creating a new article. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A new article? Moreschi (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yea... I need more coffee..... Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The point about the ESA listing of the polar bears is that, unlike the typical politician "position" where the politician is just spouting off, this issue is one where Palin acted on her position by suing the federal government. The suit by Alaska (under her leadership) might be included in a summary of her gubernatorial administration, but it fits well in this section, too. It should be in the article somewhere. JamesMLane t c 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's addressed in Political positions of Sarah Palin. Kelly ^hi! 20:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You can't just have "positive" things and not balance it out with stands that she has taken which are considered less popular. That is taking a POV. That is the real problem here.zredsox (talk)

I think you're confusing "positive" with "neutral". Kelly ^hi! 22:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No, actually I am not - but thanks. zredsox (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Great work, Moreschi...and it's of about the same length as the equivalent section in Joe Biden. Kelly ^hi! 20:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note that it is somewhat frustrating to see admins editing this article while there are unresolved editprotect requests on this page. Not that your edits are bad, just that that's not what adminship is supposed to be about, I think. Homunq (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, very true, but then good admins who actually do what they're supposed to always are the boring ones :) Moreschi (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This edit chopped the Political positions section to a stub. Forget consensus, forget Wikipedia process, and now we have admins gone wild. QuackGuru 20:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's WP:SUMMARY style. For what it's worth, the really wild admins are the ones who repeatedly unprotected this article. Cool Hand Luke 20:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Stub, bollocks. There's no reason for it to be longer when we have a child article for this issue: as Cool Hand Luke says, summary style. Moreschi (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• What on earth was wrong with proceeding in an incremental and consensual way as Gstricky was trying to do above? Why has this section been completely rewritten by an admin? Someone tell me what is the process for getting this reverted. I feel like someone has just wasted a lot of other people's time. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We won't revert, unless there's consensus that we should. The process to gather consensus can continue. On a side note, I think that Right to bear arms should disambiguate to Right to keep and bear arms, no objection ? Cenarium ^Talk 20:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support the rewrite. ANY summary is better than the list we had. If you have problems with the summary, then please state them, but please let us not even consider going back to that horrible list. Please! --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the f------ point of stating any opinion at all if an admin is going to take things into his own hands? Why should I bother trying to contribute to this page? T0mpr1c3 (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Shrugs. Guys, look at it from my view. The article is fully-protected, right? Which means you can't edit it. IMO, that's a shame, but if I unprotect, I get demopped and heavily thwacked with a big trout by arbcom. Supposedly, this has been done to deal with BLP issues. But the protected version itself contained major problems: arguably the previous version of this section was a BLP vio, as it read like a laundry list of "all these crazy things Palin thinks", without bothering to establish context. Ergo, if I'm not allowed to fix problems like this - and I can well understand why you'd be pissed off - well, then, what was the point of protecting in the first place? Moreschi (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • You didn't fix it, you rewrote it, junking half the material and inserting a bunch of new stuff, all without any attempt at achieving consensus beforehand. I'm taking this to the arbitration page. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Please, go ahead. I don't expect the arbs will sympathise, though. And I didn't junk anything: anything that I didn't retain is already in Political positions of Sarah Palin, as has been pointed out at least 3 times already. And what new stuff? Obviously she's a social conservative and an economic libertarian - you're not disputing that, are you? This is just basic background context that should have been there in the first place. Moreschi (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Thank you, I did. The point is not the content of the edit but the arbitrary way you decided to make it. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, what am I supposed to do? Sit and wait for a week's discussion while that BLP-dubious list just sits there being viewed by hundreds of thousands? Moreschi (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Millions is more like it, have you seen the page stats? Thanks for saving our reputation. Kelly ^hi! 22:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
            • I'd like to state a Strong support for Moreschi's version, and getting rid of the dubious list that was put into the article during the controversial unprotection that is currently the subject of Arbcom proceedings. The list was a byproduct of the unprotection wheel war. Hobartimus (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
            • This is an improvement. I would not have trimmed quite so much, but without doubt it still is better now. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to state opposition to the textual change made by Moreschi, and strong opposition to the unilateral way he did it.

BLP. When I started on Wikipedia, there was a dismaying tendency for some editors to use "NPOV violation" to mean "any edit I don't like". That persists, of course, but it's now been joined by "BLP violation". The phrase is invoked as a catchall in any article about a living person. BLP requires that negative or contentious material be properly sourced. I looked over the text replaced by Moreschi and I don't see anything that could reasonably be thought to violate that rule. Furthermore, even Moreschi's defense claims only "arguably" -- well, if something's "arguably" a BLP violation, then the issue should've been discussed here. BLP doesn't mean that anyone who objects to a passage in a bio article gets to remove it, no questions asked.

Other rationales. Editors can reasonably differ over what WP:SS requires here. I personally believe that the previous text was far more consistent with WP:SS (and with WP:NPOV) than is Moreschi's replacement. It should be obvious that these are the sorts of issues we're supposed to be discussing here, and that they should not be the basis for a unilateral edit. JamesMLane t c 04:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Massive change to Sarah Palin made without consensus

This massive change chopped the Political positions section to a stub without consensus. Careful now. QuackGuru 21:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, don't be silly. 1) in-article lists are not permitted, 2) said list was arguably a BLP vio, 3) please see my post above, and 4) please read Wikipedia:Summary style. There's a massive difference between this and {{stub-section}}, which my rewrite clearly isn't. Moreschi (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• This change was not arrived at with any sort of consensus, has a heavy POV and needs to completely scrapped. zredsox (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• This isn't a massive change. I think it is excellent. 1) It is in summary style, it is accurate, and it isn't pushing a point of view. It does, however need better cites.--Paul (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Mostly I just copy/pasted the cites from the previous version and didn't actually look at them. I suppose this should be checked. BTW, can we not use uber-complex citation templates all the time? It just clogs up the edit box and makes it impossible to tell whether material is text or reference, the cites go on for lines on end. Just a personal gripe...Moreschi (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I am just shocked that this article is locked and yet we have sweeping changes being made without proper discussion or even a hint of consensus as to the nature of those changes. Absolutely Unbelievable. zredsox (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Guys, take it to Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement#Massive_change_to_Sarah_Palin_made_without_consensus. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Good suggestion. Moreschi (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotect}}

• There was never any hint of consensus for this massive change. Therefore, I request the controversial edit be reverted. QuackGuru 22:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • No, there's consensus, see above. Also see WP:SS. Besides, the issue is being discussed elsewhere, don't complicate by forking the conversation all over the place, please. Kelly ^hi! 22:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Also, please stop enabling the "editprotect" template, it's disruptive. It's not going to be filled when the issue is under discussion. Kelly ^hi! 22:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Because you are an involved editor you should not touch the editprotected. You could be blocked if you continue to modify my edit. QuackGuru 22:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • Kelly, I see several editors on this page expressing disapproval of Moreschi's unilateral change, and others doing so on the AN page. Would you explain to me by what process of reasoning you conclude that your personal preference is backed by consensus? JamesMLane t c 05:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama#Political positions

A featured article has a very well written political positions section.Barack Obama#Political positions This article would easily fail to be a WP:GA because of the very short political positions section. Thanks. QuackGuru 22:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks QuackGuru. I think this is the best example thus far of why we need an expanded section with positions beyond the Base's Red Meat. zredsox (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

N Edit declined. There is currently no consensus either here or at WP:AE to revert Moreschi's change. Please use {{editprotect}} only after a consensus for a change in the article has been achieved (see CAT:PER. The edit request is otherwise not actionable.  Sandstein  05:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with Joe Biden

For comparison, see Joe Biden#Political positions. We've now got sections that are relatively similar in style, which is a good thing. Kelly ^hi! 22:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Read this . Basically it says in order to achieve good article status (on the Biden article) the Political Positions section needs to either be expanded or deleted. So, I don't think it makes for a very good example.

"Either expand "Political positions" or get rid of it. It has a separate article, and that's fine, but the one in this article is way too short for its own section."

Ask QuackGuru said above, the Obama summary is what we should be working toward as we know it is considered high quality copy. zredsox (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Simple rule suggested

Same process for regular users and admins. You suggest an edit here by proposing the modified text with {{editprotect}}, when some time passes and you've gotten some positive feedback you (for admins) or an admin (for users) implements it. Further modifications are fine. Same annoyance level for both, everything is fair. As close as possible to a normal flow of edits, given the protection. OK? Homunq (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Great idea!

Homunq (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

zredsox (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Fcreid (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

JamesMLane t c 05:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC): I was under the impression that this was the plan from the start, except with regard to manifestly uncontroversial stuff like misspellings.

Horrible idea!

No, the idea is that an admin can come along and act on a request that they can see has already gained consensus, not hover 'til they see how it pans out. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan"

God probably didn't plan so many "thats" in this sentence of the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Who are you to question His grammar? MastCell ^Talk 20:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe He stutters. Nobody's perfect. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you're a sock of Porky Pig, Bugs. And Mastcell's comment leaves me humbly speechless. :-) Ferrylodge (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done: I took this as an {{editprotected}} request and fixed it. MastCell ^Talk 20:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, the source says "that that", who are we to correct the sources? Woody (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

25,300 google his for that that and 4930 for that. I think it should be reverted. Cenarium ^Talk 21:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If you say the whole line out loud, the double that makes sense. Pray that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan--Cube lurker (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the full sentence is, "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan," and the double-that is correct. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

D'oh... OK, with the full sentence it's clearly gramatically reasonable. I'll revert it back. Sorry. MastCell ^Talk 21:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

41,900 hits for one "that".Ferrylodge (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Come on folks, we're making it sound like she can't speak English.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a grammar expert, but i'll be honest, I use that sentance structure in conversation often. i.e. Can you make sure that that file gets put back when you're done. use only one that and it doesn't sound right. Can you make sure that file gets put back when you're done.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah revert, it makes sense. Plus, even if it was grammatically incorrect, it's a quote, so [sic] should be added next to it. Deamon138 (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I read 4,920 for one that. The entire citation makes sense and should be respected. Should we give the entire citation ? Cenarium ^Talk 21:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's more than grammar, it's spin. If you read the whole sentence with a single that, it doesn't quite make sense. Deconstruct the double-that, and it does make sense: Pray (1) that there is a plan, and (2) that that plan is God's plan. That makes sense. I suspect those who put a single "that" in there are spinning that into a statement, rather than a question. I wonder if it's on tape anywhere? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I give up. MastCell ^Talk 21:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, yes there are less hits for two "that"s, but notice how in this link, the words are surrounded by quotation marks, but in yours they aren't. In a quote you provide the same structure. i.e. two "thats", which with the full quote is also correct anyway according to the above. Deamon138 (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

←User:MastCell's edit summary was probably the funniest today: (→Personal life: minor grammar correction: I do not believe this can possibly be controversial, though I am ready to be proven wrong). Probably should never say that with this article!OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Part of the spin is to omit the preceding "pray that". Include that, and it's clear she's expressing a hope rather than making a statement that the war is God's plan or something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Since I started this, I'll lay it out very clearly. The cited source says: "Switching to the war in Iraq, Palin told the group of students that they should not only pray for men and women in the military but to make sure the leaders of this country are sending U.S. soldiers 'out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan.'" In contrast, the present article says: "On the topic of Iraq, she asked that people pray for the soldiers and that 'there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan.'"

Thus, the present article accurately quotes the source, but quotes it out of context in a grammatically and syntactically incorrect manner. Please change the current article to: "On the topic of Iraq, she asked people to pray for the soldiers and to pray that 'there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan.'" She wasn't asking that that plan is God's plan, she was asking that people pray that that plan is God's plan. Alternatively, remove the quotes and write a more understandable sentence.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion above which reached consensus on remvoal of this, I'll re-enable that edit request. Kelly ^hi! 21:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The non-spin version, stated by Ferrylodge, also becomes non-controversial, because it's something anyone could say. But it might be useful to keep the entire quote, to pre-empt someone from trying to post the spin-version. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The referenced discussion above had 14 advocating removal, 3 advocating retention. Kelly ^hi! 21:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I see, #Undue Weight on "God" quotes. Cenarium ^Talk 21:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll add my name above for removal, on grounds of distortion (perhaps unintentional).Ferrylodge (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The quote itself is fairly trivial, but by deleting it you then have to keep watching for someone trying to add back the spin-version. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Then put the non-spin version in a footnote for easy reference.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

<- Maybe Wikiquote is the right place for this info? Kelly ^hi! 21:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There you go. Provided it's quoted correctly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

WTF? "That that" is a Germanic construction, and as English is a Germanic language ... well. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Jim, I think that that is a legitimate point you're making. No one is saying that "that that" is never appropriate. The issue here was that "that that" makes for a confusing and misleading sentence in a particular context. While "that that" may sometimes work fine, that "that that" that was in this article did not work fine, got that? And now that that "that that" that was in this article is gone from this article, it is readily apparent that my initial comment in this section was entirely correct, and that's that.  :-) Ferrylodge (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Poll: Palin more popular than Obama, McCain

See the Rasmussen Poll [28] Hobartimus (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The only poll that matters is Election Day. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well we can just lock the article until then right? Wrong. We don't wait until election day for improvement and polls that say relevant things can always be considered. Other related poll [29]. Hobartimus (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Poll schmoll, CBS News comes up with some completely different numbers so who cares? T0mpr1c3 (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS it will change tomorrow, and the day after, and so on.... Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 21:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe post a chart of their poll numbers, day by day - or, if necessary, hour by hour, or minute by minute. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Planck time by Planck time? Deamon138 (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur with holding off. No sense on constantly updating polls, wait until we get some sources discussing trends. Kelly ^hi! 21:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't post trends in this case either. It is not going to be relevant in two months so why bother?zredsox (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It will be relevant but better suited to the article about the election, not to Palin's bio. (It's relevant there to say something like "as of this date the race was close, then ___ opened up a big lead, then..." etc.) JamesMLane t c 21:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have thought of that. The campaign/election article is the right place for this. Kelly ^hi! 21:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So, a poll. Nice. What were the parameters, the demographics, the precise question, etc, etc, etc? Polls are utterly meaningless without that data and often meaningless with it. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, I don't like them either. I think it's a lot better to wait until enough time has passed for the issue to be treated in a scholarly way, then include the info. After the election is over would be ideal. Kelly ^hi! 23:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Adminstration notice boards

I'm seeing constant references to edit warring and NPOV accusations and so on on /three/ separate administration notice boards. (AN/I AN, and ArbEnforcment) Anyway you guys can settle things in one place at a time?--Tznkai (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the party, pal!. :) Kelly ^hi! 22:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Only the die-hard, those with no life, or those with a seriously biased axe to ground will be left to edit this article when the protection comes off. Good luck to all of us (not saying if this includes me). --Crunch (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A solution for the Political Positions section fiasco

Those editors who say that people who what to read more can just click through to the Political positions of Sarah Palin article; if you really believe that then you should have no problem with the following proposal:

I propose that the entire section consist of {{main|Political positions of Sarah Palin}}.

That way, everybody's happy; those that consider the current summary as a whitewash, those who didn't like the list that was there before, everybody. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's pointless to propose anything as long as the Republicans have their little dwarves around here to vote in mass against.

Anyway, I think it would have been better to make the section be a summary of the detailed article, like the policy says: Wikipedia:Summary style#Keeping summary articles and detailed articles synchronised bogdan (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. That's not how it works; main article should have the subject covered in summary style. If there's a problem with POV we should focus on fixing that. Lampman (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

   How can we, when an admin will come along and change it to suit his whim? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose. People don't want to be overwhelmed on the bio page. Fcreid (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose. WP:SS isn't just policy, it's common sense. Some readers won't care about her political positions and will skip over this section whatever is in it. Some readers will want to know as much as possible and will click through to the daughter article regardless of what's in the summary. Some readers in the middle, though, will want the highlights but not every last detail. That's why there should be a summary here. JamesMLane t c 01:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Will Not Matter

• The root problem with this is Palin's positions themselves - they don't lend themselves to summaries well. Against abortion except for saving life of mother (is personal or political?) BUT no real evidence this is a political position she is pushing. She would support capital punishment but isn't pushing it politically. She's against "gay marriage" but then follows "political reasoning" on same-sex health benefits [she pushed it back to the voters rather than push her own opinion]. So, how do you take positions like that and summarize them without edit & pov wars? Theosis4u (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Theosis4u, this is a good analysis. The 'problem' is caused by the fact that Palin is not a traditional evangelical, she has libertarian leanings. Although she has a lot of opinions that mirror traditional evangelical beliefs, she has no desire to use the power of government to enforce them. This is why saying she is for "teaching creationism in schools" is inaccurate. She might prefer that, but would never do anything in political office to bring it about, because she doesn't think that is the role of government.--Paul (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• TY. And some could now argue that your complimenting her and others will say your making her sound like she's a typical politician just trying to be popular. In the end, it will get resolved when people find another target to inflict their extremism upon. Theosis4u (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And where am I "complimenting her"??--Paul (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

To be added to 2008 vice-presidential campaign - No interviews for Palin

Can this be added to the 2008 vice-presidential campaign section - Thanks

On Sept 4 the McCain camp announced that Gov Palin will not give interviews to the media.

That source is a blog. Kelly ^hi! 23:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the blog linked to the Time website. Hmmm - we don't normally write about what people don't do in their biographies, but perhaps the article on the McCain campaign would be appropriate for this info. Wow, that reporter who wrote the Time piece sounds really bitter. Kelly ^hi! 00:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

He's TIME's Washington bureau chief. :) 86.44.27.255 (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This is ambiguous

Sometimes we can't see the forest for the trees, and I suspect that is what is happening in the Wasilla section, where it is stated:

"In October 1996, she asked the Wasilla police chief, librarian, public works director, and finance director to resign, and instituted a policy requiring department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters. In January 1997, Palin notified the police chief, Irl Stambaugh, and the town librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons that they were being fired."

So, did the police chief and librarian resign in October 1996? Or did they defy her? Are they the same police chief and librarian she fired in January 1997? The article doesn't rule out the possibility that the chief and librarian resigned in 1996, and were replaced by a new chief and librarian who were then sacked in 1997. It's ambiguous. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Direct Plagerism

Because it's not clearly noted above.. Our article:"Palin also opposes strengthening protections for beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet, where oil and gas development has been proposed." Thier article:"She opposes strengthening protections for beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet, where oil and gas development has been proposed..." As you can see we copied this word or word from the source. It should be removed quickly as it is illegal. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure some capable passing admin can reword that quickly. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. bogdan (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This should just be removed anyways until it's write correctly - Talk:Sarah_Palin#Beluga_POV_Plagiarism Theosis4u (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

factual error

Houndly (talk) 00:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Correction to a factual matter: Mayor Sarah Palin did NOT raise the City of Wasilla sales tax from 2.0% to 2.5 percent to finance a sports complex, unless you consider possibly signing it into effect after it passed a voter referendum. She advocated for the complex from what I understand, but it was put into law by a public vote after being put on the ballet by a vote of the city council. That's a far different matter from "raising taxes."

And the sales tax was reduced to its earlier 2.0% after the target funds were raised as specified in the referendum.

From Anchorage Daily News circa 12/6/2001 "The city council will have a public hearing Monday before deciding whether to ask residents to raise the sales tax from the existing 2 percent to 2.5 percent to pay the estimated $14.7 million cost of the center. If passed, the question would appear on the ballot in May. Voters would have to approve the sales tax increase before the center could be built."

For confirmation you might look to The Anchorage Daily News (ADN) and not to the New York Times.

http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/517370.html

If I am reading correctly we should change "She increased the city sales tax to pay for the new Wasilla Multi-Use Sports Complex,[23] which eventually went over budget due to an eminent domain lawsuit." to "She advocated increased the city sales tax to pay for the new Wasilla Multi-Use Sports Complex. A temporary sales tax increase from 2 to 2.5% was put on the ballot and passed. The sports complex was built, but went over budget due to an eminent domain lawsuit." I would, however, like to see some confirmation that this is actually what happened. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin is Clearly Off the Hook for Kalnins’ Remarks

Ed Kalnins became the subject of media coverage following Palin’s nomination, for preaching sermons with allegedly controversial remarks. Two of the remarks were that critics of president George Bush’s handling of Hurricane Katrina would go to hell, and that voters for John Kerry would not get into heaven. A third allegedly controversial remark was that the Iraq war is God's Will. Palin left the church in 2002, the Iraq War remark was made after 2003, Kerry was nominated in 2004, and Hurricane Katrina occurred in 2005, so Palin was not present for any of these remarks.

Sources -

• USA Today

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-03-palin-pastor_N.htm

• Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122048406528596987.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
• Pakistan Daily Times

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C09%5C04%5Cstory_4-9-2008_pg7_73

• Chicago Tribune

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/palins_past_pastor_bushfoes_he.html

• MSNBC

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/02/1327574.aspx

• Atlantic Monthly

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/palin-in-wasill.html

• The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/04/uselections2008.sarahpalin3

• Associated Press

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jCeGgS4vbVt6qpxTpahCgGn_R-dQD92VOKVG0

• Associated Press

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jNulPSqaP1eyysv8ENJWhk0ZSrPgD92VJPL00

• Hong Kong Standard

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaking_news_detail.asp?id=5282&icid=4&d_str=20080904

• ABC NEWS

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/website-with-sp.html

• Washington Post

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/02/by_juliet_eilperin_when_alaska.html EricDiesel (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

After Palin’s nomination, Larry Kroon became the subject of international media coverage for having invited David Brickner, head of Jews for Jesus, to speak at Wasilla Bible Church, and for taking collections for Jews for Jesus. The sermon was attended by Palin. The coverage regarded Brickner’s controversial sermon statements, including that a brutal Palestinian terror attack on civilian Israeli Jews, using a bulldozer to runs them over was God’s punishment on the Israeli victims for their failure to convert to Christianity. There is no evidence that Palin or Kroon knew what Brickner would say in advance.

• Israeli News video of statement

http://www.israelenews.com/view.asp?ID=3026

• Wall Street Journal

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122048406528596987.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

• Atlantic Monthly

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/palins-pastor-a.html

• Jewish Journal

http://www.jewishjournal.com/elections/article/mccain_team_palin_rejects_views_of_churchs_jews_for_jesus_speaker_20080903/ ABC News http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/website-with-sp.html

• IsrealNews

http://www.israelenews.com/view.asp?ID=3005 EricDiesel (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions section redux

I see Bogdangiusca (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is editing through protection on this section - there's an inaccuracy in the summary. It says "She is a proponent of teaching both creationism and evolution in science classes, but she did not push creation science as governor of Alaska." - in actuality, she is not in favor of teaching creationism at all, but simply allowing discussion. This is discussed in Political positions of Sarah Palin. Kelly ^hi! 00:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

See #Direct Plagerism. Though I'll leave a note. Cenarium ^Talk 00:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually these are different edits to the "Political positions" section. They're in prose style but there's an inaccuracy. Kelly ^hi! 00:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin called for teaching creationism alongside evolution in public schools. [30] PS. Archive the page- Francis Tyers · 00:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion on archiving is at #__..--_META_DISCUSSION:_ARCHIVING_--..__. It's a 24 hrs setting and already 403 kb. Cenarium ^Talk 01:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change

Change the word "teaching" to "allowing discussion". Kelly ^hi! 00:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin called for teaching creationism alongside evolution in public schools." zredsox (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is the source cited for the statement in the summary[31], which states Palin said discussion of alternative views on the origins of life should be allowed in Alaska classrooms. "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. Kelly ^hi! 01:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We are both citing the same source so this should be easy. Check out the very first sentence. zredsox (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I read the whole article, including the headline, which says Palin has not pushed creation science as governor. :) Kelly ^hi! 01:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Great, then I am sure you caught the first sentence. zredsox (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the referenced AP article is excellent, both informational, and balanced and it should be used as the footnote. Now all we need to do it agree on what to say in OUR article.--Paul (talk) 03:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Zredsox, that quote says nothing about science classrooms. It could refer to a class on wolrd religions, or a social studies class. The present article is asserting something that simply is not in the cited source. And this bogus info was inserted into the article just now, while the article was in full protection, without any consensus here at the talk page.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted Bogdangiusca. Cenarium ^Talk 01:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Zredsox, the article you linked to says "'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,' she said." (emphasis added) So are you objecting to the proposed edit or agreeing - you source seems to agree.--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

FL, that's splitting hairs. The teaching of Creationism is prohibited in Public Schools in the US anyways, so my personal opinion is she can babble on about this all day long, and the Supreme Court is going to bash it down. But I digress. It doesn't matter where it's taught, it can't be taught. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The Supreme Court has not spoken on the issue. Nor has any District Court forbidden any public school from describing the beliefs of various religions, for example in a social studies course or a course on world religions.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I support this purposed change as being more accurate to what she actually said.--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I support the proposed change too.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Except for the tiny little issue is that she actually did call for "teaching" creationism. It doesn't matter, since she's constitutionally prohibited from doing so. And McCain is a firm backer of science. And VP's are kind of irrelevant. I don't support.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again, the "majority wagon" is rolling through! I do not support trying to remove impeccably sourced views out of her bio if they somehow fall on the fringe. Absolutely not. zredsox (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Your own source disagrees with your assertion, yet you continue to push it. I think you need to take a good look in the mirror about who is being POV. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You are so blinded at this point. Read the first sentence. It is clear as day. Read the Globe article. It is more of the same. Stop being so partisan for just one minute and read.zredsox (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should open your own eyes and stop being so partisan. Both the headline of the article and the text support a more rich understanding than "creationism should be taught." I read the ONE SENTENCE and I read the REST of the sentences too. To argue that that article says "She is a proponent of teaching both creationism and evolution in science classes" is just nuts. You can't just take the one sentence you like and ignore the rest. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope. she's argued for teach both. That she may latter have softened on that position may also be mentioned but she has clearly argued for the teach both positon "I am a proponent of teaching both."[32].Geni 01:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Meh. The way I read the AP source is that she made a remark and later clarified it. It looks like the Boston Herald included the first part of the AP article and omitted the second. Kelly ^hi! 01:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The word "science" occurs only one place in that cited source, and that's in the title ("Palin has not pushed creation science as governor"). Why did Bogdan override protection to insert it into this Palin article, as if Palin supports teaching creationism in science classes.?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose She said it herself, in a televised debate (not a remark): "When asked during a televised debate in 2006 about evolution and creationism, Palin said, according to the Anchorage Daily News: "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." The next day, she said she didn't mean creationism should be part of the curriculum. She wants it "debated" along with evolution, which is taught in biology classes. That's what she said, so why not have the article reflect it? I am forced to conclude Kelly thinks it will lose Palin some votes. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Rooster, you're the one who is saying "biology class". Palin didn't say "biology class" or "science class". So why did Bogdan put "science class" into this article while it's in full protection, without consensus? Perhaps to make Palin lose votes?[33]Ferrylodge (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The quote in question is from a debate. She clarified what she meant the next day. Why is what she said on the spur of the moment given presidence over what she said the very next day? Do you always 100% accurately state your position every time you are asked?--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not about identifying the best gotcha quote that's been rehashed and parsed from the Anchorage Daily News, but to find the best source which explains her political views in a complete, neutral way. patsw (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It is also not about identifying populist views to display proudly while stashing the rest in the closet. zredsox (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to hear any more garbage about the page being hijacked by Republicans. This should be a clear cut edit to change it to what she actually believes, but instead people are focusing on one spur-of-the-moment comment and not what she said the very next day, not the way she campaigned, and not the way she actually governed (all of which support the change). --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It was in a debate, not a slip of the tongue. Other sources say she "injected" this and other "wedge" issues into a race that had not been debating them, to get the social conservative vote. She did it on purpose. Also, the goal of Wikipedia is not report the "truth" but to report what reliable sources say. I note that you attack the source. This is not how it is supposed to be done. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Um I didn't attack the source, I read it. Pulling one line out of the source and ignoring the context, is not using a source it is abusing it.--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

They make headlines for a reason. I oppose changing the statement. Other do ro. Stop arguing and go find an admin who will violate the rules again. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Specifically the get people to read the article. And they make text to explain what the headline actually means. In any case the headline was "Palin has not pushed creation science as governor" which certainly doesn't support "She is a proponent of teaching both creationism and evolution in science classe" so what is your point? --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What don't you get here? this is 100% true, correct and verified. "As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin called for teaching creationism alongside evolution in public schools." [34] zredsox (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And it is 100% correct that she clarified what she meant the next day, but you want only the gotcha quote and not the position she actually ran on. Tell me if you said something at a work function and didn't realize people could misinterpret you, but corrected yourself the next day with more precise language, which version would you prefer people associate with you - the exact words you said or your more precise explanation the next day? --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So was Trig being her grandson when you posted that, right? Fcreid (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about, but I think you are in the wrong section as this has nothing to do with Trig. zredsox (talk) 01:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Bogdan's non-consensus, full-protected edit says: "She is a proponent of teaching both creationism and evolution in science classes, but she did not push creation science as governor of Alaska." Would someone who supports that edit please point out where in the cited source, or where in the summarized Wikipedia article, anything is mentioned about "science classes" or "biology classes", as opposed to "social studies" or "comparative religion" classes? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If "science class" is your big "issue" I am all for changing it to "She is a proponent of teaching both creationism and evolution in public schools, but did not push creationism as governor of Alaska" per the AP article text. Finally, Consensus! We did it! zredsox (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping to demonstrate that language Bogdan inserted into the article during full protection has virtually no support here at the talk page. But even that correction you suggest would be insufficent, I think. I would be more inclined to support this: "She is a proponent of teaching about or allowing discussion about both creationism and evolution in public schools, and did not push creationism as governor of Alaska." (After all, the cited source says "Palin said discussion of alternative views on the origins of life should be allowed in Alaska classrooms" and also quotes her as saying that, "It's OK to let kids know that there are theories out there.")Ferrylodge (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Doesn't matter, evolution is taught in biology. The article doesn't say she wanted taught in social studies, does it? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Rooster, evolution is not only taught in science classes. For example, I believe that Darwin is often discussed in history class. And his excellent book "Origin of Species" is also a great work of literature, suitable for English classes. By the way, did you know that Darwin and Lincoln were born on the same day?[35] See, you can learn about Darwin in all kinds of places.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The sentence as it stands is misleading. The phrase "called for teaching" is an exageration of the quoted statement from the debate. I would favor "described herself as a proponent of teaching" or "opposed prohibiting debate about." Celestra (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

As eloquent as the options you have presented might be, they are not what is in the article that we are sourcing. zredsox (talk) 02:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the WHOLE article not just the one line you like. The article as a whole does not come close to supporting "She is a proponent of teaching both creationism and evolution in science classes" --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We know how you feel Thaddeus. One thing is for sure, you are consistent with your views. *wink* zredsox (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, consistent that you should use all the available information to form the best possible conclusion - not just pick one sentence we like and ignore the rest. Please note, for example, that I am advocating expanding the "library controversy" section above. There certainly is no argument about your consistent anti-Palin view though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, material in this article should communicate what Palin's real views are on teaching creationism. We have her own words on the matter. Do editor's arguing for the sentence from the debate really think that it represents Palin's view? If so, please answer these questions: 1) if her true view is that creationism should be taught in school, why did she say the opposite the next day? 2) if her true position is that creationism should be taught in schools why is it that the ONLY source of this supposed policy position is one sentence from a debate? If she is really for teaching creationism in schools, why hasn't she done anything about it as governor? Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We aren't supposed to report news - like what someone said in a debate - we are supposed to communicate knowledge, not use a "gotcha quote" to spread disinformation.--Paul (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to interject some rationality into this mess, although I am confident you'll either get no response or "the first sentence of this article says so, that's why." --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope NPOV requires that we produce something along the lines of "sarah palin was quoted as saying "I am a proponent of teaching both.". She later stated that this satement had been misinterprited and that she meant whatever". obviosuly with better spelling.Geni 03:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that is not what NPOV requires. NPOV requires "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." In this case we have ONE source, the Governor of Alaska. We need to "represent fairly" and "without bias" what her view really is.--Paul (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actualy no. We report the various POVs on what her POV is. See we can't be pretending to know which of the two POVs expressed is the real one.Geni 03:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Point of Order

Could someone explain what empowers Bogdangiusca to edit this protected article without discussing the edits here? 01:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That's being addressed by the ArbCom - I'm sure there'll be some desysoppings, warnings, or trout-slappings handed out liberally when things are sorted out. :) Kelly ^hi! 02:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I assume it was to "correct" the "incomplete" summary. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It is funny that people are complaining now about this admin edit, when in fact the summary itself was an illegal admin edit without consensus. Actually, there have been admin edits all day without any sort of consensus. I guess it is only something worth mentioning if your shinny POV somehow gets tarnished. Then scream bloody murder!zredsox (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Open your eyes. MANY complained about the first summary edit. (Personally I didn't complain about either, sorry if it sounded like I was complaining about this one.) All the other edits were non-controversial. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

All the other edits were non-controversial TO YOUR POV. zredsox (talk) 02:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

To any point of view. I wasn't aware correcting formatting, spelling errors, etc. was POV. I should stated that a bit better though "All the other edits were completely non-controversial or had clear consensus." Of course, we all no how you feel about letting people better explain themselves at a later time, so I guess this explanation won't be allowed and I'll have to stick by the original sound byte version. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You can't speak for "any point of view." All other edits were completely non-controversial to you or had a clear consensus to you. Lets not go in circles with this as you can not speak with any authority as to what I find controversial or not. Thanks. zredsox (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh brother, are you seriously arguing that spelling corrections are controversial in some POV? --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not talking about spelling corrections. The admins have been making article changes since the initial lockdown and I promise you they didn't just make grammatical edits. Lets just agree to disagree, Ok? Thanks.zredsox (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) If you are going to make inflammatory comments about a whole class of generally trusted editors on this project, I'd like to see a dif or two to back them up. Gentgeen (talk) 03:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Just head over to Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement#Massive_change_to_Sarah_Palin_made_without_consensus and join the discussion. zredsox (talk) 04:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've read that whole, horrible discussion, and all I see is the action of a single admin being called into question. You said, "The admins have been making article changes since the initial lockdown and I promise you they didn't just make grammatical edits." That is an attack against an entire class of users, with absolutely no supporting evidence. If I was a user who had been blocked multiple times in the recent past, and had been warned rather recently not to make personal attacks, I would be very careful about making blanket attack statements regarding other users. Gentgeen (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Another proposed change

Our problem arises from trying to give an accurate summary of a set of confused and confusing statements by Palin. The nuances can be fleshed out in the daughter article. For purposes of this summary, I think the best way to be clear is to acknowledge the lack of clarity. I suggest:

"Palin has spoken favorably but somewhat ambiguously about the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in the public schools."

If you go to the AP article, you can mine it for quotations that support either side. For a short summary, the best we can do is to recognize that fact. JamesMLane t c 05:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. If there's nothing unambiguous to say about this, then I think it should not be dealt with here. Vague stuff can be detailed in the sub-article.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridge to Nowhere

Just a note that [36] confirms that Alaska kept the money allocated to the "Bridge to Nowhere". -- Beland (talk) 01:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If you've ever dealt with federal government budgets, you'd know that once money has been allocated, it's allocated. You can't give it back. It's a weird part of our system. Kelly ^hi! 02:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And if AK wrote a check to the US Treasury (or similar) they would refuse to cash it? I'm sure it's possible in principle to return (or even simply not use) the money. Dragons flight (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Broadband connection required for one of the external links.

The EL "PBS NOW Bio and interview with Sarah Palin" requires a broadband connection. Could you please put a note on the EL letting readers know that this link requires a broadband connection? --64.181.90.183 (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The couple have five children...

The current sentence reads: "The couple have five children: sons Track (born 1989) and Trig (born 2008), and daughters Bristol (born 1990), Willow (born 1995), and Piper (born 2001)." The repeating 'born' seems awkward and I'm used to seeing a chronological order. I'd suggest: "The couple have five children: son Track (born 1989), daughters Bristol (1990), Willow (1995) and Piper (2001), and son Trig (2008)." I also notice that the reference does not provide the birthyears, merely the ages and just 'baby' for Trig. Celestra (talk) 02:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I would agree with that, I think it reads better. Kelly ^hi! 02:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"b." is a standard abbreviation in this context. patsw (talk) 02:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this is awkward wording - I believe it is following the style prescribed at WP:DATE for listing year of birth but it does seem off-putting here. How about: "The couple have five children ranging in age from infant to 19: sons Track and Trig and daughters Bristol, Willow and Piper." A little less detail but more readable I think.Ronnotel (talk) 02:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Book banning redlink

The book banning link should link to book banning, not book-banning. Any problem with making this change? --- RockMFR 02:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It should not say "book banning" at all, as those words are not found verbatim in any quotable source. The actual quote the recounts the event says "removing books" and should be used verbatim. Fcreid (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I created a redirect for "book-banning" since it is a plausible typographical error, but I agree that it should be "book banning". No opinion on the content issue of whether it should be rephrased. Dragons flight (talk) 02:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for new internal link

Request a link to Wikipedia article "Anne Kilkenny". This article is about the letter that recently has appeared on the front page of the New York Time and other major media containing personal reflections on Sara Palin by a long-time Wasilla, Alaska native.

This link could be included by adding the following to the "Personal Life" section:

Wasilla, Alaska native Anne Kilkenny appeared on the front page of the New York Times and in other global media after a letter she wrote emerged on the internet. Ms. Kilkenny's letter contained personal observations of Palin's Mayoral tenure in Wasilla.

I've nominated that article for deletion per WP:BLP1E, and the fact that it's a POV fork. Kelly ^hi! 02:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

For those who missed it

A while back I made what I considered to be a fair summary, using input from the talk page. It's prose, it summarizes, it represents what reliable, independent sources say. How does it look now? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions

Palin has described the Republican party platform as "the right agenda for America," adding "individual freedom and independence is extremely important to me and that's why I'm a Republican."

In 2002, while running for lieutenant governor, Palin called herself as "pro-life as any candidate can be." She opposes abortion in cases of rape and incest, supporting it only in cases where the mother's life is in danger, and suggested that requiring parental consent for abortions be added to Alaska's constitution. Palin is a member of Feminists for Life. A 2006 article in the Anchorage Daily News refers to Palin as supportive of contraception but does not go into detail. She is a "firm supporter of abstinence-only education in schools", saying, "explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support".

Palin supports capital punishment for some crimes. "If the legislature passed a death penalty law, I would sign it. We have a right to know that someone who rapes and murders a child or kills an innocent person in a drive-by shooting will never be able to do that again."

Palin opposes same-sex marriage and supported a non-binding referendum for a constitutional amendment to deny state health benefits to same-sex couples. Palin has stated that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

In a televised debate in 2006, Palin said she supported teaching both creationism and evolution in public schools. She clarified her position the next day, saying that if a debate of alternative views arose in class she would not want its discussion prohibited. She added that she would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum. Palin does not believe that global warming is human-caused. Palin opposed federal listing of the polar bear as an endangered species on the grounds that the "population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation," and supported a controversial predator-control program involving aerial hunting of wolves to increase moose populations for hunters.

Palin, a long-time member of the National Rifle Association, strongly supports its interpretation of the Second Amendment as protecting individual rights to bear arms, including handguns. She also supports gun safety education for youth.

Palin's foreign policy positions were unclear at the time she was picked as McCain's running mate. When asked for her views about troop escalations in Iraq, she replied "…while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place…"

Any comments?

• Approve A much better summary! Bravo. Sure, it needs a little work, but all in all a 100% improvement on what we currently have.zredsox (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly disapprove A summary section should be a short summary, capturing the general principles, not a rehash of every point on the sub page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Nope - way too much detail on hot-button "wedge issues" and too long per WP:SS. Kelly ^hi! 02:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Those are her positions. Palin is proud of them. The only other one I am aware of is she supports Israel. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Who doesn't? :) Kelly ^hi! 02:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose As I said earlier the summary section should be no longer than the summary in the comparative article Joe Biden. The goal here is a short summary of most important positions and not dropping things like "A 2006 article in the Anchorage Daily News" or quotes several lines in length that's not a summary that's simply rehashing the whole subarticle here. We need an actual summary. Hobartimus (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I did mention in a section above that we should not be using Joe Biden's summary as an example but rather Obama's Summary and here is why.It basically says that the Political Issues in Biden's summary should either be expanded or removed because there is not enough there and that is part of what is holding it back from being a good article. Clearly it is a strong indication we need to expand the current summary.zredsox (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Normally I would agree, but, as I've mentioned before, one of the major problems with Political positions of Sarah Palin (which this section summarizes) is that it doesn't have enough "boring stuff" like fiscal policy, etc. I can understand why - the controversial issues attract a lot of early attention. I'll try to research some of that stuff over the weekend, but for now I am uncomfortable with the emphasis in this summary on wedge issues like gun control, enviromentalism, creationism, etc., which are important to some single-issue voters but extremely minor in the large scheme of things. Kelly ^hi! 02:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, reliable sources find these interesting. Calling them "hot button" implies they are important. Find me a sources that says the evolution issue is minor, or that drilling in the Arctic is minor. Otherwise it's just you guarding the article from anything that might lose Palin votes. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this meme is coming from that I'm trying to get votes for someone. Have you ever seen me oppose an edit that was within policies? Ever seen me put positive fluff into the article? Diffs, please. Kelly ^hi! 02:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Phlegm: Please stay WP:CIVIL. You may feel that Kelly is guarding the article, but the vote thing is below the belt. Kelly: Please reread your comment two above. You are perfectly justified, but I think it does count as "opposing an edit that (is) within policies". And we all know that you did hundreds of edits, so "diffs please" seems a little weak. We are justified in forming our impression of you from your words here and on your talk page. Homunq (talk) 02:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, her historical campaign style has actually been to deliberately emphasize wedge issues (for example bringing religion, abortion, and gun rights into a Mayoral race). It's not obvious to me whether she even has positions on some of the other things (for instance, I suspect she's playing catch-up on most foriegn policy issues). I agree with you in spirit that we should be comprehensive in our coverage, but we also have to keep in mind that some topics, like pro-life positions, gun rights, and oil exploration, are more developed in part because those are things Palin herself has chosen to emphasize during her career. Dragons flight (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to suggest an expansion of the current summary, please feel free. A complete rehash of the sub article is not acceptable though. The proposed version doesn't match Obama's in any way (in style), nor does it match Biden's or McCain's. At least the current version roughly resembles both Biden's & McCain's in style. Also comparing to Obama probably isn't the best option since a presidential candidate is obviously more important than a VP candidate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Approve This looks to be a fair summary of important issues and it is not at all a rehash of everything on the subpage - that page is where much more detail would appear, if it is known. We have to look at each individual separately - we don';t decide what to do here based on what other editors have decided to do on Joe Biden's page - these are their biographies not campaign pieces for them. In her case since so little is generally known about her, it would seem appropriate to have a bit more detail here in the main article, as this summary does. In fact, I would support it being even a bit longer, if there are other important subjects not covered. Tvoz/talk 02:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

  Tvoz, this article is under an extraordinary amount of media attention. I'm even getting requests from the press for comment about the libel being put into the article over the past week. I understand your point, but realpolitik says we have to keep some level of parity with Joe Biden or teh drahmaz will ensue. Kelly ^hi! 02:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, did you seriously think I don't know that? I've been through this before on other political articles, as I think you know, including press scrutiny, and I still maintain that "parity" with Biden is irrelevant and not the way Wikipedia works. Tvoz/talk 04:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We should not let the bad decisions on the Biden article effect the stewardship of this article. If we are truthfully working to make this a Good Article, we need to enhance and expand the summary. Crazy as it sounds, that means Sarah Palin's views will be visible to the world. zredsox (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not just merge the whole article back in then. That's essentially what the proposal does anyway. In any case, I fail to see how forcing someone to click a highly visible link constitutes hiding the information 'from the world'. Do you feel that people who might vote against her because of her positions are too lazy/dumb to click through? --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Approve Thaddeus's proposal.zredsox (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be ok with me - until this article gets too long. Tvoz/talk 04:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too long per WP:SS and it is certain to require revision shortly: insufficient weight is given to her own emphasis in the current campaign and this has yet to be factored into the secondary sources. patsw (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! I went there and there was nothing that mentioned long being a bad thing (within reason.) However if you read my link above (and below) you will find that being too short a summary is reason for its removal. zredsox (talk) 03:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Mr. Rooster has made a valiant effort here, but ultimately it will not work. I support leaving virtually all the specific positions for the Political positions of Sarah Palin article. As another editor once put it,[37] "trying to boil positions down to very short summaries is inherently a dubious proposition: you get superficiality and sound-bites and oversimplification. The whole point of the separate article is to avoid all that." What we need here are some over-arching themes and meta-analysis. Another problem with going into specific issues like this is that the article will never ever become stable.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If your are truly opposed then we should delete the entire summary as being insufficient based on the discussion had here .

• Approve of this summary as a point to start further work. I also very strongly disapprove of the current ("libertarianism") summary and strongly believe that we should not be waiting for perfect consensus before making edits (although all edits should be discussed on the talk page).Homunq (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. This version isn't perfect but it's far superior to the text unilaterally implemented by Moreschi. To those who complain about disclosure of Palin's positions on "hot-button issues": well, duh, those are the issues most important to inform the readers about. Readers will want to know that she favors abstinence-only education. Some will cheer her for it, some will denounce her, but all will find that more informative than the solemn pronouncement that she favors "individual freedom and independence" and opposes "corruption". (By the way, that POV about "individual freedom and independence" and her support for a "minimal state" is contradicted by her abortion position, in the opinion of millions of Americans. We shouldn't be reporting a right-wing spin as if it were fact. If she's used those words we could say "She has expressed support for 'individual freedom and independence'" to make clear that it's her own characterization of her position.) JamesMLane t c 04:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The condensed and declarative current version passes all policy and guideline challenges, and reads better. Perhaps it could be expanded slightly, but that is for another day. :) Also, to maintain such a suggestion would mean constantly having to consider which quotes/sources to include as the summaries, and this becomes a magnet for POV pushers -- more than it is already. Please don't Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Baccyak4H, throughout this article we must make editorial judgments about what's important enough to include. It's an area where the NPOV policy doesn't provide clear answers. Editors have different POV's about what's important, and any specific fact must be either included or omitted, so we can't implement neutrality between the differing opinions concerning importance. (That said, however, the current version is POV in asserting as fact Palin's self-serving spin on her position.) JamesMLane t c 05:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I think you're losing sight of the fact that the section being discussed is supposed to be merely a summary of Political positions of Sarah Palin, similar to Joe Biden#Political positions. Kelly ^hi! 06:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Excuse me, "the fact that"? You have a personal opinion that we should model this section after Biden's. Multiple editors have tried to explain to you why that's not the applicable standard. Not only do you not address their arguments, you even say "the fact that" to introduce an opinion that's widely rejected. It's like my saying that you're losing sight of the fact that McCain is a blatant hypocrite. I believe that, mind you, but I would never be so presumptuous as to describe my opinion as a fact. (Also, following Strunk & White, I try to avoid using "the fact that", but that's another issue.) JamesMLane t c 07:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
        • • Thanks for the link - I'm pretty much a hick, so I have never heard of Strunk & White. :) But I was really referring to WP:SS. Kelly ^hi! 07:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Requesting an edit

This article presently says the following, due to a non-consensus edit today by Bogdan during full protection:[38]

“She is a proponent of teaching both creationism and evolution in science classes, but she did not push creation science as governor of Alaska.”

The edit ought to be reverted, since it was made without consensus during full protection. But in the mean time, I think we can easily get consensus to remove the words “in science classes”, since neither the cited source[39] nor the sub-article[40] specifically says anything about “science class” or “biology class”, as opposed to some other type of class (e.g. philosophy or social studies). Zredsox has already said that he could support removing the words “in science classes”.[41] So, for the time being, I would like to propose changing the sentence to the following:

“She is a proponent of teaching about or allowing discussion about both creationism and evolution in public schools, and has not pushed creationism as governor of Alaska.”

After all, the cited source says "Palin said discussion of alternative views on the origins of life should be allowed in Alaska classrooms" and also quotes her as saying that, "It's OK to let kids know that there are theories out there."Ferrylodge (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I support this change even though I object to the rest of the material remaining in its present form. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Needs a tweak as it is not reading cleanly:

“She is a proponent of teaching or allowing discussion of both creationism and evolution in public schools, but has not pushed creationism as governor of Alaska.”

Although, instead of making minor edits at this point we should probably be focused on the bigger picture as being discussed one section above. ;) zredsox (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I support zredsox's phrasing. It'll do for now. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I would support the Zredsox version, with a slight change: “She is a proponent of teaching about or allowing discussion of both creationism and evolution in public schools, but has not pushed creationism as governor of Alaska.” I think Palin has pretty clearly said "It's OK to let kids know that there are theories out there", and that meaning is lost without the word "about".Ferrylodge (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I would not object to this version. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, what Ferrylodge said. Kelly ^hi! 03:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I object. It's a lame copout. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So incorrect info is better than a lame compromise? --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Rooster, you think the word "about" is a lame copout? The woman is suggesting telling students "that there are theories out there". Can you see the difference between telling students about other theories, versus telling students that those other theories are correct? Palin supports doing the former. Why do you want this article to imply that she supports the latter?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup because the other ah hypotheses have been so firmly demolished that calling them a theory is highly inaccurate. It's a bit like telling pupils that there is a hypothesis that life involves some kind of vital force. Technicaly true there is such a hypothesis but not useful.Geni 03:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, the fact is she totally said "teach both" in a televised debate. She wanted some votes, and said it in the forum that would get her those votes. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

<- Looks like a deadlock, we may need to do a request for comment to get movement. Anyone want to volunteer? I'm going to bed pretty soon. Kelly ^hi! 03:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've got to run. Every source I can find has the words TEACH and CREATIONISM right next to each other with no "about" in the middle. I am sticking to my guns here. Goodnight.zredsox (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It is impossible to teach that two conflicting theories are both correct. I've got to run too. You know, Zredsox, that I was merely looking for a shorter way to say that Palin wants to teach "that there are theories out there". But you want this article to convey that she wants to teach that one of those theories is correct.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not out there. It's very firmly in the world of science. Certian religious groups insist on digging it from time to time.Geni 03:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think "about" is a fine compromise. It's one word. How bad can it be? As a science teacher, I know that any "teaching about creationism" which is not debunking it belongs outside the science classroom anyway. Homunq (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with that, Homunq, except that it might be worth mentioning in a science class that many theories once thought to be correct have since been proved incomplete, and evolution may well turn out to be among them. Also worth mentioning is that our present knowledge is very limited (e.g. we haven't yet figured out how to create organic matter out of inanimate matter).Ferrylodge (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Radiometric Dating . The End. ;) zredsox (talk) 04:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please take this out: [42]. Improper edit unsupported by the protection policy, and I don't see any consensus for it to be there in the first place. The admin that did it hasn't replied to any queries, and this isn't an admin action that requires running it by the admin before undoing. Please take it out wholly until a consensus supports some wording. rootology (C)(T) 07:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that, even if this article were not protected at all, the edit in question would have been totally inappropriate and revertable, since there was no consensus for it. I believe it substantially misdescribes what the subject of the BLP has said, and also misdescribes what the cited source has said.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit request: 2008 vice-presidential campaign - Convention speech

I floated the idea of making this edit under two different discussion topics: "15 Convention Speech" and "19 Total Viewers Of Palin Speech - Beats Obama?". I was surpised that in over 16 hours I've received no reply in the affirmative, nor any dissentions. I will request it more officially before applying a request-edit tag and respectfully asking an administrator to enact the change.

My objection is to the final portion of the last sentence in the section. The sentence reads: "Palin delivered a 40 minute acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention that was well-received by the crowd and by media analysts.[97][98]." I object to including "and by media analysts". The term "well-received" is very broad and to cast that net over media analysts in general is inappropriate. It is a subjective judgement that is not verifiable. I do think it is generally agreed that the convention attendees approved of all aspects of the speech and therefore "well-received" is appropriate. I request that sentence be modified to read: "Palin delivered a 40 minute acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention that was well-received by the crowd." Alternatively, I think the following would also qualify as an objective statement: "Palin delivered a 40 minute acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention that was well-received by the crowd and considered well-executed by media analysts." Spiff1959 (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Since it was my edit, I will say I have no objection to "Palin delivered a 40 minute acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention that was well-received by the crowd and considered well-executed by media analysts." Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't have hoped for a better endorsement than that! Thank you, Sir. Since this proposed edit has been around all day without a single objection, and has now received a stamp-of-approval from the author of the text to be modified, let's put up some colorful graphics! (my first, so I'm excited!)

Please edit the final sentence of the "2008 vice-presidential campaign" section to read as follows: "Palin delivered a 40 minute acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention that was well-received by the crowd and considered well-executed by media analysts."

• Oppose (sorry to burst your bubble of excitement, Spiff1959, and I appreciate your efforts, but there are problems). Some media analysts trashed the contents of the speech. If the point of "well-executed" is to say that she was evaluated as being skilled at reading a speech off a teleprompter, it's really not important enough to include. The notable thing about the speech is that she undertook the traditional "attack dog" role of the VP candidate. She was sharply partisan, which did indeed play very well with the delegates, and more generally with the party's right-wing base, but which was deplored (as to tone and content) by some of the media analysts who frequently criticize what they see as excessive partisanship. It would hard to convey that last point in NPOV fashion, though. What if we just end the sentence after "crowd"? (I think "delegates" would be an improvement over "crowd" because this wasn't just some bunch of random Republicans who wandered into the hall to hear a speech.) JamesMLane t c 06:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The following is from the Obama article: "On August 28, Obama accepted the nomination in a speech that received praise from many media commentators and political analysts.[104]" See any similarity? Do you intend to "be bold" and edit the Obama page to remove this blatant POV pushing? I think that Obama gave a great speech that was well received both by Democrats and commentators. I think it is easy to find multiple RS's that prove the same of Palin's speech. Is there a double-standard here?--Paul (talk) 06:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've done very little editing of the Obama article. If you think that language is unacceptable or unsupported, talk it up on that talk page. I'm allowed to opine about this article without running around Wikipedia editing articles that other people assign to me. JamesMLane t c 06:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, James is right. It's one of those things where only history can tell the impact, long from now. Best to avoid fleeting opinions. I agree with Paul's opinion of the Obama article comment, but that is an issue for the editors over there, not here. Kelly ^hi! 06:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sick of that excuse, wiki uses that lame excuse all the time "well thats for them over THERE"....no its not. Wikipedia, when considered as a whole, needs to be NPOV on a macro level not a micro level. We have a duty, since the Obama article preexists this one, to keep Wikipedia fair on a macro level. Your excuse is lame. If you are really about NPOV, then you WILL consider how Obama's article is taken into account compared to this one as these two individuals are in a current competition. This is not about 'micro-fairness' and you know it. This article cannot possibly stand on its own as a measure of NPOV without being justifiably compared to Obama. Because Obama's article mentions the lavish praise of his speech, and this one does not, makes this article slanted. You cannot call this article NPOV when you snipe phraseology that are permitted on Obama's page, people are smarter than that. If you want to make this article truly NPOV you will balance it against Obama's. That is fair....but for the editors here....are you going to be fair like that?

Proposed change "classical libertarianism"

The article currently says:

Palin is known for her support of "individual freedom and independence", and her endorsement for the minimal state and economic liberty of classical libertarianism: she is known in Alaska for her strong opposition to what she views as excessive government spending and corruption.

Neither of sources provided, one an interview and the other an op-ed, does not use the terms "minimal state" or "classical libertarianism", so I propose that this WP:Synthesis be removed. The sentence should simply read:

Palin supports "individual freedom and independence", and she is known in Alaska for her strong opposition to what she views as excessive government spending and corruption.

Thanks, Phlegm Rooster (talk) 04:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. That phrasing struck me aa peculiar when I read it a few days ago. It feels like something taken from a manifesto. Moving Palin to the ranks of "classic Libertarian" because she is for "less government" and "less taxes" does seem a leap withot better sourcing. At the least, some punctuation ought to be inserted to divert the rare(?) reader from construing that Palin supports "minimal economic liberty".
2. These phrases are spin, not substance. A classical libertarian or supporter of the minimal state would favor legalization of marijuana. Let's see Palin run that one past McCain. We can consider calling Palin a supporter of "individual freedom and independence" when she comes out against the PATRIOT Act. The phrase really adds nothing to the reader's understanding because few contemporary American politicians characterize their own views as opposition to "individual freedom and independence". JamesMLane t c 06:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I think those are very accurate descriptions and are undoubtedly true. They will go a long ways towards explaining why she might be for discussing creationism in schools but would never use the state government to do anything about it. The correct way to fix this problem is find better references. I commented on this earlier today on the Administrators Bulletin Board. UPDATED - Here is a possible reference for the libertarian claim: The Libertarian Case for Palin--Paul (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What we think is not the issue. I think that being a pro-life libertarian is an oxymoron, and that being a libertarian who raised sales taxes in Wasilla and got millions in fed handouts is being a hypocrite. Luckily, neither Paul.h nor I has any sources but blogs to back us up. I support this change. Homunq (talk) 04:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Has she ever said anything about leaning libertarian? It's supposed to about her positions, not what some libertarian commentators claim for her. I say it's still out as WP:Fringe and WP:Undue. There's so much else out there on her political philosophy that seems better attested. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's this: To recap: Sarah Palin attended at least two meetings of the ALP in 2005/06 as a speaker, including one early on in her candidacy for Governor. She gladly accepted the last minute endorsement of the ALP for her Gubernatorial Campaign, and very publicly thanked the Party and their candidate for Governor Billy Toien for their support. But it's from a blog, not a RS. I guess I'm going to remove my opposition, as there just aren't good sources out there for claming that Palin has strong libertarian leanings, though I do think that it is accurate.--Paul (talk) 05:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's really the characterization that is a problem. It already says she's against "excessive government spending", so "minimal state" is an extreme interpretation of that. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Public Safety Commissioner dismissal

This section should be removed from the article since it violates the NPOV. If you are going to talk about how she has questionable ethics in office, you should also mention it other politician's articles. For example, Obama's article should talk about how he got a discounted home loan for being a senator.24.117.138.162 (talk) 04:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning a current scandal does not have to violate the NPOV rule, but it is difficult to report it that way in the heat of the moment. Bringing out all relevant facts, and a listing of the various parties reactions to them could work. When saying the Commisioner was dismissed for allegedly treating a relative of hers badly, mention should be made of the specific charges. One of these, not mentioned so far, is that the dismissed man Tasered Palin's 10 year old nephew while off duty. Add this, properly sourced, and the response to the accusation.

Besides, everyone is talking about the dismissal right now; Wiki should provide all the facts, because they are going to be in demand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.89.68.24 (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Two replies to IP24: first, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV are not the same. The presentation in the article is neutral. Second, we don't look at other articles to determine how this one should be edited. Tvoz/talk 05:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen this?Ferrylodge (talk) 05:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

me? Tvoz/talk 05:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh- I see what you're responding to. never mind. Tvoz/talk 05:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I was addressing IP24.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I would add, in reply to the anon, that Obama's article does mention that Rezko's involvement with Obama attracted media attention. One obvious difference is that, in l'affaire Monegan, the Legislature has opened a formal investigation, which elevates the matter into more prominence than mere media mutterings. JamesMLane t c 06:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions

Palin is known for her support of "individual freedom and independence", and her endorsement for the minimal state and economic liberty of classical libertarianism...

The above statement from the Political positions section is unsupported by the sources cited and should be removed.

1) The only source cited for Palin being "known" for her support of individual freedom and independence is a quote from Palin herself. The article does not mention any of Palin's policy positions that support individual liberty except the right to bear arms. In fact, the preceding paragraph lists political positions limiting individual liberty such as banning abortion and same-sex marriage.

2) There is no source cited for being "known" for her "classically libertarian" views. The article does not mention any classically libertarian positions other than those that coincide with modern conservatism. Again, the preceding paragraph establishes political positions that seem contrary to libertarian principles. Queerudite (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed fairly extensively above, please contribute. Kelly ^hi! 06:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please be more clear on 'high approval rating'

"maintained a high approval rating throughout her term.[43]" can we please be a bit more specific and include some numbers? I heard some say she had the highest of any governor, if this is true (and I don't know if it is), that certainly warrants a mention.