Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:22, 7 October 2008

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Sarah Palin. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Sarah Palin at the Reference desk.

view · edit Frequently asked questions To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question. Q1: This article is over 70kb long. Should it be broken up into sub-articles? A1: The restriction mentioned in WP:SIZE is 60kB of readable prose, not the byte count you see when you open the page for editing. As of September, 2008, this article had about 4,100 words (approximately 26 KB) of text, well within the guideline. The rest is mainly citations and invisible comments, which do not count towards the limit. Q2: Should the article have a criticisms/controversies section? A2: A section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article. See also the essay on criticism. Q3: Should the article include (one of various controversies/criticisms) if a reliable source can be provided? This article is a hit piece. Should the article include (various forms of generic praise for Palin) if a reliable source can be provided? A3: Please try to assume good faith. Like all articles on Misplaced Pages, this article is a work in progress so it is possible for biases to exist at any point in time. If you see a bias that you wish to address, you are more than welcome to start a new discussion, or join in an existing discussion, but please be ready to provide sources to support your viewpoint and try to keep your comments civil. Starting off your discussion by accusing the editors of this article of having a bias is the quickest way to get your comment ignored. Although it is certainly possible that the article has taken a wrong turn, please consider the possibility that the issue has already been considered and dealt with. The verifiability policy and reliable source guideline are essential requirements for putting any material into the encyclopedia but there are other policies at work too. Material must also meet a neutral point of view and be a summary of previously published secondary source material rather than original research, analysis or opinion. In addition, Misplaced Pages's Biography of living persons policy says that "views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics give a disproportionate amount of space to critics". Perhaps there is simply no consensus to include the material...yet. Also, the material might be here, but in a different article. The most likely place to find the missing material would be in an article on the 2008 presidential campaign. Including everything about Palin in a single article would exceed Misplaced Pages's article size restrictions. A number of sub-articles have been created and some controversies/criticisms/praises have been summarized here or been left out of this article altogether, but are covered in some detail in the sub-articles. Q4: Should the article include (one of several recent controversies/criticisms/praises/rumors/scandals)? Such items should be covered in detail in the main article, not buried in a sub-article. A4: Misplaced Pages articles should avoid giving undue weight to something just because it is in the news right now. If you feel that the criticism/controversy/praise is not being given enough weight in this article, you can try to start a discussion on the talk page about giving it more. See also the Misplaced Pages "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle". Q5: If Misplaced Pages is supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, should I just be bold and fix any biases that I see in the article? A5: It is true that Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and no one needs the permission of other editors of this article to make changes to it. But Misplaced Pages policy is that, "While the consensus process does not require posting to the discussion page, it can be useful and is encouraged." This article attracts editors that have very strong opinions about Palin (either positive or negative) and these editors have different opinions about what should and should not be in the article, including differences as to appropriate level of detail. As a result of this it may be helpful, as a way to avoid content disputes, to seek consensus before adding contentious material to or removing it from the article. Q6: Why is this page semi-protected (locked against new and anonymous users)? A6: This page has been subject to a high volume of unconstructive edits, many coming from accounts from newer users who may not be familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies regarding neutrality, reliable sourcing and biographies of living people. In order to better maintain this page, editing of the main article by new accounts and accounts without a username has been temporarily disabled. These users are still able and encouraged to contribute constructively on this talk page.

Sarah Palin was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 25, 2008). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance). United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alaska High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Idaho This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Idaho.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Brian Krebs (2008-08-29). "Misplaced Pages Edits Forecast Vice Presidential Picks". The Washington Post. Yuki Noguchi (2008-08-29). "Palin's Misplaced Pages Entry Gets Overhaul". NPR. Chris O'Brien (2008-08-29). "Tug of war over Wiki entry on Palin". Mercury News. Natalie Weinstein (2008-08-30). "Sarah Palin Misplaced Pages edits--fast and furious". CNET News. Noam Cohen (2008-09-01). "Don't Like Palin's Misplaced Pages Story? Change It". The New York Times. Jemima Kiss (2008-09-01). "Sarah Palin's immensely flattering Misplaced Pages entry". The guardian. Mike Harvey (2008-09-01). "Sarah Palin Misplaced Pages entry gets glowing make-over from mysterious user Young Trigg". The Times. Roberto Reale (2008-09-02). "Misplaced Pages e la biografia "ripulita" di Sarah Palin". RAI. Mark Sabbatini (2008-09-02). "Misplaced Pages war emerges over details about Palin". Juneau Empire. Iain Simons (2008-09-02). "Who scrubbed Palin clean?". New Statesman. Andrew Sullivan (2008-09-15). "The Odd Lies Of Sarah Palin II: The Bridge To Nowhere". The New Statesman. Stephanie Condon (2008-09-17). "Sarah Palin winning the Misplaced Pages popularity contest". The Atlantic. Farhad Manjoo (2008-09-22). "Why Google's online encyclopedia will never be as good as Misplaced Pages". Slate.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

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

abstinence only education?

"Abstinence only" failed in her own case & in that of her daughter. Really? Did either she or her daughter have "abstinence only" education? Maybe if they had had it, it would have stuck. The debate over the effectiveness of such education will go on, but the fact that it didn't have its touted effect on someone who didn't have it is hardly an argument against it! -- Zsero (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL she told her daughter not to root around, even if her daughter had/did not know condoms exist. Obviously her daughter was not abstinant, and she had been told to do this!--203.192.91.4 (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course Palin & her daughter had "abstinence only" education! It's the only kind of "sex education" Pentecostals allow... 96.231.165.216 (talk) 03:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the issue is not Palin but the child. There is no reason why you should need to know the exact birthdate / birthday. Hobartimus (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to respond to BenAveling. No, we are not all in agreement that almost certainly conceived prior to marriage. Did you miss the part about 1/3 of the births being premature. Unless you or others have specific knowledge about when these two were having sex or about the birth details, drop it. --Tom 20:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

One third of births are premature? Your source for this statistic being? You don't mean "pentecostals who practiced 'adstinence-only sex education' report that one third of their first births are premature?" Geo Swan (talk) 10:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Medically, "premature birth" refers to "under 37 weeks" -- 34 weeks is "3 weeks premature" by that standard. http://en.wiktionary.org/premature_birth . Collect (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Even the McCain campaign has acknowledged the discrepancy 1. There can be no real doubt. 140.139.35.250 (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Should Palin announce that her first son was conceived prior to marriage, it will then become biographical. At this point, considering it's not certain, it's sole intent here is to embarrass the subject of the article potentially very unfairly. I strongly vote it has no place in the article (beyond the obvious privacy concerns of identifying birthdates). Fcreid (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding?? If something is not explicitly announced, it certainly does not mean it is not biographical. That is absurd. 208.255.229.66 (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to think that Track was just prem. But I gotta admit, the 1/3 prem claim probably doesn't apply here. According to Premature_Babies, 1 baby in 8 is >3 weeks prem. Track, as I understand it, arrived 33½ weeks after the wedding. So that would be 6½ weeks. There's a chance of a baby being that prem, but it's small. And it's certainly enough time to miss a period and arrange a quick wedding. But, arguing about whether she walks the walk isn't important. She made a mistake. Ideally, nobody would care what she does in her private life. It's what she would do as VP or as President that matters. She knows that abstinence only education leads to pregnancy, statistics show it - her own experience is just one datapoint. And she still supports it. She believes that abstinence only education has benefits that outweigh the costs. And that's what we should be saying. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

She knows that abstinence only education leads to pregnancy, statistics show it - her own experience is just one datapoint. How is her experience a data point? Did she have abstinence only education? -- Zsero (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"But, arguing about whether she walks the walk isn't important. She made a mistake" So people knowing somthing doesnt work then keep pretending it does is a good thing? Did not work for her, did not work for her daughter! Think she would have worked it out by now.--203.192.91.4 (talk) 00:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ben, your figure is incorrect for firstborn children who has a much higher incidence of prematurity. Fcreid (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you consider that perhaps firstborn children have a higher incidence of prematurity due to marriages which occurred when the bride missed a period? Edison (talk) 05:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Damn statisticians! :) Fcreid (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

She made a mistake? I love holier than thou people. geesh --Tom 23:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Leave it out! If any reader is interested, they will do their own math. Misplaced Pages is not the only source for information, but it can be the most reliable.--Buster7 (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

@Fcreid: We work with what we have. I'm sure there are actuarial tables around, but here's a simple rule of thumb. If 3 weeks early means 1 in 8, then 2 * 3 weeks is probably going to be something like 1 in 64. It's possible, but it's low. Throw in an elopment as well. At 6 weeks prem, Track would probably have been fine, but he wouldn't have left the hospital quickly. And as pointed out above, at less than 4 weeks prem, it would have been unlikely for them to realise, but at 6+ weeks, quite possible. Sadly, nothing else really adds up. But don't make too much out of it: Does this fact alone suddenly make her a bad person? No. Happens to lots of people, and plenty of them respond in worse ways than getting married and staying married. Does it make her a hypocrite? Not in my opinon. See my response to Tom below. Other people might feel differently, at least if they are trying to make her look bad.

@Tom: Yes, she made a mistake. And are you accusing me or her of being holier than thou? Either way, yes, she made a mistake, and it led to her getting pregnant and married. Probably two things she wanted to do sometime, but I suspect not quite as quickly as she did. Not that any of us know for sure, but the evidence is that she made a mistake, and I don't see it as hypocritical of anyone to say "don't do what I did". "Don't do what I do" is hypocrticial. Yes, "Don't make the mistake I made" would be better, more honest, braver, etc, but I'm not sure how many of the rest of us would be tough enough to carry that line through what she has to go through.

@Buster7: I'm not suggesting that we say anything more than what we know. We know they got married, 7 1/2 months ahead of the birth of their first child. And that's all we can say, and that's what we should say. It's not OR. To say anything more than that would be OR, so we don't have to say more than that. But I can't see any reason to say less than that either, and I've been trying, and I can't see any reason to leave the matter out entirely. About the only reason I can see to leave it out is censorship. Nobody forced her to bring her kids on stage; she herself has made them part of the narative, and so - I'm open to suggestions here - but I can't find any decent excuse for us not to tell the whole storys

Regards, Ben Aveling 11:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i am saying you are being holier than thou because you keep on insisting she made a mistake without any proof of such. Unless you know on what dates she was having sex, then you are being judgemental. Do you know when she first had sex with Todd? Yes or no question, no blathering. --Tom 13:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC) ps, you wrote but the evidence is that she made a mistake do you have 5 x 8 color glossies of her having sex that are time stamped? What is this "evidence" that allows you to be so judgemental? --Tom 13:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Posting the dates serves only one purpose, and that is to insinuate (in the absence of any absolute proof) that she was pregnant at marriage, and some of the ones pushing for it have made it clear that that's precisely why they want it. She recently gave birth to a preemie, so it's possible the first one was also a preemie. Likely? Maybe not. But posting the dates is inappropriate. Now, IF she owns up to it, or IF some solid proof emerges, that would be different. But 7 1/2 months is insufficient "proof", it's only inference and doesn't belong. Baseball Bugs 11:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Tom, it's possible that Track was prem, but it's not plausible. 7 1/2 months. Quickie wedding. And every opportunity in the world to just say that he was prem. As for the holier than thou, no, I'm no holier than any one else on this one. By Palin's mistake, I mean becoming pregnant. I don't know what information she had at age 24, but as a potential VP/P her own views and experience on sex education matter. Sex before marriage is an individual choice for each person and couple to make on their own. In my opinion, it should be an informed choice. Whether it is an informed choice isn't up to me or you, or even the VP/P alone. But they have a lot more input into it than most. This is verifiable, it's important, it's relevant. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, her "mistake" was becoming pregnant? Again, that is your opinion and judgement.--Tom 14:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)ps, again, you keep talking about sex before marriage. Do you have ANY evidence of this? Color glossies with time stamp work the best. --Tom 14:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Concur, Bugs. Ben, I'm certainly not questioning your motivation, but rather the encyclopedic value of this fact unless it's presented in an awkward and "clinical" fashion. In other words, if you listed every child's birth date (and, possibly, the gestation period for each), that would seem encyclopedic (albeit quite invasive). In contrast, a comment like "they eloped... and Trig was born 8 months later" is clearly an insinuation. Yes, facts are stubborn. In addition to those discussed above, we are also ignoring the fact that Palin was 24-years old when she married (and not 17!) That simple fact, and others we do not know such as whether she was living with her parents, would lead to even stranger conclusions. Again, I see no value for the detail in the article except for salacious and possible incorrect conclusion. Fcreid (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur that insinuations without precise facts should be excluded. However I feel trying to turn this into an abstinance only issue is totally missing the point of that campaign. Abstinance only is presented as the best way to control the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Personally I feel that people should not have sex unless married. However, For the arguments against abstinance only to have any meaning here you would have to demonstrate either that one of these people had had sex with another person creating a potential spread of zexually transmitted diseases, or that the father of an unborn child had abandoned the mother instead of going through with standing as the father. Lastly your attacks on abstinance education ignore the psychological costs of free roaming sex and ignore the fact that condoms and not impermiable. It also ignores the fact that any genital contact will spread the HPV.Johnpacklambert (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding claims about "premature birth": By definition previously cited, it applies to before 37 weeks. Thus the child was ~3 weeks premature. Which is quite common for first time mothers of any age. I trust this obviates the statistical misinformation which might otherwise be attached to the discussion. Collect (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Not at 99% certain. Not even at 100% certain.

Seems like we had this debate several weeks ago, and you indicate the important point yet again - that you can't necessarily draw conclusions from 7 1/2 months. If it were 4 or 5 months, there would be no question. But this is just ambiguous enough that it's a POV push to use it. Baseball Bugs 12:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would you include it at 4 or 5 months, but not at 7 1/2 months? Regards, Ben Aveling 13:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't, necessarily. All I'm saying is that 4 or 5 months would be sufficient to demonstrate that the child was conceived out of wedlock. 7 1/2 months isn't, but the POV-pushers want to suggest to the reader that it is. But it isn't. 4 or 5 months would be. That doesn't mean it belongs in the article. But at least it would be solid proof. 7 1/2 months isn't. Did I say that already? Baseball Bugs 13:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

And maybe I'm not being clear enough on the larger point. Posting the dates amounts to analysis or drawing (or trying to get the reader to draw) conclusions. That is a violation of the wikipedia philosophy. Now, if you can find a reliable source (and the Enquirer emphatically does not count) that discusses this issue, then you might have something, or at least something worth talking about here. But it is not wikipedia's place to draw that inference unilaterally. Baseball Bugs 13:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the editors said the dates were available in connection with the Hannity & Colmes TV show. So the question is, did they debate the matter? What conclusions did they reach, if any? Because now you're looking at verifiable citations, instead of wikipedians trying to decide what significance 7 1/2 months has, if any. What did they have to say about it? Baseball Bugs 13:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Dunno. I don't watch the news. It clouds my judgment. :) Fcreid (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I hear ya. But don't confuse H&C with "the news". :) Baseball Bugs 14:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, you were saying that you don't want it included if it was 99% likely, now you don't even want it included if it were 100% certain. Mind if I ask why not? Which specific WP policy are concerned about? Regards, Ben Aveling 20:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ben, I think it's simply a matter of decorum, particularly given that there is a fair possibility that it's an erroneous assumption on anyone's part. I just don't see how it could be included here in an encyclopedic manner without insinuation. More importantly, and as this relates to the talk topic you chose about abstinence, is it really your contention that Palin didn't understand where babies come from at 24? Fcreid (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I just read the article, and it indicates she supports pro-abstinence sex education but also the discussion of contraception (in deference to the blinding reality that kids screw around!) I may be showing my age, but what's missing from that curriculum, e.g. are there alternatives missing from that program that you feel should be included? Furthermore, I an much more incredulous that a woman of her obvious attraction "abstained" for 24 years, or I truly want to shake Todd's hand for being the most patient man I'll ever meet! Whatever the case, it's none of our business. Fcreid (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Palin has apparently voiced support for sex ed which includes discussion of contraception (interestingly, this puts her at odds with both John McCain and the official Republican Party platform, which support abstinence-only education). If you want a policy basis for leaving out the date of birth, WP:BLP suggests that we use only the year (if that) for non-public individuals, which would include all of Palin's children. If you want a common-sense basis... come on, people. There's a multilayered economic disaster unfolding, a few wars, a resurgent Russia, climate change, dependence on foreign oil, a critical number of people without health insurance. It's 2008. Who cares whether her first child was born less than exactly 9 months after her wedding day? Can't we all go back to fighting about the Bridge to Nowhere, at least? MastCell  18:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well stated! That was much easier just to ignore!  :) Fcreid (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

We're not creating the speculation. It already exists. We're just choosing whether or not we self-censor information that is relevant to it. I'm not aware any policy citing decorum as a reason not to include information. As per BLP this alegation is "notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources". Regards, Ben Aveling 07:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't 1910, Ben. If their oldest child was conceived prior to Nuptuals, he is no different than millions of 21st Century Americans. Plus, let's have some regard for his , how should I say it, "legitimacy". IMHO--His parents sexual activities (and when they took place)(and what resulted from them) are private.--Buster7 (talk) 08:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages doesn't censor itself because a public figure might be embarrassed. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

However:

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

Have you no shame?--Paul (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Have I read that bit? I wrote it: . You're right that we need to be balanced. Would this fact, and it is a fact, be appropriate for an article about a random person? No, of course not. Not even for a random politician. But this isn't a random politician, this is a vice-presidential candidate who is running on a values platform. That makes her own adherence to those values relevant. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Point me to that platform again, Ben? Oh, and by your tone, you did find evidence she engaged in premarital intercourse? Do you have anything to present for peer review? 23:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcreid (talk • contribs)

Political positions of Sarah Palin more or less covers her platform. To summarise: She has said she is pro-contraception and that she opposes sex education. She wants abstinence taught instead of contraception. She also wants contraception taught. She has knocked back bills that restrict abortions while claiming that she supported the bills. She has said that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. She has described Abortion as an option. If some of these positions seems contradictory, they are statements she has made over a period of time and sometimes under pressure. She may have misspoken and people's positions do change over time, but until she clarifies herself, this is what we have. In short, she's consistently in favour of abstinence and if she has a consistent position on sex education, I can't work out what it is, but whatever it is, she's 100% behind it. To touch on your second point, it is not certain that she engaged in pre-marital sex, but it is the only plausible explanation, and she's never denied it. If you like, it is certain that it is highly probable that she did, and it is certain that it is highly unlikely that she didn't. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(Over here) It boils down to a simple proposal, Ben: You're asking us to embarrass Palin, her husband and her son in the article to make a completely inconsequential and tangential point on your narrow interpretation of her moral platform (in which others, myself included, do not join you in your interpretation). Worse yet, there is a distinct possibility you're wrong (and statistically you've overstated the odds supporting your supposition). Finally, as it relates to the *specific* moral position relevant to premarital sex--Sex Education--we both acknowledge her approach of promoting abstinence, while also discussing contraception, is utterly sound and sensible. You're certainly welcome to bring the point up for consensus, but I can't lend my support to something this picayune yet so much lacking decorum on our community's behalf. Fcreid (talk) 10:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If Palin is embarrassed by the fact, she can issue a clarification or a denial. But we're not going to say either that he was conceived prematurely, or that he was born prematurely. That discussion is happening elsewhere, and if ever we get an answer, we'll run with it. In the meantime, there is one fact that is well verifiable that we are leaving out, as you say, because you don't want to risk embarrassing her - not that it's clear she would be embarrassed. Fcreid, this is an encyclopaedia. Not embarrassing people is something we take into account, but it is not our overriding principle. Don't take this the wrong way, but you'd benefit from working on a few other pages as well as this one. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

1. We have no clear evidence that the Palins did have sex before they were married. 2. Even if they did, standard good-old-fashioned small-town American Family Values ™ are that marriage before a baby is born retroactively legitimates all the sex that preceded it, and nothing more is said about it. That's the way it's been for at least 150 years, and probably centuries longer. Note, for instance, the six months between Obama's parents' marriage and his birth; had they remained together this discrepancy would have been regarded as unremarkable. 3. Conclusion: there's nothing at all to see here. -- Zsero (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There is clear evidence that it is far and away the most likely scenario. Better than 99% likely. Closer to 100%. And if it's no big deal, lets just mention it and move on. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Better yet. Let's not mention surmise and conjecture. Move on. Collect (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't planing to. I just want to include a known fact. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ben..prior you mentioned about embarrassing a public figure, My point was that inclusion would embarrass the young man not his parents.--Buster7 (talk) 01:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it could be embarrassing, whatever Zsero says above. And we do give some more latitude for semi-public figures and for private individuals. But not to the extent that we'd leave out something like this. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

How bout let's just say: A lot of us disagree with you. You seem (at least to me) to be the only one supporting your opinion; thus, you're outnumbered. The majority wins. Get over it. 75.180.224.161 (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The majority can be wrong. No offense, but more than a few people here haven't been anywhere else in Misplaced Pages. It's not their fault if they don't understand how Misplaced Pages works. It's not just about the numbers, it's about the facts. And the facts make it quite clear that on this occasion, she didn't live up to what she now preaches for others. Regards, Ben Aveling 19:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. In this case it means that if you try to inject your personal opinion "she didn't live up to what she now preaches for others" or try to edit a BLP based off of that, you may be stopped even if you had more people agreeing with you. Even the majority can't trump some "hard rules" such as BLP and keeping personal opinion out. Exactly right. Hobartimus (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus, you keep bringing up BLP, and each time someone has to explain to you that our BLP policy in no way prohibits adding verifiable notable views from reliable sources into this article. The only issues in this particular discussion are NOR and V. And yes, thse are very serious issues. But please, let's stayon track and be clear about what the policy issues are. Here they are V and NOR, we do not even have to get into BLP. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

ALL Explanation of Why Bridges to Nowhere Were Criticized Has Once Again Been Deleted.

Here we go again. For the umpteenth time, a single editor has deleted a a large portion of the bridge article with NO discussion on the talk page. Here's the process on this section, which I've been involved in for weeks:

Palin supporter puts in strongly pro-bridge material

Palin opponent puts in anti-bridge for balance.

Fierce argument, reversion, and edit wars ensue, with the argument that "consensus" does not support showing both sides of a controversy in BLP, so only the pro-bridge stuff should be there and not any criticism of the bridge. It is insisted that nowhere in the article is it ever explained WHY they're called "bridges to nowhere"

After strong argument and long discussions, it is finally agreed that all sides of a controversy be represented. It will be explained why they're called bridges to nowhere along with ample (and twice as long) citations of why these bridges are good ideas This makes the article longer, of course.

Hobartimus without any discussion on the talk page wipes out any mention of why the bridges are bad ideas or called "to nowhere."

Rinse and repeat. It's happening again.

Hobartimus has made a substantial deletion. All of the sections below were removed from the article with no discussion:

The Gravina Island Bridge proposal became nicknamed the "Bridge to Nowhere" because of the island's population of 50. More rarely, the term "bridges to nowhere" has been used to refer to both bridge proposals.

The goal of the Gravina project, according to the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, was to "provide better service to the airport" which serves 350,000 passengers per year, and "allow for development of large tracts of land on the island." The Knik Arm Bridge, officially named "Don Young's Way" after Alaska Congressman Don Young in the original legislation, is a $600 million project to open up development and provide an alternate link from Anchorage to Wasilla; the bridge is being evaluated by officials as a possible threat to nearby beluga whales.

The deletion makes the article entirely one-sided. Now there's no indication anywhere in the article of why the bridges were criticized, why they were symbols of pork barrel spending, or why they were even called "to nowhere", or that Knik Arm provides a link to Palin's hometown of Wasilla. But there's still mention of the airport and Knik Arm inlet, as if the bridges were completely non-controversial building project. Could someone please undo the Hobartimus deletion without discussion? I firmly believe BOTH sides of the controversy should be represented, as they have been on this page for more than a month now.

P.S. I have no problem with deleting

"The goal of the Gravina project, according to the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, was to "provide better service to the airport" which serves 350,000 passengers per year, and "allow for development of large tracts of land on the island."

which is repetitive since both the airport and development are already mentioned in the article. Because I don't delete pro-bridge information, even when it's repetitive, I had left in this redundancy. But we agreed long ago that it is improper to include only pro-bridge comments while deleting all the anti-bridge comments.

I would also ask that in the future, folks don't delete two paragraphs in one fell swoop without at least noting what you've done and why on the talk page. This has been done a large number of times by the same editor over the last month and it's getting very frustrating. Is it really that painful to leave in BOTH sides of the controversy? To explain to wikipedians what the controversy was? I don't think so. In fact, I think it's precisely what wikipedia should do.GreekParadise (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with GreekParadise on the substance of this particular edit and on the procedure by which Hobartimus made it. JamesMLane t c 15:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

IMO GreekParadise has repeatedly made a convincing case for inclusion of his edit. As it is key to understanding the common nomenclature, it warrants inclusion in this overview. Therefore I don't think Hobartimus's contention that readers can go to the detailed article sufficiently justifies the deletion. I ask Hobartimus to restore it in the interests of balance, truth and courtesy. — Writegeist (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus need not restore it, as I have already done so. JamesMLane t c 16:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

And more of the same from Hobartimus re the email hack

Coverage of the hacking of Palin's email account has been previously discussed at Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 26#Suspect Nabbed in Palin E-mail Hack and Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 27#Serious WP:BLP issue with hacking section. Hobartimus eagerly reported the tangential reference to the son of a Democratic politician from Tennessee, but there was no reason to include that information in the Palin bio. Therefore, in this version of the article, edited by Hobartimus himself, the hacking was covered as follows:

In September 2008, a hacker accessed a Yahoo! email account Palin uses, hoping to "derail her campaign," and precipitating an investigation by the FBI and Secret Service.

I think the matter rested there for a week. Now, without further discussion, Hobartimus has by this edit inserted the name of the Tennessee poltician's son, as a wikilink, and has piped the link to lead to the article about the politician.

I have the same two issues here: substance and procedure.

First, as to substance, the issue is whether the reader of the Palin bio is enlightened about her life by learning details of the FBI investigation of a fairly minor incident. The FBI searched a particular apartment. The FBI probably also had some software expert interface with some Yahoo! software expert, and tried to back-trace the published information about Palin's emails, and so forth. Recounting such specifics doesn't tell anything about Palin. The only reason to include this is POV-pushing: the FBI searched David Kernell's apartment, David Kernell is the son of Mike Kernell, Mike Kernell is supporting Obama, therefore Obama is evil. I don't think this "information" would belong in the Palin bio even if David Kernell were arrested, charged, indicted, tried, and convicted, none of which have actually happened. (Even including it in the Mike Kernell bio is dubious on BLP grounds, but for the Palin bio its irrelevance is the more obvious objection.) Second, as to procedure, it is very disruptive for Hobartimus to unilaterally add material that was thoroughly discussed, when there was apparent consensus on a particular version, when there is no indication of any new information that has surfaced (the reference cited by Hobartimus was published on September 22), and when there was no further discussion on the talk page. Hobartimus, this is simply not how Misplaced Pages works, particularly on articles of such a controversial nature. You've been here long enough that you should understand this. I am reverting. JamesMLane t c

I think your comment above speaks for itself, contains some pretty extreme agenda. I hardly need to make a case here in light of the above but to accuse an organization on the level of the Associated Press and several thousand other news outlets who reported on this particular news of trying to argue that "David Kernell is the son of Mike Kernell, Mike Kernell is supporting Obama, therefore Obama is evil." is really extraordinary. You do realize that this small piece information that you removed to prevent any imagined conclusion that "Obama is evil" was reported on by thousands of journalist all over the world right? I shouldn't even point to other parts of your comment such as "FBI investigation of a fairly minor incident", surely the FBI gets involved in minor incidents and they leave the investigation of federal crimes to the local police to sort out. Their involvement is a clear sign that the incident was minor, right? I mean I just don't know what to say after reading such comments. Hobartimus (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

We should not be including Kernell's name in this article (whether it's appropriate for the subarticle is a separate issue). This has been dead in the water for a few weeks now. That could mean that the FBI is just about to arrest him, or it could mean that the evidence has pointed elsewhere. WP:BLP suggests we should err on the side of being conservative (NPI), since the person in question is a private individual who has been charged with no crime. He could be guilty, or he could just as easily be the next Steven Hatfill or Richard Jewell. Let's let it play out before we jump in to spread this around. Furhter, this issue has been discussed extensively and I think, as JamesMLane mentioned, consensus has favored the shorter version. MastCell  17:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you looked at what was reverted but both versions were a single sentence, so I think they can both be fairly described as short. I'll look at the articles I have to say I have no idea who these people that you mention are. Hobartimus (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus, you ignore my point about relevance to the Palin bio. If Barack Obama were caught on camera murdering someone, it would be widely reported and it would be widely taken as proof that he was evil, but it still wouldn't belong in this article. I am, of course, not making any such accusation against AP as the one you falsely impute to me. The POV-pushing that I identified is the insertion of Kernell's name into Palin's Misplaced Pages bio. AP hasn't done that. And, yes, unfortunately for the much-put-upon FBI agents, they do sometimes have to spend time investigating fairly minor incidents. This email hack isn't Watergate, or even Troopergate. JamesMLane t c 17:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The AP reported the whole case in connection with Palin in a story about the Palin hack, the same nice line of reasoning that you shared with us also applies to the AP "the FBI searched David Kernell's apartment, David Kernell is the son of Mike Kernell, Mike Kernell is supporting Obama, therefore Obama is evil." the AP reported all of it. I repeat all of it. Let me say that again the AP reported the FBI search, the AP not only reported but it's main description was that David was Mike's son, they mentioned that Mike is a democratic politician the only, the only thing they left out is your "Obama is evil" conclusion. They reported all of it. It is them who you really accuse, as editors we simply follow what reliable sources say. Hobartimus (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, JamesMLane I don't mind that you disagree on whether to include or not even with your user page statement. I only struggle with some parts of your original comment and a little with your section title by making it personal. Hobartimus (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The email hacking incident is similar to the passport access incident of multiple canditates. It should be noted that the passport incident is not included in any of the other candidates bio articles due to lack of relevance. IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus, I wrote the section title without your name, then thought some more and included your name, then thought some more about whether to return to my original version and decided not to. The point is that I didn't act lightly. I believe in WP:AGF but editors who display a pattern cannot trade on that assumption indefinitely. I do wish to make it personal to the extent of calling to your attention that you, personally, should display a greater readiness to discuss controversial edits on the talk page before making them. JamesMLane t c 19:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If I will ever choose to edit an article in a subject in which I have an enormous openly declared bias against the subject I will certainly be very careful and display great care and readiness to discuss everything potentially controversial and toward my actions to not let the desire to defame malign and attack the subject influence my actions as an editor. Let's hope this will never be the case. Hobartimus (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I applaud your resolution that, on any article where you have a bias, you will "display great care and readiness to discuss everything potentially controversial". That is, in fact, the correct procedure even if you don't have a bias either way concerning the article subject. This is one reason that I deprecated the importance of an editor's bias. Biased and unbiased editors alike are held to the same standard.

Sometimes, even in a controversial area, an informative edit summary will suffice, especially for a comparatively unimportant change. That's not the case with regard to your most recent edits, however. When you're going against a prior consensus, and especially when you're not relying on any new information to do so, then you really have to present a proposed edit on the talk page instead of just unilaterally making a significant change. JamesMLane t c 03:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately Hobartimus restricted the pledge to subjects where his bias is "openly declared"; any undeclared bias he apparently considers irrelevant, regardless of how obvious it may be. I hope he will reconsider that philosophy. —KCinDC (talk) 03:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not that it's relevant or irrelevant just that we have an opportunity here to observe someone in action with "an enormous openly declared bias" proudly presented on their user page against the subject of this very article. It seems they are not limited from influencing the article in any way, they are reverting other editors, declare if they think there was consensus, make outrageous arguments against facts that were reported by thousands of journalists around the world. If I ever get into a similar situation it seems I will have to limit myself as others are apparently not limiting these actions here at all. Hobartimus (talk) 05:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus, please stop changing the subject. The question is, is there a problem with your edit(s). I would say that in both cases you went against a settled consensus. To do so twice in a row, then engage in personal attacks on the person who points it out on the talk page, is not good Wikipedian behavior. Please stop it or go away. Homunq (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Your comment above makes unsupported statements. Support your assertions with diffs or withdraw them as a personal attack, your choice. Saying "engage in personal attacks" without any supporting evidence/diffs/quotes is a personal attack on your part. I'm pointing out clearly with qoute where I think you made the personal attack, now I'm waiting for you to provide the quote or strike out your comment. Hobartimus (talk) 23:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's say someone would accept your personal opinion that you expressed with "I would say" without providing any links, even then you should be very mindful of Misplaced Pages:CCC#Consensus_can_change. As there is no ownership of this article everyone who is autoconfirmed is just as entitled to edit as anyone else. Hobartimus (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that consensus can change, if the facts or the arguments change. I fail to see either of those happening before or during your edit, though.

What I call "personal attacks" refers to the whole discussion above, where you repeatedly respond to charges about your own edits by focusing attention on the personal views of those who question your edits. I absolutely stand by my statement, which is focused on your behavior - breaking consensus and then focusing on motives of other editors rather than how to improve the article - and not your person. In fact, I repeat it: please change your behavior or leave. Homunq (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

So you are not willing to provide the quote and diff to back up your statement? That would make your statement a clear personal attack on me. Please provide the quote or diff or withdraw your comment, personal attacks are not acceptable. If you do not quote, do not point out what is objectionable you nobody will be able to evaluate your claims. For example I stated clearly where you made the personal attack and what part I expect to be withdrawn. If you do not point it out I cannot defend it, explain it or withdraw it after evaluation of your claim. I expect you to point to the sentence or cease your attacks. Hobartimus (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that this tangent is distracting us from the real issues: your edits to the bridge and email hack sections. If you would rather discuss whether my requests are justified, please add my talk page to your watch list, as you have already made one or two threats there anyway. Here, let's return to dicussing the page itself, and those edits in particular. Homunq (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There are no threats, it's a very simple and I think reasonable request on my part. Point out what you object to, with quotes and diffs or withdraw your statement. I do not think that is much to ask. I see that you still did not struck it out our provided specifics. In light of this I still consider it an unsubstantiated personal attack on me. WP:NPA is policy and for good reason personal attacks are not acceptable. If you do not provide any support, any diffs, nobody will be able to evaluate your claims. This is also the case with your other statements as well. You claim "consensus" you offer no proof, no support, no links for that statement. You claim "consensus can change, if the facts or the arguments change." again you offer no support no proof. Indeed if we actually look up WP:CCC we find "Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding" "new people may bring fresh ideas ... people may change their minds", intrestingly it seems very much focused on people, something you did not mention. The one thing we do NOT find in WP:CCC your statement that "consensus can change, if the facts or the arguments change", which seems to suggest that once the facts are known consensus really can't change. Did you feel that this version of WP:CCC, focused on facts better supported your argument than the actual wording of the policy? A fact is for example that a federal crime was comitted against a person on a presidential ticket in order to influence the outcome of the election and the FBI now investigates. Another fact is a federal warrant being served in the case. Another fact is that this federal warrant and subsequent FBI raid on an apartment was covered by thousands of newspapers around the world, including by the Associated Press. Hobartimus (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for returning to the topic at hand. I think that JamesMLane said it best in his last two edits directly above. Homunq (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Do I have your permission to move the discussion from my "If you would rather discuss whether my requests are justified," to your "no support no proof. Indeed", inclusive, to my talk page? Or yours, if you prefer? Homunq (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

More "Reception" Interpretation

"Palin debated Vice-Presidential candidate Joe Biden on October 2, 2008. a month before the election on November 4. Her performance was widely deemed to have adhered to general principles, in contrast to Biden's detailed responses. Palin made several points without regard to the questions being asked by the moderator, at one point declaring that she was taking her case "directly to the American people," and thereby seizing an opportunity to state her positions free of the "filter" of news media."

Borderline laughable. I believe the above belongs in the upcoming site: "Wikipundit".. It has no place here, that's for sure. Wikiport (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe the above should have been added without consensus and certainly not without proper sourcing. It kind of sounds like someone's opinion. That said, I didn't watch the debate, so I don't know whether I agree with this person's opinion. However, as with most opinion, it is subjective and quite likely countered by differing opinion. Suggest we try to avoid expressing our own or other's opinions, particularly as they arrive hot-off-the-press.Fcreid (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

theres weasel wording with "widely deemed" ... by who??? she "seized the opportunity" sounds like peacock language. in other words, totally unsourced npov violation... a cnn poll and a cbs poll of uncommitted voters offers a more accurate assessment of the debate... 99.251.171.248 (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

As I have already stated, I think this entire section is a POV magnet. It's about the opinion of others. "Opinion" is just another way of saying "Point of View", and since there is no such thing as a wrong opinion, people are free to source whatever opinion matches their own. I say quote everybody who has an opinion on the subject, or none at all. Quote the National Enquirer for all it matters ... it's not like we're looking for facts here. I don't see how this section serves any encyclopedic purpose. Give the people facts, not opinions, and let them decide.Zaereth (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article could be improved by boiling down this entire section to only mentioning that Palin appeared on the national scene out of nowhere and has been the subject of tremendous curiosity (the comment elsewhere on this page of Palin apparently being the most Googled person of all time would be a good reference). Anything going beyond that just gets into dueling political spinning which has no place in a biographical article.--Paul (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I can live with that. But, as long as the title remains "Reception", that still seems imply this is a nesting ground for opinion. (ie: how is she being received by the media).Zaereth (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Or we can just handle it in a more encyclopedic manner and remove the reception header and then interleave it into the rest of the VP section. Breaking out her "reception" into a separate section can end up being a POV magnet, but there is quite a bit of good information in the section that should probably be retained in the VP section. --Bobblehead 18:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

i agree "reception" is a POV magnet... include one pundit and you have to include them all including the hacks... we should cut the reception down alot... the only reception that matters is reliable polls of actual voters. here's another one. 99.251.171.248 (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the reception heading last night because it didn't seem descriptive of the content.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Good edit Cdog. I also agree with the above comments by Bobblehead.

IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I like Bobblehead's better. Save the facts, thow the opinions, and the section, out. I wouldn't mind hearing from some others before a hasty decision is made, though. Zaereth (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

We should really see a proposed wording here before anyone goes about removing things from the section though. Considering the amount of edit warring that has gone over that section, it'd probably be best to work it out on the discussion page rather than in main space. --Bobblehead 20:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The debate is an important source of information. I think this article has to provide some account of it. Th debate in and of itself is important, and we do not need to get boged down in discussion of its reception. The question is, has a transcript of the debate been made available, or is the whole thing available? We can quote it directly and as long as we make no editorial comments, we would not be violating NOR. I think we should certainly include Palin's declaration that she would not always answer the moderator or Biden's questions. There is no need to comment on it: people who like her will see this as something positive, people who do not like her will see it as negative, people who are undecided can think about it and reach their own conclusions - but it is notable because it is Palin herself expressing her attitude concerning her relationships with the poress, her opponent, and the electorate. other things that might be worthy of quoting are points where both Palin and Biden agreed that they agree with each other, and points where Palin stated explicitly she disagreed with Biden. That would provide our readership with a fair and concise account of hat we all learned about her poltiical position from the debate, straight from the horse's mouth. And like I said, this can be written up with no editorial comment, no analysis or judgement, at all. Just, "During the debate, Palin expressed the following views..." Slrubenstein | Talk 16:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

But without fact-checking, simply reporting her views or her statements as factual can itself be NPOV. I think the only useful thing to do is to go to the . Really, this is an election, and the only thing that matters is how the public receives it -- not pundits. And we definitely shouldn't become a vanity page that repeats our favorite quotes with no independent analysis/criticism. 99.251.171.248 (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I do not agre with you. To convince me you have to tell me specifically what part of NPOV this would violate, and explain to me how it would violate NPOV. As long as we make it clear that this is what Palin said, these are her views, I do not see how it could possible violate NPOV. This being the article on Palin, one thing it must include are Palin's own views. Also, I thought it would be clear that when I said no editorializing, no analysis, no interpretation, i meant by wikipedia editors - that is why I mentioned our NOR policy. And you are a little mistaken when you write "This is an election, and the only thing that matters is how the public receives it." What is important is the frame of reference. As for the US public, the only thing that really matters is the election and after the election we can add to this article the election results. in the meantime, for the electorate and outside observers to know what Palin's positions are, they need to be able to read about her positions. An article on Sarah Palin should include her positions. The article on Karl Marx describes marx's views. The article on Charles Darwin describes his views. The article on Martin Luther King quotes his speeches. How you can then argue that it would violate some policy for the Palin article to quote her on what she thinks makes no sense at all to me. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely concur. I didn't watch the debate, and I certainly don't need a pundit or a poll telling me how she did. I'd rather read the boring transcript as it speaks to specific issues and decide myself whether I agree or not. If there are specific points that require more context, e.g. an inexplicable statement, I'm sure I can find outside sources to provide that context. Fcreid (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The dispute here is not about keeping out the debate. It is not about axing the opinions of the subject, as long as her opinions are known, and it is a fact those are her opinions, then they belong in the article, of course. What is in dispute is including everybody else' opinion. No opinion about Palin should be included.Zaereth (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong - what you just wrote is a call to violate NPOV. BLP and NPOV are not in conflict. As long as we have a notable view from a reliable source on what she said, NPOV demands that we include it. We can debate over whether viewpoint is notable, and we can argue over whether a source is reliable. But there is no arbument about including public discussion of things she has said -NPOV demands that! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as it's not an interpretive view. By which I mean things like, "It seems Palin was trying to speak directly to Group XYZ with this statement" or, "If you couple her earlier statement of ABC with this later point on XYZ, you can conclude she supports Alphabet Soup" and the like. Fcreid (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. "Viewpoint", "Opinion", "Point of View" ... These words are all synonymous. Directly interchangable. Since an opinion can not be wrong, how can you say that one source is more reliable than another?Zaereth (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Fcreid, I did not see your statement before hitting send.Zaereth (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Right now the article mearly states that the debate occurred. Since there was much apprehension before and relief afterwards, we really do need to 'as Bobblehead suggested, work out an acceptable compromise here. I'll try but don't wait for me if you want to begin, be bold!.....--Buster7 (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Fully in agreement with Buster7. I do not have time to sit and work out something myself, but I'd love to see what the many good editors here can work out. (having given his own opinion, Zaereth departs ...)Zaereth (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Zaereth writes "Since an opinion can not be wrong, how can you say that one source is more reliable than another?" Zaereth, I do not say that one source is more reliable than another. Misplaced Pages policy says that one source is more reliable than another. With all due respect, I cannot imagine how you could have even asked this question, unless you are unfamiliar with our policies. I urge you to read WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Some views are more notable than others. Some sources are more reliable than others. Any notable view from a reliable source that is relevant to this topic ("Sarah Palin") has to go into the article in order to comply with our core policies. If this does not make sense to you I simply ask you to read our policies. NPOV is non-negotiable. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I see you're point, and respect your concerns. Misplaced Pages policy on NPOV, as I understood it, says "Assert facts, including facts about opinions - but do not assert opinions themselves." If you look to the previous discussion on this section, you'll note how the sourcing war over which opinion should be included escalated into dowm right name calling contest. In the interest of fairness, my position is to include all opinions, or none at all. If you disagree, I'm fine with that. Let's hear from some other editors on the subject. Buster7 here is trying diligently to come up with a compromiseZaereth (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Zaereth, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what WP:NPOV means. It does not mean No POV, it means Neutral POV, in that all significant points of view can and should be included in the article and that these POV should be included in the article as neutrally as possible. In the case of debates, the important POV is not what the participants said, but rather the reaction to those debates. This means we have to include opinions of some sort, be it the results of polling, or a representative group of pundits. I'm a little less excited about the pundits as they have a propensity to.. shall we say.. Exaggerate a bit.;) --Bobblehead 21:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

All right, I conceed. My concerns noted, I shall make no further comment on this section. Zaereth (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

A new thread with a work-in-progress para has started below...see VP debate.--Buster7 (talk) 20

51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Personal life section addition

Should we add that Palin doesn't know what an achilles heel is? Grsz 16:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I couldn't care less if she is not as well versed in mythology as I am. But, I guess that's my Sigurd's Shoulder.Zaereth (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure she knows what an Achilles heel is. That she (and, to some extent, Biden) evaded the question doesn't necessarily mean that she misunderstood it. MastCell  17:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why moderators of these debates always have a "mea culpa" question, e.g. "tell me something bad about yourself." No one should be surprised when the debate participants sidestep such questions.--Paul (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In job interviews it's standard to ask questions like, "what is your weakest area?" Debates between political candidates are a form of job interview, so it seems like a reasonable question. And, like in job interviews, it often gets a predictable answer, like "I'm too devoted to my job" or "I care too much." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, assumptions that she knows what an Achilles' heel is and that her evasion doesn't indicate ignorance. Occam's razor? — Writegeist (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No, seriously. It never crossed my mind that she was misanswering the question out of ignorance. She'd been similarly avoiding direct answers all night. "Name something you'll have to cut back because of the economy." for example. "Name a position you've changed on." or "Name a Supreme Court decision you disagree with." Even if she didn't, it's absurdly easy to figure it out from context, "Palin, it's been said your Achilles' Heel is your lack of experience and Biden, yours is lack of discipline."--Loodog (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Times Online says "the Alaskan governor appeared to have no clue as to the meaning of 'Achilles' heel'.". Guardian.co.uk says she either didn't understand the question or chose to ignore it. National Post, Canada said "Is it possible her real Achilles heel is her ability to process and respond to questions?" Atlantic Online said she ignored or misheard the question. Edison (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In the previous statement I see "appeared to", "either,or", and "possible". Does anyone have a statement of fact?Zaereth (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:V. The statement is verified, and from reliable sources. End of debate. •Jim62sch• 20:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The possibility she did not know the meaning of "achilles' heel" is discussed in reliable sources, but it certainly is not verified. Edison (talk) 04:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

AP article on her personal life

This article is a solid piece on her personal life. It'd be a good additional reference for some material already included and has some details that actually belong in a *Personal life* section, for a change. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Eh, that's okay. I think the following are better sources: Sarah Palin and outsider who charms (NYT), Why John McCain's beauty queen running mate has a grizzly bear on her office wall (Daily Mail), Palin's strengths rooted in Alaska (Washington Post) and Sarah Baracuda tidbits (Anchorage Daily News). The problem is that whenever actual facts about her personal life are added to this article they are reverted (incorrectly in my opinion) as being 'non-notable'--Paul (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

We do have to be careful about BLP. BUT unless someone can provide a solid case for how an addition violates a specific provision of our BLP policy, anything that comes from a reliable source seems fair. Couldn't we agree on a standard that if a fact appears in two reliable sources it should go in? even if one source got it from the other, it means that the second source made an editorial judgement that the fact is notable. I think if it is notable enough to be in two reliable sources (and does not clearly violate our BLP policy) it should go in. Anyone who keeps removing it without demonstrating that it violates policy should be warned for disruptive behavior. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thus my confusion on what I referred to as the "Marathon Yardstick" several days ago. In 2005, Palin ran a marathon in under four hours. That is a significant accomplishment at any age and, no doubt, required extensive training, conditioning and dedicated focus. It is a well-documented event, yet every time it was added into her personal section, someone quickly came along and removed it (claiming it to be superfluous, inappropriate or just "puffy"). Some events speak volumes on the character of an individual, and that would be among them in my book. Fcreid (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Put it back in and insist that before anyone remove it they quote the policy that it violates. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and concur. I think Paul was the one who most recently entered it (and had it removed). Paul? Fcreid (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

@ FcReid and SIr...Reports that I have read say that the Marathon that Gov Palin ran was ALL downhill, which would explain her above average time. The race began in Alaska but finished in Canada. Were it not for that she would have broken the state record for "Hockey Moms over 40"....:>)...--Buster7 (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this is helpful. here is what I think. (1) "notability" should not just be a subjective judgement on our part. If this story was reported in her home town paper, I would not consider it notable. If it was reported widely, especially if it was reported in any national news media, I would consider it notable enough to conclude regardless of the specifics. This is the first issue. (2) I think Buster7 is concerned people may misinterpret what the story means. So my suggestion is that if it is notable enough to have been widely reported, we also report other details that were widely reported that provide some context. If the same articles also report what the fastest time on thismarathon was, or the average time, or how this marathon differed from other marathon's, as long as this contextual information is in a reliable source, I think it should be included. That's what I think, "for the record." Now, a personal note: I am just speculating, but I would think that the "story" here is not how fit she is for a 40 year old woman (I am pretty sure I would lose any marathon even if it just involved jumping of a 23 mile high tower), the story could be about the Alaskan governor trying to set an example about the importance of physical fitness. My point is that we don't know what her running the marathon "means" until we read realiable sources and see how it was reported. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Buster was yanking our chains, SLR.  :) Fcreid (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yank,,,yank,,,it's Saturday...the bosses are away!QQQQQQ

DOH! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Binocular vision disorder

VP debate

Do we want to mention anything she said in the debate? Mention of expanded Vice Presidency, emphasis on "cleaning-up" record?--Loodog (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's done with the proper citations and in an NPOV way. •Jim62sch• 20:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

reporting one pundit would be POV... reporting all pundits would be a mess, and probably irrelevant and inaccurate anyway... picking choice quotes would also violate WP:Undue weight, especially if we reported quotes that might not actually be true. the only summary of the debate that would be appropriate are snap polls of how she performed against biden... theres a bunch out there and i'd trust any number of them... 99.251.171.248 (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

First we need to report on what she actually said. If Biden disagreed, it might be worth adding that. If reporters - not "pundits" but actul reporters - investigate anything she says and finds evidence that she was misrepresenting something, then we can add that as long as we have reliable sources and the reporter is notable. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

well we can't quote the whole debate... so someone has to choose which are the most important quotes... who chooses that? again this is an issue of WP:undue weight. we are better off finding a third party assessment of the debate that both sides can agree is fair or objective, rather than having wikipedians choose their favorite quote to bolster or slander her. i can't think of a more fair assessment than polls of actual voters... 99.251.171.248 (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you agree with me that we should not quote the whole debate, and that we should not just pick our favorite quotes. I have proposed some criteria for selection. I think they are reasonable but they need not be the only criteria. If you know of any notable polls of a diverse sample of the electorate that actually generated notable quotes that would be fine with me although I have neard of no such polls. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Folkes...look up....a paragraph has begun...under ---vice presidential debate-----Buster7 (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Buster, I just moved that section down here only because the most active threads are usually lower down. Here is the section Buster is refering to (Slrubenstein | Talk 20:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)):

Testing, Testing, 1,2,3,....

Senator Biden and Gov Palin met at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri in the only Vice Presidential debate of the 2008 campaign. The commentator, PBS's Gwen Ifill wrote and asked all the questions. Both candidates spoke to many issues, were friendly and cordial to each other, and defended the Presidential candidates of their respected parties....

Just a starting point...feel free to chop away!!!--Buster7 (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

First two sentences are fine. Third sentence makes interpretive and evaluative claims that we can include only if they come from reliable sources - we cannot put in our own views, and while I agree this is how most people see it, it would be good (given the history of contention here) to have some sources. As I suggest above, I think there are some lines that we should just quote, directly, including Palin's declaration that she would not answer every question, statements where she and Biden agreed that they are in agreement, and statements where Biden explicitly stated his disagreement ... I am proposing these criteria because I think they indicate statements most salient to the campaign. Another criteria would be to quote directly whatever statements have been repeated or commented upon by notable reliable sources, my logic being that if a few reliable sources find those statements notable, then they are notable enough to quote in this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

While I see your point, Slr, and agree in principle, this para is about as white bread as you can get. If we did put it in (as it is) (which I don't suggest) I don't thnik it would require any sources at all. Of course debaters speak to the prevailing issues...most of the time they are cordial...and they speak well of the guy at the head of the ticket. IMHO, its the very least that can be said without verification! --Buster7 (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to include anything more than the first sentence of the proposed paragraph. This is an encyclopedia biography, not a newspaper.--Paul (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

i think paul is right... we don't want to get into overcoverage of what happened at the debate and give it WP:undue weight... trying to cover every area of disagreement between her and biden would lead to one huge paragraph or even worse... and i don't think there's any fair or objective way to judge which areas of disagreement between the candidates were more important than others... but saying "they talked about a variety of issues" doesn't tell us anything either... we want to keep it short, neutral, but still offering some fair, reliable, and independent assessment of what happened... i suggest a paragraph like this:

• Senator Biden and Governor Palin met at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri in the only Vice Presidential debate of the 2008 campaign. Polling from CNN, Fox and CBS found that Palin exceeded many voters expectations, but more voters felt that Biden had won the debate.

if people want to read about sarah palin's views, it's not like candidate introduce new ideas at debates... they defend what they've already been pushing for... so we're probably covering her views just fine so far... here's another focus group, but i don't know if other people feel they are reliable... 99.251.171.248 (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• The commentator is known for fairness and impartiality.
• Explaining that she, Ifill, composed the questions informs the reader as to the source :of the questions (not the audience, neither campaign, not the media, etc.)
• The last sentence is just a proposed starting point for other editors or newspaper moguls...:>)...--Buster7 (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I like 99's except for "...voters felt that...". Instead---viewers, observers, politicos, surveys, appraisers, critics, evaluators, etc.

i guess if you were talking about a randomly sampled poll... you'd say "subjects"... i think it's fair to show that this is a poll using a sample of likely voters with a margin of error and so on... 99.251.171.248 (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

99...its 22:30...lets add para around 24:00...your version unless more ed's come to change it in the meantime..OK? (Otherwise it"s headed for the bottom of the birdcage)--Buster7 (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

u can add it, i can't as an anonymous which i prefer to remain... i think it's the kind of thing that is close to the truth and would need only small tweaks not a total trashing... but we'll see... go ahead... and thanks... 99.251.171.248 (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

looks good! glad that group of editors were able to tweak it and find a new consensus too... i think this is a pretty fair and independent way to summarize the debate... 99.251.171.248 (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture

What's with the main picture? It was fine, this one is fuzzy.

This has been addressed in lengthy discussions and consensus was reached. Please see archives. Thanks, IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Could Palin have canceled the Road to Nowhere?

The current article quotes a McCain-Palin spokesman via CNN saying "because the contract for the road was already signed before she got into office, the governor was left no viable alternative." However, the assertion that she had no viable alternative was subsequently contradicted by a spokesman for the Alaska Department of Transportation, via ProPublica:

But the governor did have a viable alternative. Gov. Frank Murkowski (R) signed the contract for the road on Dec. 1, 2006, three days before he left office. Palin could have cancelled that contract upon taking office, according to Alaska Department of Transportation spokesman Roger Wetherell. In such cases, contractors are reimbursed for any expenses incurred in association with the project.

So if she had cancelled it (as she did a road in Juneau) the federal government would have saved almost all the money (though it wouldn't have saved Alaska anything). Crust (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you studied Contract Law? 20:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs)

Additionally, Palin didn't officially cancel the bridge itself until September 2007, several months after construction had started on the road. --Bobblehead 20:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good point, Crust, and I will add a shortened version of it to the article.GreekParadise (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

..."HEY YOU KIDS!!!!! Get off that Bridge...someones gonna fall n' git hurt, darn it":>)--Buster7 (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Mom, they're playing on the bridge down below again! :) Fcreid (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"say it ain't so, Joe...Gosh o' golly!...Iffin I had my way I'd blast dem dern bridges ta Kingdom Come. Dat 'uud be da end a dat!"--Buster7 (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Reinstating section from archive: 'Political positions' section - request comments

• The first paragraph of the section has been expanded and now reads like a campaign commercial that is comprised of her quotes from the Time magazine interview. I feel the paragraph needs to be edited to reflect the style of rest of the section/article.

• The sentence on Iraq has been removed from the section. It used to say something like: Palin generally supports the Bush Administration’s policies on the war in Iraq. The Political positions of Sarah Palin article contains the following sentence: “Palin supports the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq, but is concerned that "dependence on foreign energy" may be obstructing efforts to "have an exit plan in place".

• Two of Palin’s positions that were discussed during the Gibson interview are not mentioned in the section. Her opposition to a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons and her opposition to embryonic stem cell research. These can be included with a brief addition to the existing text.

IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

←I'm reinstating this section for comments- I missed it the first time as this page moves so quickly. I agree with IP75 that this summary section should include her political positions on Iraq, semi-automatic assault weapons and embryonic stem cell research. These are important issues, and her positions should be included. As for the first paragraph of the section - I generally agree with IP that it could be reworded in a more balanced manner, but at the moment I feel stronger about the content issues. Tvoz/talk 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No issue with the first two items. I haven't seen the specific transcripts referenced in the third, but I would be reluctant to conclude and advertise a specific political position from a TV interview. Seems like we could source something like those a bit better. Fcreid (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Times published an article ] with interview excerpts of Palin's position on assault weapons. If you search Google News using 'Palin' and 'stem cell' there are other sources in addition to the Gibson interview transcript. Here is one from the Washington Post: ] IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 01:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If you think it's sourced sufficiently to reflect her genuine position on those issues, go ahead and snag what's already there and weave those points into a proposed modification. I doubt it would be contentious, as both seems to be natural inferences of her gun control and pro-life platforms. Fcreid (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

In principle, this is the one section that I think needs the most work. Does anyone have access to press releases from her campaign office? Has she issued position papers? Transcripts of press conferences she gave as governor? We need to be careful to use reliable sources here - I think if we are claiming something is her political position, it needs to come from a source in which she is actually saying something to the effect of "this is my political position." I have two responses to the concern about sounding like a campaign commercial. First, this will sound less like a campaign commercial as it gets more specific. Second, once it has specifics, we can then reasonably and for NPOV reasons quote her opponents and critics who have challenged her stated position. But before we do the second, we need to do the first. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I will post a proposed draft soon. IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Alaska photo

Forgive me for not slogging through 30(!!) pages of archives, but has anyone tried contacting Alaska for permission to use this photo in Misplaced Pages? I'm sure this has come up, but I gotta make sure, because it would be a great improvement over what we've got. --JaGa 08:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did, but no luck. We'll get a better pic soon, I'm sure. I'll go to Flickr now and see if they've got anything new.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll see if I can contact someone from the Palin camp from here. (But don't hold your breath.)Zaereth (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

References

This is the first article I've seen where the references are longer than the article itself. I don't know about anyone else, but to me, that's an issue. Too many references, not enough comments to keep up. Colonel Marksman (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not paper. The average Misplaced Pages article already has far more citations and references than almost any other encyclopedia's article ... this is indeed one of Misplaced Pages's strength (it makes the research transparent, and provides a useful resource for other researchers). On top of this I think BLP means we need to be very careful about sources especially for current events. So i just do not see this as a problem. If it does not violate a policy - if it does no harm - why not? I think complex and contentious issues often call for bibliographies that are longer than the article itself. I think there is only one question your comment usefully raises: is there any important content NOT currently in the article? If you are proposing to add content to the article, especially if you feel the sources we cite provide important content that is not actually in the article, well, great! Start proposing specific content to add. If it comes from a source already in the references, we know there is no RS issue, so the only issues are NPOV and WEIGHT. If you propose ading content that complies with NPOV and WEIGHT I am all for it! Slrubenstein | Talk 13:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Tina Fey

Shouldn't mention be made of their resemblance, considering that Palin herself has remarked on it, as have many others? (there's also the almost word for word copy of part of the Couric interview on SNL last week - analyzed by the likes of MSNBC and CNN... ) 70.51.8.75 (talk) 13:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not so sure. You all know I feel strongly that part of this article has to be devoted to current events. And the Tina Fey parody was certainly big news last week. But I wonder - it is possible that in the aftermath of the debate, people will stop talking about the Fey parody. So I advise that we wait and see. If the Couric interview/Fey parody continues to haunt Palin, if critics of Palin keep referring to it in the coming weeks, then it is clearly notable enough to belong in this article. But if the chatter dies down I don't think it is worth it. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What about the physical resemblance? Palin herself has noted it. 70.51.8.75 (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

A good place to start is the SNL article and the Tina Fey article. here, not. Hobartimus (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Every major politician has been parodied, some more effectively than others. We don't mention every single impression on the politicians' articles. The attention SNL and Tina Fey have gotten for the quality of this impression have been mentioned in great detail on their pages.--Loodog (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. To this article, its trivia at best. But definitely noteworthy in the Fey article.Zaereth (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant to mention Tina Fey's SNL parody?

I don't know if it's already been brought up but if it has, please forgive me for not combing through the pile of archives to figure that out. But since Tina Fey's impersonation of Palin has caught national attention and even caused a considerable amount of controversy, would it go against the rules to include such a fact in the article? --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it's hard to keep track of the comments when the page is so long in spite of it being constantly archived. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has been trying to protect Palin from misguided editors over the past few days, I see absolutely no problem with including such a reference in the appropriate section, so long as the description of it remains neutral. -- Drlight11 (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)\

Of course it is irrelevant. A five minute sketch about you is not an important part of her life, which is what an encyclopedia biography like this one is about. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"Bible-believer" internal link

Paul, I don't mean to press this issue too much, but I don't see why we shouldn't interpret her words to mean what they appear to mean. The phrase "bible-believing Christian" has a very specific meaning, why should we think she meant anything other than what she said? (And correspondingly link to the appropriate article?) --Quietly (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you think they mean? That, for instance, she believes in "young Earth"? And what would be the appropriate article? Fcreid (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I had (briefly) linked the words in her quote to the Bible believer article, so it read "Bible-believing Christian". Paul.h reverted the edit, saying "cannot wiki-link inside a direct quote; not at all clear that Palin's def and Misplaced Pages's def would be the same". Now I am wondering what other people think as well. I think making any claims about her actual beliefs regarding anything like creationism or young earth views would be completely inappropriate, but I don't think it is inappropriate to link her words to a matching article. --Quietly (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Manual of Style cautions against wiki-linking inside of direct quotations as follows: "Unless there is a good reason to do so, Misplaced Pages avoids linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader."--Paul (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually do see Paul's point. To wiki-link her quote to a specific WP article that describes a series of beliefs in much greater detail than what she's actually provided in the quote is probably inaccurate. Fcreid (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Since her Religion of choice is still not clear, to send the reader off to another page is a bit of a wild goose chase.--Buster7 (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The WP article doesn't specify a whole lot though, and the whole point is that this is as close as she has gotten to "her Religion of choice". It's not like the bible-believer article says much with certainty. And if she had used a word like fundamentalist would it be inappropriate to link? Linking the word Christian in her quote wouldn't be considered inaccurate would it? --Quietly (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't interpret her words for the simple reason that this violates WP:NOR. period. We can quote her words. And if there are notable views from reliable sources that interpret her words, we need to (for NPOV) include them. But we never put in our own interpretations. I do not see the need for linking, if we link her own words that is an interpretive act, and it is a fact that we cannot claim for sure that what she means by a word is what our linked articles describes. And really, be serious: you don't think if a reader wants to learn more about Christianity they can't just type it into the search box? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I am disagreeing with the idea that this is an interpretation of her words, and I apologize if I do not seem serious, I do not intend to be halfhearted. If she had used more common terminology, we would link it. For instance, if someone talks about a scientific theory by name, you would not object to linking to the article about that scientific theory, even within a direct quote. Nor would most people object to linking well established religious terminology. If she had mentioned by name an obscure religious sect, we would link to that as well. As for linking it to educate people about Christianity that isn't my intent, it is to clarify her beliefs as far as is allowable. What I don't understand is why it is okay to interpret her words as meaning anything other than what is established among Christians. --Quietly (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem. I really don't know, and apparently no one else here does either. Maybe someone can snag a copy of her biography that's floating around to see if she's mentioned specific beliefs, but I gotta lay out my concern in advance... which is hard to do without offending anyone, but here goes. In the past month, every attempt to add "insight" into her specific religious beliefs has been a transparent attempt to elicit that "squirmy" feeling one gets right before getting proselytized after an unexpected knock on the front door. Now, one of the things we do know is that Palin "does not wear her religion on her sleeve", and that's reliably sourced from myriad people, including her arch-rival in Wasilla, Stein, and others who simply dislike her. So, I'm not so convinced that we need to itemize which specific elements of the Bible she takes literally on faith or those she simply integrates into her life figuratively. If she doesn't feel compelled to impress those beliefs upon others, I don't know why we should be doing so here. Fcreid (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess I can agree that if she seems so reluctant to clarify, we can omit it as well, so I will drop it. Thank you for your clarification Fcreid. --Quietly (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure, and I appreciate your sincere participation in this. Fcreid (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Quietly, I knoiw this is now a moot point and I appreciate the quick way you and Fcreid reached an agreement. Just to clarify my own statement, I want to add that I appreciate your comment and I know you are being serious. When it comes to "Christianity" all I can say is this: when I talk to evolutionary scientists, they all agree on all the major elements of evolutionary theory and the facts of evolution. When I talk to a lawyer, they all agree about the basic job description of a lawyer. But when i have talked to Christians, I have learned that many of them disagree, widely about what Christianity is, and even on who is a real Christian. This is why if you wanted to link the word "Alaska" in anything she said to the Alaska article, I would have no problem with it, but I think that linking it to the article on "Christianity" raises big issues about whether the linked article really is what she is talking about. And I have to admit, I just do not think it is necessary. I've read lots of articles with quotations and usually it is the words we editors write that are in blue and not words in the quotes. Quotes are bits of "primary sources" and I think we should write around them, but otherwise leave them alone. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)...Another example of what we, as editors need to stay away from, happened just prior to the debate. Gov Palin was shown with her eyes closed and her hands folded in front of her. Granted, the appearance was of someone in prayer, and the commentator said as much. But just as possible was her calming her self with deep breaths and affirmations having nothing to do with religion or God. We need verifiable facts, not what our eyes tell us, so to speak. If anything, I would suggest we choose whatever religious designation the article had on, lets say, January 08.--Buster7 (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Westbrook Pegler

In her acceptance speech, Palin's line about small towns - "We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty and sincerity and dignity." - was a quote from fascist writer Westbrook Pegler, who in his columns called for bigotry against blacks and Jews and the assassination of RFK. see http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_spine/archive/2008/09/13/palin-and-pegler.aspx

The association between Palin and Pegler should be mentioned in the section on the 2008 vice-presidential campaign after the paragraph on the "bridge to nowhere."--DarthTaper (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at length here. Consensus was to not include.--Paul (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion should be reopened - information about the origin of her quote is not an ad hominem attack on Palin or Pegler, and the information's relevance does not depend on the meaning of the "small town values" rhetoric. The Pegler association is informative because it tells us about the pedigree of her views and those of her handlers. It is not an ad hominem attack because it is a value-neutral fact about her intellectual pedigree.--DarthTaper (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Fcreid (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that DarthTaper look up the meaning of "ad hominem", if s/he can't see how this is almost a textbook example of one. In any case, none of her views, or those of her handlers, come from Pegler; a bon mot in a speech, given without attribution, says absolutely nothing about her views or her "intellectual pedigree", no matter who originally wrote it. -- Zsero (talk) 03:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No one is attacking any claim or argument here, so nothing is "ad hominem." I care not at all whether small towns breed honest people, for example. Palin's bromides warrant no response, fallacious or otherwise. But it speaks volumes that she would quote Pegler in a major speech. Your influences are an important part of who you are. Just look at the Misplaced Pages information boxes for philosophers, for example Kant. Who he influenced and who he was influenced by are as basic as his dates of birth and death.--DarthTaper (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't speak even a very thin octavo volume, with wide margins and large print and lots of white space. It says nothing at all. The line is what it is, regardless of who wrote it; to pretend that it's not a good line because of who wrote it is the very definition of ad hominem. And there is no basis whatsoever for speculation that Palin has been influenced in any way by Pegler, or even that she'd ever heard of him before this latest smear attempt began. -- Zsero (talk) 04:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right that the line is what it is regardless of who wrote it, but as I said above my argument for inclusion has nothing to do with the line itself. And yes, Palin may never have heard of Pegler, but the fact that his line was in her speech speaks to the milieu from whence she comes.--DarthTaper (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If she, or Obama, had quoted (plagiarised?) Marx, would you still say the same thing? In fairness, she probably didn't write that bit of her speech. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC) was not plagiarism - although the author wasn't named, the words were clearly flagged as a quote. Ben Aveling 22:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to include such an unnecessary line. If an editor feels the line does not "tie" Palin to Pegler, then it is irrelevant, and does not belong here. If the editor DOES feel that way, then to say so constitutes OR, and does not belong here. If someone includes the point, then cites an newspaper editor who made it in an article as a source, then it is not verifiable (since a few individuals operating without some analog of review are hardly a reliable source) and does not belong here. I realize that the last part in particular is up for debate, but that's the gist of the explanation why this comment would be unnecessary. -- Drlight11 (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

←Yes, Ben - I agree with that and made that point here a few days ago too. I think this should be discussed some more here. I think a short reference to Pegler is in orde. rSome places it's been raised: Washington Monthly, Martin Peretz in The New Republic, Frank Rich in The New York Times, Thomas Frank in The Wall Street Journal, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in Huffington Post. Tvoz/talk 08:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm in two minds about this. Is this guilt by association, or is this dog whistling? Given the liklihood that whoever wrote that line knew the author's politics, I'm leaning towards that later. And that makes it includable for me. One split the difference option would be to put it in Public reaction to Sarah Palin. So we talk about, not here, but as part of out discussion of the public discussion of her. Are any of her other quotes from the same guy, or similarly minded people? Regards, Ben Aveling 10:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It can't even be guilt by association as there is no association here. We have the Obama-Ayers controversy a fully notable standalone article tested at Afd for full notability and it's still not mentioned in the Obama biography. I don't see how would this not even a blip in comparsion- could survive the test for inclusion in any article of Misplaced Pages nevermind high profile BLPs. Hobartimus (talk) 11:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The association between Palin and Pegler is more profound in terms of the apparent influence on her views than anything between Obama and Ayers. Obama and Ayers were two Chicagoans who happened to cross paths as they worked on education issues. Palin, whose views we know little about, quoted Pegler without attribution, showing that this is someone whom she or her handlers read. I'd say that this is more analogous to the Obama-Jeremiah Wright controversy, in which there was reasonable suspicion that Wright influenced Obama. That controversy, which Obama specifically addressed, made it into his article. A short reference to the Palin-Pegler connection is warranted.--DarthTaper (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The only problem with this argument is that there is no "association between Palin and Pegler." And given that, "apparent influence on her views" and "showing that this is someone whom she or her handlers read" are great examples of begging the question.--Paul (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There is an association between Palin and Pegler - she quoted him in her speech. You can only quote things that you've read. Whoever wrote the speech read Pegler. No question begging there...--DarthTaper (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The most likely source for this quote is from page 31 of "Right from the Beginning" by Patrick Buchanan (1988). The use of the quote in Palin's speech doesn't prove anything about her or her speechwriter reading Pegler, or even knowing who Pegler is. By the way, I read Buchanan's columns now and then. I suppose that makes me an anti-semite?--Paul (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Your source reinforces a bizarre connection to Truman, a Democrat who rose to the presidency because of the death of the president, that Palin herself made in her speech. You're right that her use of the quote doesn't prove that she subscribes to Pegler's views; it also doesn't prove that she thinks she's the next Truman. But it says something about her milieu and mindset regarding her place in history.--DarthTaper (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

November 4 (2008) seems sooo far away. What's next, Palin herself shot RFK? GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, GoodDay, we'll just have to wait and see what these amazing folks discover next!!! DarthTaper, let me give you an example of our point. Within the past few years, Obama gave what I consider to be an absolutely exceptional explanation of the pro-choice position, and one that I wholeheartedly agree with - it was the one that ended with saying someone who seeks to outlaw abortion must provide an explanation that appeals to "people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all." By your logic, the fact that I consider such a statement so noteworthy is indicative that I endorse Obama just as fully, when such is decidedly untrue - I favor him, but am by no means as taken with the guy overall as I am with his classic analysis on that issue. Is it really the case that no one you disfavor has ever said something that impressed you nonetheless? All this means is she liked the quaint description of low-key town life - not that she supported the politics of the maniac who said it. -- Drlight11 (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

And here I thought it was a right-wing conspiracy. . . . Heyyyyy!?!?! --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

A person who quotes "Water, water everywhere" is quoting a drug addict. One who quotes Alice in Wonderland is quoting a probable pedophile. I would suggest that it is the quote which is important, not who was quoted, absent any mention of the author? Collect (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Both those men are mainly quoted by people with no awareness of the authors' work, let alone their personal lives and desires (alleged desires, in the case of Dodgson). The expression "ne any drop drink to drink" has been repeated so often by people who have not read Coleridge that when it is quoted, it's almost invariably misquoted. Those men are read for the quality of their writing, not because of their politics. You cannot say the same for Pegler or Buchanan. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Might you show me where you know that Palin is an expert on Pegler? By the way, Coleridge is widely known as a drug addict, and Dodgson as a pedophile. Much more so that most people know about Pegler, to be sure! And might Pegler have been quoted because in the case cited he was a good wordsmith? Collect (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"Those men are read for the quality of their writing, not because of their politics." can you be any more off topic? What's that got to do with anything in the article? Let's say your unsupported claim is true that generally people read "Pegler or Buchanan for their politics" what is the relevance of that odd claim to the article? I propose to let this thread be archived as not reasonably directed at improving the article and move on. Hobartimus (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) You raised the example, I responded to it, and now I'm off-topic?  :-) Your question was, how strong is the association between Palin and Pegler. My answer is: more than zero, which was your earlier claim; more than the association normally created by quoting popular, oft quoted authors such as in your more recent example; but most importantly, the association created is less than what would be needed to warrant including it in the article - if only slightly less. There's too much distance, so far. The possibility that the quote came via Buchanan, the probability that she probably didn't write the speech herself, the fact that it's just one line. Unless and until there are more examples of her speeches being crafted from the writings of fascists, I'd prefer to let this one slide. (I'm more worried about what the quote says of her opinions of people from large towns and cities.) Regards, Ben Aveling 21:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There is still not the slightest indication that either Palin or her speech writer knew anything at all about Pegler, let alone that they were influenced by his politics. It says nothing at all about their "milieu", whatever that's supposed to mean. Theories about "dog whistles" are merely the paranoid speculation of left-wing commentators with nothing better to write about. And without that the origin of the quote is simply not at all notable, it's the ultimate in trivia, and doesn't belong in the article. Giving it even an extra word would be undue weight, and would appear to be endorsing these fantasies. The speech writer saw the line somewhere, memorised it, and on this occasion spat it out; the most obvious reason it wasn't attributed was that he couldn't remember the writer's name, and couldn't be bothered to google it. -- Zsero (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Saw the line somewhere, memorised the line word perfect, too forgetful to remember the writer's name, too lazy to google it? You're being harsher on her than I am... Regards, Ben Aveling 22:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, let's get one thing clear: we know who wrote the speech. It's not a mystery, it's not speculation, we know his name. And of course nobody expects such a speech to be written by the candidate herself. Even Reagan had speechwriters, whose work he could then shred and rewrite, but I think we can safely assume that the quote, which was at the beginning of the speech, came from the speech writer. And this is what professional speech writers do — they see a good line, and squirrel it away for later use. Maybe he wrote it down in a notebook, whatever. In any case it doesn't speak of any deep connection, or even a casual one. It sounded good, it expresses a valid sentiment, so they used it. Political speeches aren't expected to be original work, so plagiarism isn't an issue with them. (Biden's real problem with Kinnock's speech wasn't that he lifted it, but that those particular details of his biography didn't match, so what Kinnock truthfully said about himself was false in Biden's mouth.) -- Zsero (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Eh... I think several sources have found it... curious that the quote chosen to underline the Republicans' "small-town values" code phrase just happens to come from a notoriously rabid racist and anti-Semite who was too extreme-right for the John Birch Society. But yeah, it's probably below the notability horizon for this article. MastCell  22:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

She does say writer, and identifies him as a contemporary of Truman's, so it's clear she's not talking about something from a politician in 1988. It's frustrating, you can see the nudge, nudge, wink, wink nature of it. But it's all sotto voce. As a stand-alone piece, it doesn't warrant inclusion. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, she's quite erudite, yet somehow above she doesn't understand the phrase "Achille's heel". She's a wily one. 75.148.1.26 (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I see a lot of people here anaylyzing the news and analyzing the campaigns. Alas, Wikipedian's are not allowed to put their own analysis into articles. Unless the connection between her and Westbrook Pegler has been made by someone notable - Obama or Biden or national news media - it is a non-event. We include anything that is relevant and notable and verifiable. We do not include ourown analysis; nothing that violates WP:NOR goes in. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz posted this list of sources above - Washington Monthly, Martin Peretz in The New Republic, Frank Rich in The New York Times, Thomas Frank in The Wall Street Journal, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in Huffington Post --DarthTaper (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

A band of paranoids speculating wildly about someone they hate with a passion even greater than that with which they hate Bush doesn't make something notable. At least it's not notable about Palin; it might be notable about them. Until one of them advances a shred of evidence, or proves their psychic abilities, it's all garbage. -- Zsero (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Just wanna congratulate ya'll, for working things out here (at talk) before adding/deleting anything from the article (same goes for the Biden page). GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I have not looked at these links so I have no idea if what they say is pro-Palin or anti-Palin. That is because it does not matter. The New York Times, the Wall Street journal, and the New Republic are all notable and reliable sources, and whatever they say should be summarized in the article as long as it is about Palin or something she said or did. Zsero, Misplaced Pages's opinions are not relevant. NPOV is designed explicitly to ensure that views you or I consider "garbage" go into the article. If you reject NPOV, you are rejecting Misplaced Pages. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, this is not about anything Palin said or did, but about her secret thoughts, or rather those of her speech writer. And unless Frank Rich and Marty Peretz are psychic, they are not reliable sources as to that, no matter who published their paranoid fantasies. Their opinions about her motives are not notable, when they have no basis whatsoever outside their own heads. -- Zsero (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Dunninger as a reference? Sounds good here. Not. Collect (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Road and Young

The section on the bridges keeps getting huge. See WP:Undue weight. Some people seem to be under the misimpression that they have a right to insert any factual material about the bridges that they like, regardless of consensus. Not so. One editor could insert a million factually accurate words about the bridges into that section, but not without a consensus to do so.

I've removed the info about the road. When the section was shorter, I tolerated the material about the road. But now the section has become huge. The $25 million road is trivial compared to the billion dollar bridges. Leave the road for the sub-article.

Likewise, I've removed "Don Young's Way" again. We don't need three names here for one bridge ("Knik Arm", "Bridge to Nowhere" and "Don Young's Bridge"). Leave Young for the sub-article.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, UNDUE weight abuses should be cut down and aggressively. Policies must be respected at some point. Hobartimus (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I see subjectivity at play in the invocation of WP:Undue weight: Why does it violate WP:Undue weight? Could it have been fixed rather than being removed? •Jim62sch• 20:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you read WP:Undue weight? Your "fixing" comment sounds a bit as if you were unfamiliar. What would this "fixing" that you mention possibly look like? Hobartimus (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I restored it. It is not trivial. Fixing means --"write it so it's shorter". This is not hard to comprehend. •Jim62sch• 20:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It violates undue weight because a $25 million dollar road is much less notable than a billion dollar proposal for bridges. The latter are also getting massively more news media attention than the road. Likewise, the "Knik Arm Bridge" is known much more commonly by that name, and also much more commonly by the "Bridge to Nowhere" moniker, than the name "Don Young's Way". I was willing to leave the road and Young in the article, except that the section keeps getting bigger and bigger, so something should come out, and these are the most trivial things that I see.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"write it so it's shorter" sounds very well and easy to comprehedn but unfortunately that's not what you really tried to do, as it finally turned out "fixing" had the real meaning of "reverting without discussion". Please don't do that. Hobartimus (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No, when it comes to current events weight is a reflection of how much discussion there is in national news media. I agree with Jim62sch, who i am pretty sure from other experiences is quite familiar with undue weight principles. But I am betting he is also quite familiar with another longstanding principle at Misplaced Pages which is not to delete content that is compliant with our core policies (NPOV, V, and NOR) and accurate. There are a couple of ways to deal with the undue weight issue besides deletion. The most common way is to add more content bearing on weightier points of view. In this particular case I propose another quite common solution: create a spin-off article on the bridge, with as much NPOV, V, RS and NOR content as people care to add. Then we put a link to that article in this article, and have a section that summarizes what is in the linked article (if the linked article is relatively unstable, we just need to check it once or twice a week to see if the summary in this article needs to be updated). I bet we can reach an agreement as to what would be a reasonable length for the summary in this article (two or three paragraphs? Or just one? either way, let's discuss it.) Slrubenstein | Talk 20:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

In addition to WP:Undue weight, this material is part of a summary section. The main article is Governorship of Sarah Palin. Please see WP:Summary style. No one is suggesting eliminating material from Misplaced Pages, but rather using a summary procedure that will keep this section from overwhelming the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I misunderstood you - I though by "removed" you meant "deleted." If you moved it to the main article, no one should object to what you did. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

He did mean deleted. My guess is that FL is not familiar with the federal contract process: any contract can be cancelled without cause at a very minimal cost. Given that I've done this as a COTR, I think I know that of which I write. •Jim62sch• 21:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No, Jim. I have no objection to the material I removed existing in the sub-article.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Then why did you not move it into a sub-article? I repeat what I wrote before: we should not delete any content that conforms with our core policies of NPOV, V, and NOR. Add to it, or move it, but do not delete it. Your deleting it just creates an antagonistic anti-consensus-building environment, and this puzzles me as it semms like this is unnecessary, given that you just said you wouldn't object to it being in the other article. if you really believe that, deleting it seems like a provocation! Slrubenstein | Talk 00:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

A summary should be a good summary, highlighting the main points and controversies if any. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

That's right, it should Jossi. We agree 100% on that.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point re fixing it rather than removing it. FL, the main point is the not the dosh amount, but the decision not to void a contract for a minimal cost. This is not difficult to understand as such decisions indicate the type of president she would be should anything happen to the president. That not a POV statement, just solid PoliSci. •Jim62sch• 21:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What is your proposal that represents the "fixing" that would shorten the section that it could possibly come close to satisfying WP:UNDUE. Hobartimus (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there an UNDUE issue in that section? I do not see evidence of that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This section I think was opened partly on the ever increasing nature of the material. It had about 5 times the material than the pipeline which costs tens of billions, or the VP debate that was watched by 70 million people just on the networks or could compare it with the whole personal life section etc. The "bridge" was ultimately a plan in the past that was abandoned, there is no actual bridge to show for the huge section. Hobartimus (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't either, Jossi, but this is as much excision as I can see making it still be comprehensible.

Palin spent $25 million in federal funds on a Gravina Island road to where the bridge would have gone, as the $25 million would have had to be returned to the Federal government. A McCain-Palin spokesperson said that "because the contract for the road was already signed before she got into office, the governor was left no viable alternative." The Alaska Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration dispute this assessment, saying the contract could have been cancelled at minimal cost and that the federal money could have been returned to Congress for other uses. •Jim62sch• 21:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) There are two guidelines at issue here: WP:Undue weight and WP:Summary style. The stuff about the road should come out according to either one of those guidelines.

As mentioned, it's a $25 million dollar project in the context of a billion dollar bridge proposal. There's been much much less media coverage about the road, and the road is covered adequately in the sub-article. It's a detail.

Jim thinks it's very significant because it shows Palin doesn't understand how to void a contract, which she could have voided the day she took office. However, the only cited source making this argument is "Propublica" which is not a neutral organization. Additionally, this obscure accusation from this obscure organization overlooks a few things. First, Palin did not cancel the Gravina Bridge itself until well into her term, so it doesn't really make much sense that she should have cancelled the road on the first day; Palin didn't officially cancel the bridge itself until September 2007, several months after construction had started on the road. Second, Palin had reason to proceed with the road even if the bridge was cancelled; her spokesperson said that the island road would open territory for development even without the bridge.

I still think that including the road in this main article is a detail that ought to be covered in the sub-article and not here. Ferrylodge (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

FL, I've voided contracts: it's not hard. •Jim62sch• 22:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Jim, that's fascinating the way you've now made the material much more concise. You've accomplished that by removing every single fact that would support Palin's side of it. Well done! Now the article does not mention that she wanted to open areas for development. And you still use Propublica as a RS when it is not, including their absurd argument that disregards that she did not cancel the Gravina Bridge until well into her term after road construction had already begun. Very impressive. Good chutzpa.

This whole issue is relatively non-notable, and should come out of the article. If it stays in the article, it ought to be converted from anti-Palin propaganda into something resembling neutrality.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not like taking a $500 penalty for canceling a bathroom upgrade, Joe. There were undoubtedly huge liabilities that, without knowing the exact terms of proposal and bidding process, could actually have cost as much as or even more(!) than the original amount. Do you know if it was fixed-cost? Whether government buyer was responsible for all pre-purchased materials, or worse that material were government-furnished? While it seems easy to conjecture, there is just no way anyone could determine the scope of liability without a significant legal review. And this is Alaska! When I left Adak (in the Aleutians) they were still paving an access road to military facilities that had already been vacation a year earlier. Does government contracting need to be fixed? Probably so, but not in a way that would leave private industry "holding the bag" for poor government planning. And this will be the last I speak of bridges and roads! :) Fcreid (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Wanna bet?--Buster7 (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd made a solemn oath to myself! :) Fcreid (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, I do not understand your reaction to jim's version. There is one statement of fact, then a statement from the McCain/Palin point of view, then a statement from the opposite point of view. Isn't this how NPOV should work? Look, there is only one way that we will make progress on this article: if we stop making assumptions or inferences about one another's motives, and also stop caring about whether the finished product makes us happy or angry - given the stakes of the election, one might predict that ANY sentence or passage will make at least half of everyone unhappy - and instead just ask: which sentence gives undue weight to a non-notable view, or is from an unreliable source, and should be removed, and what notable view from a reliable source needs to be added. Let's focus on our policies. Instead of criticizing one another we should just be saying: I do/do not think this view is notable because ... And, I do/do not think this source is notable because ... If we all worked this way, we could work together regardless of our emotions. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"...caring about whether the finished product makes us happy or angry'...reminds me of a question posed to Mrs. Eisenhower, "But why don't you just become a Democrat and enjoy politics?"\\:>)--Buster7 (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Slrubenstein. The last paragraph has three sentences: description of issue, Palin view, opposite view. Seems both concise and neutral to me. How would you change it Ferrylodge to make it "more neutral" without deleting it?GreekParadise (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've already said what I think: we're using biased sources, omitting balancing information, and not adhering to WP:Summary style. This section is way too big, and it got that way become some editors have refused to acknowledge that the burden is on them to establish that information is appropriate for inclusion, rather than the burden being on those wishing to leave the information in the sub-article. The best way to cut this section down to a reasonable size would be to get rid of the info about the $25 million dollar road. It is small potatoes compared to the billion dollar bridges. Leave it for the sub-article.

But if you're going to insist on jamming the road into this main article, then please stop relying on biased sources (Propublica), please stop omitting balancing information (e.g. that Palin stated a goal of the road is not merely to keep the money from the feds but is also to open territory for development), and please stop arguing that Palin could have cancelled the road immediately on taking office (when in fact she had no reason to cancel the road until the bridge was cancelled in Septemebr 2007 after road construction was well under way).Ferrylodge (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Does anyone know if a bot is automatically archiving, or if we have to do it? This page is getting unmanagably long and something needs to be archived. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, MiszaBot is configured to auto-archive. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Miszabot is currently archiving any discussion that hasn't had a comment in 48 hours. Last night/this morning it archived about 150k of discussions. --Bobblehead 22:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Bias

I have taken a 2 week break from the article in hopes that someone would try to bance the article. I still find it too far slanted as Pro-Palin--Lambchop2008 (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Where to start... Your assertion that she neglected the welfare of an unborn child by flying home from Texas (or is Trig really even her child?) Her religious beliefs could be interpreted to support that she called dinosaurs Jesus Ponies? How about ritualistic spiritual behavior with an African Witch Doctor? Fcreid (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Lambchop, you came here two weeks ago spouting about comparing "baby bumps" on Palin and her daughter and demanding the article reflect Trig as her grandson and not her son. You now have the audacity to waltz in here two weeks later, without any contribution whatsoever, and place a demand for review of neutrality? Crawl back into whatever hole you just left, will you? There is no "good faith" to be assumed here. Fcreid (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, generalized concerns about the bias of the article are not useful. If you could pick particular things to be changed, we could discuss those.--Loodog (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Loodog, disagree with Fcreid. Specific complaints are useful, random abuse is not. Fcreid, we know you feel strongly about Sarah Palin, but try to keep some perspective. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Fcreid does not feel strongly about Sarah Palin, but does feel strongly about bias and libel. My style is usually to avoid direct confrontation, but in Lambchop's case he/she has only tried to insert the most absurd and libelous material here and made no positive contributions to this article. An editor's actions either adds to their goodwill and presumption of good faith, or it subtracts from it. It's fine for Lampchop to use the talk page to make suggestions for improving the article, but given his/her history, tagging the article with a {{bias}} tag is simply harassment of other editors.--Paul (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Paul. You're correct on all counts. At least I strive for that level of objectivity. It's necessary to stop degrading trash before it presents itself as legitimate discussion, though. Moreover, I'm sure any feelings I have towards Palin would be unreciprocated! :) Fcreid (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

My feelings have nothing to do with anything, Ben, but I oppose turning this article into some trashy tabloid. Lambchop used up all of its "Good Faith" tokens within hours of its first appearance here. It has nothing of value to contribute. 75.148.1.26 (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, words like 'spouting', 'audacity' and 'crawl back into whatever hole you left' are unhelpful. Regards, Ben Aveling 19:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Placing a bias tag on the article without stating any specifics is useless. Please remove tag ASAP. IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Grammatical Error in Sarah Palin article

I pretty new to Misplaced Pages. I'm studying changes in the article about Sarah Palin for a class and I read a sentence that didn't make sense:

"The Knik Arm Bridge, is a $600 million project to open up development and provide an alternate link from Anchorage to Wasilla; the bridge is being evaluated by officials as a possible threat to nearby beluga whales.

This is in the "Bridge to Nowhere" and Knik Arm Bridge section. It looks like when "officially named 'Don Young's Way' after Alaska Congressman Don Young in the original legislation" was taken out of the sentence the comma before it was not. I know this is minor but...

Amandatrpt (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. LonelyMarble (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Obama section

I recently started a section on Palin's criticisms of Obama under the campaign section here. Specifically I included info from the New York Times that Palin accused Obama of palling around with terrorists. Predictably, my edit was immediately reverted by another editor, Eric the Red, who claimed it violated WP:UNDUE. I reverted his edit because I do not believe it does. Palin's criticisms of Obama have real weight and relevance to her campaign, far more than her ties to churches or her positions on bridges while she was still Mayor of Wasilla and the section on her campaign is virtually silent regarding any substantial policy issues. There is a section devoted to her poltical positions on the page but I don't think this would fit there as well. In any event, I think it belongs in the article. It relates directly to the style and the substance of her vice presidential campaign.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also note that according to the NYT article, the increase in the criticism of Obama marks a shift in the McCain campaigns tactics.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's the BBC's version of the story with a nice video.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The NYT article is here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Having a whole section about criticism of Obama is dubious whether it should ever be included.

2. Having this recent criticism of Obama's involvement with Ayers as the only sentence in this section makes it definitely not worth inclusion at the moment. Both campaigns criticize each other every day, single criticisms are not noteworthy. This section is not noteworthy enough to be included at the present in my opinion. LonelyMarble (talk) 04:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Cdog- A dedicated criticism section of Obama does not belong in the main bio of Sarah Palin. No other candidate has a 'criticism section' of another candidate in their main bio. IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that's because none of the other candidates are accusing each other of "palling around with terrorists". LonelyMarble, I'm afraid I don't really understand your first point. Why shouldn't there be a section on how Palin criticizes her opponent? It's what she's saying. It's the point she's making to distinguish the two sides. That seems important to me. As far as your second point, just because there isn't a lot of info in the section is not a good reason to erase the info that is currently there. It's a reason to merge it into another section, but not to erase it. When people erase info on this article that's well sourced and relevant to the topic, it looks like one of two things to me: (1) sloppy editing, or (2) like you are trying to prove a political point. Both are unacceptable.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If you don't like the term criticism, why not "Soundbites" or "Campaign message". I'm just concerned that the campaign section is woefully inadequate in describing what techniques Palin is using and the messages she is conveying.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

My original thinking was that if it is decided to include info about that criticism, it should probably just be in the "2008 Vice-presidential campaign" section. I'm still not sure it's noteworthy enough to include though. If you can get others to agree it's important enough to include then I'm okay with it being merged into that section. I'd have to agree having an own section about anything like criticism or campaign message will end up being undue weight because everything in that section could probably be trimmed down and just put in the main 2008 Vice-presidential campaign section. LonelyMarble (talk) 04:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

They are all accusing each other of something 24/7. It's called politics and it belongs in a campaign article IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As opposed to the campaign section?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Next, we will include Obama's camp saying that what she said are '"desperate and false attacks" intended to change the subject from the economy.' The fact is, Cdogsimmons, it's over, McCain has lost, and you can't help him on Misplaced Pages. Stop trying. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Fee Fi Foe Fum doesn't have a clue what he's talking about and should keep his allegations to himself. The info was well sourced, relevant and informative. I know that some people don't think the NYT is as fair and balanced as other news sources, but NPOV? Really. I'm not going to edit war with you. I just think this info is interesting. Palin accusing Obama of associating with terrorists is the nastiest thing I've heard said so far this campaign (it almost sounds tantamount to aiding a terrorist which is a serious crime in the United States) and it is reflective of a stated policy shift by the McCain campaign to up the attacks. I think it passes the WP:UNDUE test if included in the campaign section, though I admit it may not deserve it's own sub-section, so why not keep the info in?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think mostly this needs more time to see if it is worthy to be included or not. Maybe wait a couple days and see how much impact this story has? As of right now it doesn't seem to be important enough to include yet, that may change in a few days though. Political jabs like this happen every day, it's hard to tell what is memorable and what is not. LonelyMarble (talk) 05:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:RECENT, WP:UNDUE. It belongs at John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, if anywhere. --Evb-wiki (talk) 05:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Questioning other editors' motives or political affiliations is unhelpful. I agree with Onlymarble that we simply do not know whether today's talking point is very relevant to her campaign, much less her life story. Probably not. Whether she becomes Vice President or not, it seems unlikely a year from now that anyone will define Palin by her being the mouthpiece of a particular campaign attack. Further, to describe this in an NPOV way we would have to mention what some of the reliable sources conclude, that this is part of the McCain campaign's announced efforts to go negative because they are losing momentum, and that her claim is misleading and misrepresents her sources. We don't need to do that here in a biography.Wikidemon (talk) 05:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The same NYT article mentions that Todd Palin has refused to testify before the Alaskan State Legislature investigating his wifes abuse of power. Should we include that in the article? The Ayers connection is not new or newsworthy. It is an obvious ploy to confuse the voting public and we should certainly not be involved in helping to perpetrate fraud on our readers. Not every utterance that Gov Palin will be making for the next few weeks is worthy of inclusion. BTW, FFFF did not make any allegations. And no one mentioned having any problem with the source. The problem is with the Palin criticism re:Ayers (whom she doesnt mention by name BTW)--Buster7 (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The subpoena issue is in the article on the trooper investigation. It certainly doesn't belong on this article. Maybe on Todd's, but probably not. He got a subpoena, took legal advice, and followed it - it will only be notable if the subpoena is upheld and enforced. -- Zsero (talk) 05:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"Nasty"? It's just the undisputed truth. He does have a close personal connection with terrorists Ayers and Dohrn, and their terrorist past was clearly not enough to make him shun them. How is it "nasty" to say so? Still, it's not a notable thing about Palin that she attacked him for it. Of course she did - she's the VP candidate in an election against him, so attacking him is her job, and this is an obvious flaw that he has. It's notable on his article, not hers. -- Zsero (talk) 05:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Forty years ago I was on a Mens bowling team with a guy that later became Child molester. Should My picture be circulated to my neighbors? Obama had nothing more than a cursory relationship with a person that May have been remotely involved in bombings in the "60's. And his relationship was many, many years later. Palin makes it sound like Obama helped to make the bombs. Typical Political Obfuscation. --Buster7 (talk) 06:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

1. There's a difference between "later" and "before". Obama knew who Ayers and Dohrn were when he became close to them. And his relationship was not in any way "cursory", it was very close. Why does it matter how many years later it was? Did they become better people in the interim? More fit for civilised company? If McCain was friends with a rapist we'd never hear the end of it, but somehow being friends with anti-American terrorists is OK? -- Zsero (talk) 06:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Rrrrright, we're off-topic here. It's absurd to write a criticism of Obama section into an article about Palin. I don't think any significant portion of her life is defined by criticizing Obama. Politicians criticize each other in a heated race, that's it. When she does criticize Obama, it's on the McCain platform, not as a consequence of her experience in Alaska or otherwise. The VP candidate is more or less obligated to perpetuate his/her principal's message.--Loodog (talk) 06:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

In no way was their relationship close. No more than my relationship with Zsero is close. They worked toward some of the same Neighborhood objectives in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago (Ayers was an educator at the University of Chicago which is located in...Hyde Park). Like Palin you attempt to confuse the facts with your own imagination. The bomber and Obama are un-related. Even tho Palin hinted that they are, it really has nothing to do with her BLP and can not be included. It is just campaign, swift boat type, rhetoric. Not worth any more time.--Buster7 (talk) 07:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Come on, you know better than that. Or if you don't you shouldn't comment. Ayers and Obama go way back to before he even went to law school. And then there's the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which Ayers founded and put Obama in as chairman, and where they worked closely together spending over $100M to radicalise school children. Ayers and Dohrn even launched Obama's political career at their house. This is about as close as allies get. And it didn't bother Obama one bit that Ayers and Dohrn are unrepentant terrorists who hate America. You're right that it's swift-boat type rhetoric; it tells the truth, exactly as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth did about Kerry. But the fact that Palin is telling the truth about Obama doesn't belong in the article, because it's not a notable fact about her. -- Zsero (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources extensively covered Palin's comment that Obama is "palling around with terrorists" AP AFP WSJ NYT and several hundred others. Now a single statement hardly makes a "section" so that's a little premature first the discussion should focus on the extensively covered "palling around with terrorists" comment. Hobartimus (talk) 09:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Another reliable source claims its 'no big deal" ...--Buster7 (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

WARNING Ok, I tried to archive this section and roll it up, and that was promptly undone by someone who isn't done arguing about the candidates - I will say this one more time: This page is for discussing improving the article, not for discussing the subject, or having political arguments which are more suited to a forum. Just as examples:

• Fee Fi Foe Fum: it's over, McCain has lost - take it to a forum. Do NOT place that kind of post here
• Cdogsimmons: Fee Fi Foe Fum doesn't have a clue what he's talking about - personal attack
• Zsero: multiple posts about Obama , not Palin - take it to a forum. Do NOT argue about Obama on Palin's talk page or indeed on Misplaced Pages at all.

Failure to follow the above advice may lead to being encouraged to take a break from this article, from political topics, or from Misplaced Pages all-together. For those who wish to be dense, I'm talking about possible article, subject, and site blocks and bans. So step away from the keyboard long enough to focus, and next post, make it something which directly addresses this article without insulting any of your fellow editors. You may wish to read WP:Writing for the enemy while you take your break, or WP:TIGER or WP:MASTADON. KillerChihuahua 14:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If you look at my previous comment that Fee Fi Foe Fum doesn't know what he's talking about, it was in the context of dispelling his claim that I was in some way affiliated with the McCain campaign, which is untrue and which I take personally. My response should not be interpretted as a personal attack but a strong clarification. KillerChihuahua's edit above only selectively quotes the exchange and I do not believe accurately represents the facts. Thank you.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)There is too much discussion here of what editors think are valid criticisms of Obama or not. What we should be discussing is, what criticisms, by Palin and of Obama or Biden, have been notable enough to gain considerable public discussion by the news media or Obama or Biden. If it is notable and from reliable sources, it goes in. If it is not notable enough to be in a couple of major newspapers over a couple of days, then it should not go in. Whether an editor thinks mcCain will win or loose, or thinks the criticism is valid or not valid, is simply irrelevant. KC is of course right. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As I tried to point out above, this is recentism and carries undue wieght. It belongs at John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, if anywhere. Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper.--Evb-wiki (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is about a woman who is notable largely because of current events, so relevant current events are ... relevant. Moreover, statements Palin makes belong in the article on Palin, not McCain. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. This isn't Palin on Obama; it's pure presidential caimpagn rhetoric. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You have raised two issues: recentism, and whether material belongs in this article or the article on McCain. As for the latter issue, it is not for us to decide whether something Plin says expresses her own views or something spoon-fed her by the McCain operatives. All we know is that palin said it. If she said it, and if wht she said is notble in the context of current events, it belongs in this article, period. If there is a notable controversy in the public sphere - persistent accusations from Obama or Biden, for example, or continued argument in the national news media, that Palin was not really expressing her own viw but McCain, we should summarize that view, provide references to reliable sources, and add it to the article. But if palin expresses a view, what is important is that it was Palin, the object of this article, who said it.

As for recentism, well, that is an essay expressing the personal view of another editor. it is not Misplaced Pages policy. But that aid, even the recentism essay you invoke says the following:

The second sense of recentism—the creation of a glut of new articles on a recent event—is not entirely a negative. Inter-article relative emphasis may be skewed and a particular topic inflated (2006 Lebanon War is longer than George Washington, for example), but these new additions also have definite benefits explained below.

Experience has shown that collaborative editing on wikipedia has resulted in the ability of Wikipedians to compile a (long tail) set of comprehensive and well-balanced articles on the many varied current events of the mid-to-late 2000s. This ability of Misplaced Pages to record and synthesize the events of the day may be valuable to those in the future who seek to understand the history of this time period. In other words: "if we don't make sense of it today, someone else will struggle to make sense of it tomorrow."

It is widely regarded as one of Misplaced Pages's strengths that it is able to collate and sift through vast amounts of reporting on current events, producing encyclopedia-quality articles in real time about ongoing events or developing stories: natural disasters, political campaigns and elections, wars, product releases, assassinations. It would greatly weaken the encyclopedia project if article development about ongoing events were discouraged in a campaign against so-called "recentism".

This last sentence seems to speak directly to your comment. In short, if it is notable and verifiable, it should go in. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that Gov Palin has found her voice, and improved her confidence, she may begin to produce daily soundbites for the press and the voters to quibble over. Should we, for the sake of future readers, begin to include everything she says? Maybe we should create a daily calendar-type section with her thought for the day? We need to stay calm and non-partisan. Palin's comment about Obama is current but the Ayers/Obama relationship (as a current story) is not. Slr, you present a strong support for inclusion of what she might say tommorrow but what she said yesterday is already fading into the distance.--Buster7 (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

For G*d's sake folks, this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper! Are editors suggesting that every time Sarah Palin makes a political speech that its contents should be reported here? And if that isn't the argument, and folks are arguing for including material which is "notable" to the life of Sarah Palin, how can we possibly know if a statement made in speech 12 hours ago is significant? A little perspective is needed, and perspective takes time. By inserting every statement that gets folks' blood boiling, editors are turning this article into a political blog. My take is adding a section on Palin's criticism of Obama at this time is absurd, and it clearly violates the WP:BLP strictures against undue weight.--Paul (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Are editors suggesting that every time Sarah Palin makes a political speech that its contents should be reported here Given the fact that Palin was relatively unknown just a few weeks ago, the answer to your questions is yes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Such actions would conflict with WP:Not#Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--Paul (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems as tho we are setting ourselves up to have daily, long-winded, contentious discussions about whatever Gov Palin says. We would probably best serve Misplaced Pages and our visitors to come to some general agreement as to what is in and what is not (regarding what Palin says from hereon). I defer to veteran editors to provide some guidance. I think we are on the verge of creating a "hornets nest". --Buster7 (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Paul, I would like to take your comments in good faith but I just do not understand how I can interpret your bringing up "Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Of course Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information! Why on earth would you think anyone here is suggesting otherwise? First of all we, made a cllective act of discrimination in choosing out of all the human beings on earth to have an article on Sarah Palin - and we made this choice for specific reasons, one of which that she is running for Vice President of th US. We should also discriminate among information to go into this article: first, we should discriminate between those things Palin says, those things others say about her, and those things that people say about oysters and gravity. I propose that only stuff Palin says or that people say about her goes into this article, not oysters and gravity, how is that for discrimination. In fact, I propose we be more discriminating: since she is only notable as a politican, I think we should exclude stuff she has said, or stuff people have said about her, that have no connection to her political career. Moreover, since she is most notable because she is currently running for vice-president, we should discriminat further and give more weight to things she says as part of her campaign to be elected vice-president and to defeat the Obama-Biden ticket. I know other people are running for president but let's be honest, Obama and Biden are the only real competition. I suggest we discriminate between things she says about Obama or Bidan, and things she might say about, well, for example, Bob Avakian, I think what she says about Obama and Biden meet the threshold of notability but we should discriminate against comments about any other candidates like Avakian. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Paul writes that Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. Sorry Paul, of you go to WP:NOT you will see that the word "newspaper" does not appear. It is true that we are not a newspaper, but we are the only encyclopedia in the world that is updated constantly. This is one of the most important things that distinguishes us from other encyclopedias like Brittanica, even once they have gone on-line they are up-dated only every several years. The point is not that we are not a newspaper, the point is that technology has enabled us to overcome the most serious constraint on all prior encyclopedias, the fact that physical requirements prevented them from having articles on current topics. Now, Paul, since NOT says nothing about newspapers, let's see what Misplaced Pages policy really is, shall we? The main page, for as long as I can remember, has had an "in the news" section prominently on display, with links to many articles, so it is evident to me on its face tht Misplaced Pages has articles on current events. And that policy, what Misplaced Pages is not? The first thing it says, practically, is:

Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia

Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia; there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page. However, there is an important distinction between what technically can be done, and what reasonably should be done, which is covered in the Content section below.

This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must still abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars.

The five pillars emphasize NPOV, NOR, V, free content and, oh yeah, this one:

Misplaced Pages does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles.

I see nothing in policy that suggests we should not include public statements Palin has said in her position as vice-presidential candidate about her political agenda or about her opponents. Paul, you are welcome to your opinion but if you want to prevent someone from adding content to this article, you had better demonstrate that it violates policy. Anything relevant to the campaign and verifiable should go in. Jossi is right. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It violates WP:UNDUE. Statements that Palin makes criticizing Obama are those of the McCain-Palin campaign. She was not a vocal Obama critic before she was tapped as VP, which makes this an artifact of her presence on the ticket. As such, any criticism by Palin of Obama or the Obama-Biden ticket is more appropriately placed in John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. Palin is not defined by her criticism of Obama; the McCain presidential campaign is.--Loodog (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

One candidate for election criticizing another? Unheard of!!! Grsz 17:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Loodog writes "She was not a vocal Obama critic before she was tapped as VP." True. Before she became a candidate for vice-president, she was not campaigning for vice president. is this your point? Are you saying we should remove all reference to her running for vice president, because before she ran for vice president she was not a vice presidetial candidate, Loodog? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No, but thanks for refuting an argument I didn't make.--Loodog (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we include her vice-presidential candidacy, then material that is relavent to her candidacy by definition is relevant to this article. If she says something about Obama or Biden, it should go in this article. It definitely does not belong in an article on john McCain. If you ever find an actual policy that supports your view please share it with us but there is nothing in the undue weight provision that suggests that material directly relevant to precisely what makes her most notable is somehow inappropriate for this article - nothing. Palin's vice-presidential candidacy is highly notable, so things she says as a vice-presidential candidate belong in this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure. WP:STRUCTURE: "'Segregation' of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself.".--Loodog (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Loodog states that the Palin statement violates WP:UNDUE. That really is a judgment call, because the only relevant thing WP:UNDUE says with regard to facts in an article is, An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. That can be interpreted so broadly as to be almost meaningless. It's a judgment call whether or not to include a particular bit of information in an article. Unless you've got some overwhelming evidence you can point to, either way, it's better not to bring up WP:UNDUE because it just clouds the issue. Make the judgment call by consensus and be done with it. This seems to be one of the most prominent (probably the most prominent) attacks Palin has made as a VP candidate so far. It can easily be eclipsed in upcoming weeks by other, more prominent attacks. (As we know, attacks are a traditional thing for VP candidates to do.) One thing to think about is whether this page will need yet another discussion thread to remove this bit of information if editors want to make room for some statement that becomes even more prominent. Seems like too much work, to me, but if editors are up for it, go for it. -- Noroton (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

What would the proposed section even say? Palin has criticized Obama for "palling with terrorists" as well as raise attacks as to the consistency of his running mate. Perhaps if specific sentences were proposed we're have more to debate on than doing it in the abstract.--Loodog (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:structure? Loodog, this section does not prohibit the inclusion of anything, it just warns about a possible concern, for which there are solutions. Loodog now seems to be appealing to sophistry. Keep looking for some rule to prove your point, loodog, but this is not rational. We do not start with conclusions and look for rules to support them. We start with policies which themselves are flexible and look for ways to write good articles. Your reasoning does not hold up. Any statement by Palin is by definition going to represent Palin's POV. Are you seriously suggesting that we have an article on Palin without any account of her views? That is just absurd reasoning and unless you are so dogmatically committed to your position that you simply refuse to change your mind - that you have already decided that no argument will change your mind - you would acknowledge this. Having an article on Sarah Palin is not a POV fork, it is a content fork. Once we have decided that the article contents is "stuff relevant to Palin" Palin's views become relevant. It is as simple as that. Keep coming up with different a postoriori justifcations for your position, but the fact is, you are actually opposed to Misplaced Pages policy in this particular matter. Palin's political views, including views about her opponents, are relevant to the article on Palin. The way to avoid a POV fork is simple: if she expresses a view about Obama or Biden, and Oboma or Biden have responded, or some other notable person (a notable politician or notable policy expert or notable reporter) has provided a different view, NPOV requires we add that to this article. No POV fork at all. WP:STRUCTURE does not prohibit adding views (e.g. Palin's views). it only makes clear that if there are alternate or opposing views they should go in the same section. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This has gone past WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I'm not going to continue.--Loodog (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I guess I was right, no reasoning or reference to Misplaced Pages policy will change your mind, so there really is no point discussing this. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Stay civil Slrubenstein. Loodog is right that this is the wrong article for a criticism of Obama section. That doesn't mean we shouldn't report that Palin has launched an attack on Obama, indeed, I believe we should. Just keep in mind that we need to keep the conversation on her, not on him. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

How about this, as a compromise: any criticism she has made of Obama that simultaneously expresses her own position on a particular view should go in this article? That seems reasonable? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been a couple of days and it still seems to be in the news. See this. Obama took the effort to respond to it. See here. I tried to just add the information to the campaign section before without its own subsection but the information was again removed. Let's try to form a consensus here. Should the day to day details of the campaign dealing with Sarah Palin (like the controversial things she says in speeches) be reflected on this page? Or should that info go into the more general campaign article at United States presidential election, 2008? I notice that that page does not really cover day to day talking points from the candidates either. Where else could this info go? Maybe in Political positions of Sarah Palin or Public image and reception of Sarah Palin?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Day to day stuff in a BLP? Nope. It is a campaign topic, and only belongs in articles directly and completely concerned with such stuff. If the details will be of no interest in 10 years in a BLP, keep it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs) 17:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Cdogsimmons, go ahead and add it to the article, I think you have demonstrated its notability (we can ignore collect's fabrications of non-existent policies just to serve his petty political views). Any material that is relevant and verifiable, and from a reliable source, can go in; if it has been in the news for a few days, and covered by national news outlets, it definitely has to go into the article, whether it is pro-Palin or anti-Palin. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Very well. I will insert the information again. I do not think it violates any policy on BLP because it is NPOV, Verifiable, and is not original research. I also think that issues surrounding Sarah Palin's campaign, especially her own statements made during a speech, are clearly issues of public concern.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

From the BLP Noticeboard on "Don Young's Way"

See

This was the only comment made thus far by an editor not involved in this article:

Here goes: there aren't different rules for evaluating due weight in BLP articles and non-BLP articles. The burden is normally on the editor that wishes to include information to demonstrate that it is both verifiable and appropriate. Once that's accomplished, you should generate consensus (not necessarily unanimity) among editors on the article about the method of inclusion. One editor never really achieves veto power. As to the issue of the bridge name, I can't see a valid objection to the inclusion of the fact, especially if including the fact is key to allowing people to get effective results from search engines. Given the circumstances as to how it became known as "Don Young's Way", I can see weight and BLP considerations in terms of how the fact is introduced. As long as it is neutral (i.e, write the first mention of "Knik Arm Bridge" as Knik Arm Bridge (a.k.a. "Don Young's Way"), with no other commentary in the sentence) I have a hard time seeing a reasonable objection.—Kww(talk) 03:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The important things here, as I see them are:

-- no different rules for evaluating due weight in BLP and non-BLP

-- burden on editor to show verifiability and appropriateness (both of which we have easily shown with "Don Young's Way")

-- no editor has veto power

-- can't see valid objection to inclusion of fact, especially as key to getting it from search engines

Based on this, I will re-add the short parenthetical on Don Young's Way, which all agree is verified fact. If you are opposed to this addition, please state precisely why. Based on the comment by KWW and my own understanding of WP:BLP, BLP is not an appropriate objection to any verifiable, non-private fact, but other objections may be.GreekParadise (talk) 04:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Small point: when you start by asking people to see this, I think that you actually want them to see this. (Perhaps the section has been renamed since you last looked at it.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Thanks for fixing the link!GreekParadise (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I would add to the above abstract of important points the following: once it has been established that the claim is verifiable and relevant, "consensus" refers to how it should be written into the article, not whether or not it should be written into the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more.GreekParadise (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Folks, I would be glad to accept the comment you quoted above as gospel, as you seem to be doing. The burden is normally on the editor that wishes to include information to demonstrate that it is both verifiable and appropriate. The burden is normally on the editor that wishes to include information to demonstrate that it is appropriate, not on other editors to convince you that it's inappropriate.

The main problem I'm having is with the section about the bridges. This article is supposed to be using WP:Summary style, and therefore we should merely be summarizing what's in the sub-article (Governorship of Sarah Palin). However, this section about the bridges has become huge in the main article, and I don't think it's appropriate. If you would follow the "gospel" that you've quoted, we would be able to address this situation, because the burden is not on those who believe a smaller section would be appropriate.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this as a BLP issue, and I don't see how it's relevant to include a ceremonial name. Many bridges, roads, and interchanges have these names that are assigned by the legislature or department of transportation, sometimes (as here) even before being built, and they are almost never used unless the media consistently uses them (which is not true in this case; search Google News for "Knik Arm Bridge" vs. "Don Young's Way"). The standard I've always seen has been to use the common name everywhere, and to mention the ceremonial name at most once in the article about the facility. Examples of this are Four Level Interchange and Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel. --NE2 00:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

But in this case, because the Associated Press is in so many newspapers, the media has recently used "Don Young's Way" 86 times (Google News with duplicates added) and "Knik Arm Bridge" only 48 times (same standard). Plus the use of "Don Young's Way" is one of the reasons it was called a "bridge to nowhere" and was a symbol of earmark and pork barrel spending, which is not the case with the two bridges you mention. I personally heard of Don Young's Way years ago, long before Knik Arm Bridge, and that is how it's primarily known outside of Alaska. The parenthetical is quite short.GreekParadise (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually the AP article does use both names, just not the exact wording: "The Knik Arm was one of two bridge proposals..." --NE2 02:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

True, but that just shows you that "Knik Arm Bridge" is not the name of the bridge per se.GreekParadise (talk) 04:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the bridges section is "huge," compared to other sections. On my computer it's 22 lines and could be less if you removed some paragraph breaks (which is fine with me). It's about the same size as troopergate and her first term as mayor and smaller than vice president or political positions. Given that the bridges are probably the single thing she is most known for, given that the "bridge to nowhere" is the only policy of hers in Alaska that both she and McCain talk about in every speech, and given that it's her most controversial item, I don't think that's too much space. I think the "road to nowhere" is far more important, for example, than her measure to curtail the hours at Wasilla's bars which could be a detail in the subsection.

Ferrylodge has said "If it stays in the article, it ought to be converted from anti-Palin propaganda into something resembling neutrality." I'm all for that, staying in the article and being NPOV. Currently, it has one neutral sentence, one pro-Palin sentence and one anti-Palin sentence. The second and third sentences on the road were suggested by Collect (pro-Palin) and Crust (anti-Palin), not me. Do you want to delete them and leave the neutral one? What do you propose to change it to, Ferrylodge? Why don't you suggest an addition to the second pro-Palin sentence on development or whatever you like? I don't want to remove the topic entirely but I'm all for balance and summary.

And if you want to shorten the entire bridge article, here are my suggestions for cutting it by 1/3, shortening it from 22 lines to 15 lines and 3 paragraphs without any loss of valuable content (references would have to be put back in of course):

Two proposed bridges supported by Palin in her 2006 Gubernatorial campaign gained national attention in 2005 and 2006 as symbols of pork-barrel spending: the Gravina Island Bridge and the Knik Arm Bridge. The Gravina proposal became nicknamed the "Bridge to Nowhere" because of bridgeless Gravina Island's small population of 50; more rarely, the term "Bridges to Nowhere" has referred to both proposals. But both bridges have been touted as necessary for development. Gravina Island contains the Ketchikan International Airport serving 350,000 passengers annually who arrive there by ferry. The Knik Arm Bridge a.k.a "Don Young's Way" after Alaska's Congressman, would provide a $600 million alternate link from Anchorage to Wasilla and places beyond but is being evaluated as a threat to beluga whales.

In September 2007, Palin said that Congress had "little interest in spending any more money" on the Gravina Bridge due to what she called "inaccurate portrayals of the projects" and canceled the project, directing Alaskan officials to research an alternative. Palin opted not to return the $442 million in federal transportation funds. Instead, Palin spent $25 million on a Gravina Island highway to the place where the bridge would have gone. This was her only "viable alternative", according to the McCain Campaign, as the road contract had been signed before she entered office. But the Alaska Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration said that the contract could have been cancelled at minimal cost, with the money could returned to the Federal Government. See Gravina Island Bridge#Road to Nowhere. Palin continues as of September 2008 to support the Knik Arm Bridge project, although in June 2008, she ordered it undergo a funding and feasibility review.GreekParadise (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do you insist on saying that she could have cancelled the road upon taking office? The question is whether she could have cancelled the road when she cancelled the bridge, which was nine months AFTER taking office. And why is it not sufficient to cover the road in the sub-article? The cost of the road is miniscule compared to the bridges, and so is the news coverage. And one could read this entire section about the bridges and the road without perceiving any reason that Palin had for building the road, other than she didn't want to return the money. You know that's not correct, don't you? She said it would open territory for development, which is why roads are often built in the United States. Also, do you still insist that you have a right to insert material into this article without consensus?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The Alaska Department of Transportation -- not me -- says she could have cancelled the road contract. Most of the rest I've already answered above. I said I don't mind making the road section briefer but I don't want to delete it entirely. I also said I don't mind your adding it would open territory for development. As you recall, the substance of the first sentence was put in three weeks or so ago with consensus, and the second and third sentences were suggested by Collect and Crust, respectfully, recently. I think once Collect's pro-Palin sentence was added (without consensus), then it only made sense that Crust's anti-Palin sentence had to be added too. You can't insist that only pro-Palin stuff doesn't need consensus while anti-Palin stuff does. Besides, if you read the CNN article which Collect cites, 95% of it is highly critical of Palin and Collect picked out the one sentence that supports her.

Now, if your goal is summary style and not deletion of content, please tell me what you think of my proposal to reduce the bridge section by 1/3 without loss of content. Is there any important content you feel I've deleted in my proposal (which I've now put in italics so it can be found easily)? I'm trying to work with you here, and I would think a 1/3 reduction might be something you're looking for.GreekParadise (talk) 02:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The source for the statement by the Alaska Department of Transportation is Propublica which is not a reliable source. According to an editorial from Investor's Business Daily: "With left-wing foundation cash yoked to investigative reporting, the potential for mischief in the coming election year should not be underestimated. This project may be well-intended, but the sources of its funding and its premise about the state of the media raise questions. Let it be known by its product."

Moreover, even if it were a reliable source, you are specifically selecting information that you must know presents a distorted picture. Of course Palin could have cancelled the road immediately upon taking office. And Murkowski could have cancelled it. And Congress could have never funded it. So what? It's all irrelevant. The relevant point is whether she could have cancelled the road without cost when she cancelled the bridge, in September 2007.

I will suggest a different version shortly.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying about Propublica (though it calls itself independent and non-partisan and cites a source by name Roger Wetherell, head of Alaska Department of Transportation, who could ask for retraction if they got it wrong). But I have no problem saying it's an unfair source. (It was Crust's source, not mine. See above.) Instead, I could supply examples directly from Alaska DOT where they've canceled contracts. And Palin cancelled a Juneau road. At any rate, you seem to agree she could have cancelled it. (Sp? canceled? cancelled? I'm too lazy to look it up.) Anyway, your real question--a fair one--is "whether she could have cancelled the road without cost when she cancelled the bridge, in September 2007" Let me see if I can help answer that.

This is from a source you do trust, the Associated Press (cited in Palin article and the original source for road): "Meanwhile, work is under way on a three-mile road on Gravina Island, originally meant to connect the airport and the new bridge. State officials said last year they were going ahead with the $25 million road because the money would otherwise have to be returned to the federal government. Leighow said the road project was already under way last year when Palin stopped the bridge, and she noted that it would provide benefits of opening up new territory for development - one of the original arguments made for the bridge spending."

So the AP says that a Palin spokesperson says it was underway when she stopped the bridge (score one for Palin) but it also says the work is still "under way" as of the date of the article August 31, 2008. So the road began more than a year ago but continues to be built today, meaning that cancellation would have saved some funds.

(I wrote this and got an edit conflict. I have yet to read your proposal but I'm doing it now. I put this above your proposal since it responds to your last comment and I haven't read your proposal yet.)GreekParadise (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how one implies the other. Perhaps the cancellation fee on the contract would have eaten up most or all of the money that continued to be spent on the road, so there was no point in not continuing to build it. -- Zsero (talk) 04:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, Zsero, although it seems very unlikely. She cancelled a $18.6 million contract to build a Juneau road and that only cost Alaska $65,500. Given that the road continues to be constructed one year after cancelling the bridge, it seems unlikely Alaska was "almost finished" when she cancelled.GreekParadise (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Here's how I'd edit the section that's presently in the article (insertions in bold, deletions struck through):

Two proposed bridges were supported by Palin in her 2006 Gubernatorial campaign after Congress had already provided hundreds of millions of dollars in transportation funds. These bridge proposals had gained national attention earlier in 2005 and 2006 as symbols of pork-barrel spending: the spending. Ultimately, Palin cancelled one of the bridges, commonly known as the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere".

The Gravina Island Bridge was proposed to connect the 8,000 residents of Ketchikan to the Ketchikan International Airport on the bridgeless sparsely populated Gravina Island where an international airport serves 200,000 passengers per year. and the The Knik Arm Bridge , officially named "Don Young's Way" after Alaska Congressman Don Young, was proposed to cross Cook Inlet, north of Anchorage, Alaska provide an alternate link between Anchorage and Wasilla. The Gravina Island Bridge proposal became nicknamed the "Bridge to Nowhere" because of the island's population of 50. More rarely, the term "bridges to nowhere" has been used to refer to both bridge proposals.

The goal of the Gravina project, according to the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, was to "provide better service to the airport" which serves 350,000 passengers per year, and "allow for development of large tracts of land on the island." The Knik Arm Bridge is a $600 million project to open up development and provide an alternate link from Anchorage to Wasilla; the bridge is being evaluated by officials as a possible threat to nearby beluga whales.

In 2005, a $442-million Congressional earmark for bridge construction was included in a an early version of a 2006 omnibus spending bill, but was strongly criticized. Congress stripped the earmark from the bill before final passage in November 2005 and instead gave the $442 million to Alaska as transportation money with no strings attached.

In 2006, Palin ran for governor with a "build-the-bridge" plank in her platform, saying she would "not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project ... into something that's so negative." She criticized the use of the word "nowhere" as insulting to local residents and urged speedy work on building the bridges "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist." However, in In September 2007, Palin said cancelled the Gravina Island Bridge saying that Congress had "little interest in spending any more money" on the Gravina Bridge due to what she called "inaccurate portrayals of the projects". Palin She opted not to return the $442 million in federal transportation funds. In June 2008, Palin ordered a funding and feasibility review concerning the Knik Arm Bridge, and the bridge is also being reviewed for impacts on beluga whales, because of concerns about its financial impact, though she continued to support the project as of September 2008. Palin also directed Alaskan officials to look for an alternative way to connect Gravina Island with the mainland. Palin spent $25 million in federal funds on a Gravina Island road to the bridge site, rather than return the funds to the Federal government, saying through her spokesperson that it would open territory for development. A McCain-Palin spokesperson said that "because the contract for the road was already signed before she got into office, the governor was left no viable alternative." The Alaska Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration state that the contract could have been cancelled at minimal cost and that the federal money could have been returned to Congress for other uses, if the road had been cancelled when Palin took office in December 2006, but the bridge to the island was not cancelled until September 2007.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I like many of your proposed changes but dislike others. In general, I like a summary style but disagree when you remove important content, particularly direct quotes from Palin. I'll take it piece by piece.GreekParadise (talk) 03:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In the first paragraph, you're primarily adding language which detracts from the goal of summarizing. Your first addition "after Congress had already provided hundreds of millions of dollars to help finance them" isn't quite accurate. It is explained precisely below that Congress first provided for the bridges as earmarks then changed it to "no strings attached" transportation funds. That's not really millions of dollars to finance them. So why add this sentence? Second sentence added is also repetitive when we're trying to cut down.GreekParadise (talk) 03:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The airport serves 200K passengers/year, not 350K. The ferry carries 350K passengers/year. I assume the bulk of those extra 150K ferry trips are airport workers, and other people visiting the airport without actually flying anywhere. -- Zsero (talk) 04:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the number of passengers in my draft. Thx. I also clarified in the first paragraph about the transportation funds. I am not aware that she advocated squeezing Congress for money during her 2006 campaign to pay for the bridges. The first paragraph ought not to imply the contrary, right?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the implication. Section says that Congress made its decision earlier.GreekParadise (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If a person reads only the first paragraph (which many people will do), the first paragraph gives the impression that she campaigned to squeeze Congress for money to fund this pork. This is very easy to correct in the first paragraph, and I have done so.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Not the way I wrote it. See below. There's no implication as it makes clear it happened earlier. And your proposed change is inaccurate for the reasons I cited. Are you OK with my first paragraph (except for DYW, which I know you hate)?GreekParadise (talk) 04:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think your first paragraph has the exact same problem as the first paragraph now in the article. It labels these projects as pork, and says Palin campaigned for them in 2006. The implication is that she campaigned for pork, which is false AFAIK. The money had already come from the feds.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I mostly like the second paragraph changes, except, as you know, I don't want to delete the Don Young's Way name. Your second paragraph changes allow you to delete most of the third paragraph's first sentence. But I think three other parts of the third paragraph should be left in so as not to delete content (development, $600 million, whales). What do you think of the way I combined it above?GreekParadise (talk) 04:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the "Don Young's Way" matter, please see this comment above by NE2. Also, please take a look at NE2's user page. He seems to be a real expert on this subject. If we're going to write a neutral article, we ought to treat the naming issue the way we would for any other bridge or highway. I think you've already acknowledged that you're not merely trying to help those very few people who only know the bridge as "Don Young's Way" and instead are using this name to cast the project in a bad light, and this is POV. As NE2 explains, the standard is to use the common name everywhere, and to mention the ceremonial name at most once in the article about the bridge.

The folks at the BLP noticeboard agree with me on the issue, as well as a number of wiki-editors. It's done for both reasons. And I AGREE to only use the name once. So we're OK here.GreekParadise (talk) 04:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I really urge you to try harder to accurately characterize what other editors say. As far as I can tell, only one commenter at the BLP Noticeboard agreed with you about inserting "Don Young's Way" into this article. And I do not agree. As NE2 explained, it should not be used even once in this article. You acknowledge that you're basically doing it partly to slime Palin, and that is not a valid reason. We don't try to slant neutral facts in order to solime people. See WP:NPOV. Please read carefully what NE2 wrote.05:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

And why should we mention that the Knik Arm Bridge is a $600 million project if we don't mention how many dollars the Gravina project would require? The key thing is to mention how much the feds gave, and I did not delete that. Also, it would be redundant to say that the Gravina project would open territory for development, when that's already covered in the last sentence ("saying through her spokesperson that it would open territory for development"). I've put the beluga whales back, in a better spot.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you could take out $600 million, although I hate to delete content and want to see what other think. I like your beluga whales spot and used it mine below to delete an entire sentence. I put development up top for both bridges, since Knik Arm is also for development. If you want to delete it below, that's fine with me, but I thought you wanted it there.GreekParadise (talk) 04:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Content is always deleted in order to summarize a sub-article.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Your fourth paragraph contains the same deletion I made. I'm fine with it. In the fifth paragraph, I strongly disagree with removing the Palin quotations. They don't take up much room and they are the most primary source possible. But I'm fine with your cancelling the second and third sentences on the road. You (inadvertently?) neglected the Knik Arm continued support and June review.GreekParadise (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not remove the Knik Arm continued support and June review. I'll be back to you shortly about the Palin quotes.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, regarding the Palin quotes, please see WP:PSTS. Primary sources are disfavored at Misplaced Pages: "Misplaced Pages articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them" (emphasis mine). Also see WP:QUOTE which says: "Quotations should be put in context and given any necessary explanation. As an editor, it is your responsibility to read the source of the quotation thoroughly, in order to prevent misrepresentation. Third, while quotations are an indispensable part of Misplaced Pages, try not to overuse them. Too many quotes take away from the encyclopedic feel of Misplaced Pages." This is why I think we should cut down on quotes, especially quotes from a primary source.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have carefully read all four sources and am quite confident we did not misrepresent or take any quotation out of context. If you believe a quotation is taken out of context, by all means, let me know. All of these are direct quotations from Palin from secondary sources. In fact, the only thing that's a primary source is her cancellation of the project (which you left in).GreekParadise (talk) 05:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I find it exceptionally difficult to communicate with you. You said above that these Palin quotes "are the most primary source possible." And they are, notwithstanding your most recent comment. Quotes from the subject of a BLP are primary source material, wherever they were copied from. We need to cut down on direct quotes, especially direct quotes from primary sources. If you want to put quotes in the footnotes or in the sub-article, then maybe that would be okay, but this main BLP can do without them for the reasons I described. We're supposed to be writing a short an enclopedic biography here, not hunting for the juiciest snippets uttered by the subject.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait, I see you put June review up earlier. At any rate, why don't we combine yours and mine like this?

Two proposed bridges supported by Palin in her 2006 Gubernatorial campaign had gained national attention earlier in 2005 and 2006 as symbols of pork-barrel spending: the Gravina Island Bridge and the Knik Arm Bridge. The Gravina Island Bridge was proposed to connect Ketchikan to the sparsely populated, bridgeless Gravina Island where an international airport serves 200,000 passengers per year. The Knik Arm Bridge (a.k.a "Don Young's Way" after Alaska's Congressman) was proposed to provide an alternate link between Anchorage and Wasilla. Both bridges have been touted as necessary for development. The Gravina Island Bridge proposal became nicknamed the "Bridge to Nowhere" because of the island's population of 50. More rarely, the term "Bridges to Nowhere" has referred to both proposals.

However, in September 2007, Palin cancelled the Gravina Island Bridge and directed Alaskan officials to research an alternative, saying that Congress had "little interest in spending any more money" due to what she called "inaccurate portrayals of the projects." She opted not to return the $442 million in federal transportation funds. Palin spent $25 million on a Gravina Island highway to the place where the bridge would have gone, rather than return the funds to the Federal government; her spokesperson said it would open territory for development. Palin continues as of September 2008 to support the $600 million Knik Arm Bridge project, although in June 2008, she ordered it undergo a review for funding, feasibility, and its impacts on beluga whales. GreekParadise (talk) 04:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It's very difficult to see what material is old and what is new here. That's why I used strikethrough and bold above, to show what would be different from the version presently in the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

By moving stuff around, I saved space, which I thought was the primary goal of this. I absolutely agree to summary style, but I do NOT generally agree with deleting content. I haven't deleted any content from your version. Read yours and read mine and you'll see that all I've done is consolidate space. You may not like some of the content that I've left in from the original, but I did not delete anything that you left in. Besides, I really don't think you and I alone can decide to delete content that's been in the article for weeeks. I don't mind deleting the Collect and Crust additions because they're a day or two old, but for the rest, we really need to hear from others first. Besides, if your goal is to shorten the article, we're succeeding admirably. If your goal is to delete content, not just to shorten the article, that's a different kettle of fish, one I wish you'd let go. As Slrubenstein so finely put it at the top of this long section: "I would add to the above abstract of important points the following: once it has been established that the claim is verifiable and relevant, "consensus" refers to how it should be written into the article, not whether or not it should be written into the article."

That statement by Slrubinstein is very very wrong. If editors believe that inserting some material would violate WP:Summary style or WP:Undue weight or some other policy, then the material should not be put into the article without consensus. Failure to adhere to this very simple principle can turn Misplaced Pages into a very unpleasant experience for everyone, as you are demonstrating again and again and again.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what you are talking about. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Slrubinstein, suppose a claim is verifiable and relevant. You stated above that it does not then require consensus to put it into the article, and that consensus is only required to determine how it is put in. I disagree. The material requires consensus about whether it should be written into the article, even if it is verifiable and relevant. For example, verifiable and relevant material may still violate WP:Summary style or WP:Undue weight. I didn't mean to be rude, and I know you've made a lot of good contributions, but GreekParadise seems to be relying on this statement of yours to support his attitude that stuff can be jammed into this article without consensus. Maybe he (and I) have not correctly understood what you were trying to say.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not think we really disagree. I am sure I have stated somewhere that as this article gets to be too big, sections of it should be turned into new articles, and this article should as you correctly say use summary style to summarize what is in the other article. However, I think it would make a mess to create several small articles. Readers will google Sarah Palin and come to this article and as long as it does not get too long anything directly relevant to Sarah Palin, her political career, and her current political campaign, should be inn here; we should only create smaller articles when this gets too big. And I repeat: at that point I completely agree with your point about summary style. By the way, the link you provide is still confusing or misleading. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(And with that, I've got to go to bed so I can wake up in the morning for work. But we can see what others think and continue this tomorrow.)GreekParadise (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that you haven't deleted any content from my proposed version above, and that you did not delete anything that I left in. Since we agree about that material, I'll implement it for now, and then we can discuss remaining issues. To the extent that there is not consensus to include content here in this summary article, I have no objection to including it in the sub-article Governorship of Sarah Palin.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Why did you delete all the content unilaterally when I expressly said I was opposed to it? If you want to delete massive amounts of content that's been there for weeks, I specifically said you need consensus. I will re-add it back. I suggest that you post on the talk page specifically all the things you want to delete one by one and why. I DISAGREE that accurate quotes from Palin about the bridge are irrelevant to an article about Palin and the bridge. I told you so. And as a number of editors told you on the noticeboard, they are not appropriate in the sub-article. You sought help on the BLP and when they said things you didn't like, you acted unilaterally. YOU KNOW AT NO TIME DID I EVER AGREE TO DELETE CONTENT. I merely agreed to summary style, i.e. deleting redundant material. I will revert, so we can start over again. If you want to delete content, you're going to have to argue each one by one on this talk page.GreekParadise (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

At the heart of our differences is your belief that one editor has veto power to keep any and all information out of this article. You brought the issue to the BLP noticeboard and they expressly rejected your philosophy. Deletions require consensus too. Just because I agree on some content does NOT mean I agree that you can unilaterally delete all you don't agree with. If you want to delete something, I suggest you bring it to everyone's attention as I have just done with your request to delete all of Palin's quotes in support of the bridge but none in opposition. If you have other issues, bring them up. I acted with you in good faith on the assumption that you meant what you said, that you just thought the article was too long. I changed 22 lines to 15 lines without losing a bit of content. But since your real agenda apparently is to delete content -- and only one side of content -- then I suggest you're going to need a much wider agreement and you won't get it from me. If you want arbitration, let's do it. But I strongly believe that Palin's quotations on the bridge are relevant to the bridge section of her biography. Summary form is OK, but they must be there. Indeed, I would delete everything else before I deleted that. It's the heart of the article.GreekParadise (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Overwhelming infobox

The current infobox is too packed with information about positions help by Palin. Shouldn't this kind of information be put at the bottom along with the Political Office template? Eklipse (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The AGC chaiperson section, could be removed. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I moved it to the bottom, but I won't remove it from the infobox; the refs don't seem to work. Eklipse (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the infobox listing her major positions. And the AGC chairperson was certainly a major statewide position that required appointment by the Governor, just like a judgeship or the like.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Pic Overload

Is there a reason why there are so many pics? One should suffice. •Jim62sch• 21:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, IMO two of them actually significantly add to the article: the infobox one and the Nowhere t-shirt one. However, we currently have one per section, which is image-rich but within boundries, and so long as none of them are of Tina Fey or a pig I'm not going to object. KillerChihuahua 22:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to reduce the photo overload, I suggest starting with one of the three from her single foreign trip to visit the Alaska National Guard. People have been complaining about the overrepresentation of military- and foreign-travel-oriented photos since McCain chose her. —KCinDC (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

What could be removed is a picture provided by the Democratic mayor of Ketchikan a political opponent, who "hates her" and who tried to use wide distribution of the picture to hurt Palin's image. Remember that old picture of Obama that was released allegedly by the Hillary campaign about Obama in muslim clothing on an African trip? That was distributed to hurt the public perception of the attacked in a very similar way. Hobartimus (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that the problem of out-of-country pics was addressed by tweaking the captions. Only one of the present captions mentions that she's in another country. I agree with KC (!) that the current amount of pics is within boundaries.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Way too many, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I like the pictures and don't think it's too many.GreekParadise (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I find the amount of picture to be acceptable. 2¢ --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Amount of pics is fine. 4¢ -----Buster7 (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Section order

I find it troubling that a biography article places relevant personal informnation to the very last part of the article. The *Personal life* section belongs at the top after (or combined with) early life and education information. Her career can follow logically from that. Why is even *Political positions* given a more prominent placement. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think what you say has merit. I have moved that section up as suggested. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm... not sure it works well there, though. What others think? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama#Family and personal life is near the bottom. Joe Biden and John McCain don't even have related sections. Grsz 01:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Both George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush have a marriage and/or family section up top. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I think the personal life section was okay lower down. She's not famous for her personal life, so it makes sense to help readers find out what they're most interested about. I don't think it's a big deal, but I like it better down the page.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Except that every other section has a main article where the details get placed. This is, after all, the biographical part of the Sarah Palin collection. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In theory.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge says: "In theory." That's for sure. See: Talk:Sarah Palin#AP article on her personal life.--Paul (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I liked where it was before. Its kinda like moving the couch in the living room. It just doesn't look right in its new spot. Familiarity, I guess.--Buster7 (talk) 02:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I usually work on stub to B class articles, and I know we're shooting for better than that. But in the short-ish bios I usually see, it often works to group things in this kind of order: 1) parentage/childhood/education (which includes ethnicity, nationality, siblings), 2) early career, 3) notable career, 4) any other notable things, 5) stats, lists, awards, achievements, books written, etc., and 6) personal life (which includes spouse, children, hobbies, current residence, etc). That seems to flow well, although it does reflect a certain value judgment about what is worth mentioning in what order, personal life being a bit of a wrap-up, like the dessert after a big meal.Wikidemon (talk) 04:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) I'm still kind of leaning toward putting it back lower in the article. Above I explained that she's not famous for her personal life, and having that section where it is now delays the reader on his way to what is really of interest. But there are other reasons too. Before this section was moved there, the article was chronological up to what is now the seventh section (2008 campaign). Having the personal life stuff near the top throws off the chronology. Additionally, stuff near the top of an article always gets more attention, and I have qualms about putting things like her daughter's pregnancy and the name of her boyfriend so high up in the article. This is very personal material, and I would feel much better if it were not emphasized so much by placing it near the top of the article. Another reason why I'm leaning toward a revert is because the image seems to be sandwiching text with the infobox, which is not compliant with the MOS.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I do see your point(s). I agree that the chronology is a bit muddled. I can live with your placement. (At least it's ahead of *Political positions*. ha.) --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Error in notes

The references to articles for cites 200 and 201 have their authors swapped, and both link to the same article.

Currently:

1. ^ a b Suddath, Claire (2006-08-06). "Same-sex unions, drugs get little play", Anchorage Daily News. Retrieved on 2008-09-01.
2. ^ a b c Hopkins, Kyle. "Conservative Believer", Time. Retrieved on 2008-09-16.

Should be:

1. ^ a b Hopkins, Kyle (2006-08-06). "Same-sex unions, drugs get little play", Anchorage Daily News. Retrieved on 2008-09-01.
2. ^ a b c Suddath, Claire. "Conservative Believer", Time. Retrieved on 2008-09-16.

A correct link for the Anchorage Daily News article is: http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/governor06/story/8049298p-7942233c.html

Odsock (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. -- Zsero (talk) 04:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Adam Brickley

No mention?  Esper  03:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Mr. Brickley started a blog promoting Palin for VP. That would belong in a sub-article, more than it would belong here.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Add education to the stat-box

I'd like to see Palin's Educational history added to her stat box.

Just stick it in between Residence and Profession. A quick line listing her degree, YOG, and Alma matter. It seems like a basic fact to know about her or any political leader. Worth listing there.

DigitalPants (talk) 05:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Beluga whale

Ferrylodge...when you moved LLLL's mention of the effect the bridge had on Beluga whales, you removed the word, deleterious. I don't see why. It is desciptive of why the report was requested. Please revert your deletion.--Buster7 (talk) 10:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Done.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank You.--Buster7 (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policies that apply to this article

Misplaced Pages is growing all the time, and many new people are getting involved in this article- that's great! But it means that some people do not understand our policies, and it is clear from the past few days' discussion that we need to sort some things out.

Core policies at Wikipeida apply to all articles equally. In other words, we do not distinguish between different types of articles because some policies apply to some and some policies do not apply to some. It goes without saying that only material that is relevant should go into an article. Beyong that, our core policies are WP:NPOV which states that all notable significant views about a topic must be represented neutrally; WP:V which states that all notable significant views must also be verifiable. This does not mean that they have to be true or right or good. In fact, Misplaced Pages editors are encouraged to add views you think are false, wrong, or bad - as long as they are notable significant and verifiable, meaning there is evidence available to anyone that people actually hold this view. Closely related to WP:V is WP:RS, which states that views should come from reliable sources. Reliable does not mean true or right or good, it means well established. The New York Post, The Daily News, The Village Voice, The Wall Street Journal represent a wide range of views and it is likely that everyone has contempt for at least one of these newspapers, but they are all considered reliable sources about the news. Finally, WP:NOR, no original research. Even if we read through lots of news reports and develop a sophisticated analysis of the news based on solid research, we cannot put it into an article. The bottom line is, editors simply do not put our own views into articles. That really covers the main policies that should guide us in writing this article.

Some people have thrown around the phrase BLP, which stands for "Biography of Living Persons." BLP does not refer to a type of article - like I said, from the perspective of Misplaced Pages policies, there aren't any different types of articles, all articles are subject to the same policies. BLP does not say that some articles are biographies; it says that sometimes we add to article biographical content and it provides some important points about how to do that. WP:BLP basically reiterates what I just said: we need to comply with the same policies we comply with in articles on gravity and Australia and golf. What the BLP policy says is that when we add biographical information to an article we need to be especially careful to use reliable sources, especially if the material is contentious. It doesn't say we cannot add contentious material, only that if we do we need to bend over backwards to make sure the source is reliable. Moreover, we should be careful not to write in a titillating or sensationalistic style. Likewise, when we add criticisms (which NPOV practically demands we will) we have to be sure they come from reliable sources.

Finally, some people may refer to WP:BIO. Again, this is not a policy about "biographical articles" - like I said, we do not make such distinctions at Misplaced Pages. mnoreover, WP:BIP links to a guideline, not a policy - it has no binding force. But it is a useful guideline. What is it about? It has to do with a policy I mentioned above, that views need to be significant. It raises a related point: articles have to be on notable topics. WP:BIO talks about what kinds of people are notable enough to merit inclusion in articles. One thing it makes clear is that politicians, probably of the rank of mayor and certainly of higher position, are notable enough to be included in Misplaced Pages. So Sarah Palin definitely meets our notability criteria because of her political position.

That's really it about policy. Palin is notable because she is a politician, and any notable significant view from a verifiable source about her political career or campaign, or about her political views as expressed in her career or in the campaign, or any criticisms of her political career or campaign or views, can go in this article as long as they come from verifiable, reliable sources. If we add any biographical information, especially if it is contentious - and yes, WP:BLP allows us to add contentious biographical information - we DO have to ensure it comes from highly reliable sources. That's about it everyone, as far as policies go! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with all that, but it seems incomplete. There are other important policies and guidelines. For example, there's WP:Consensus, and WP:Summary style, and WP:Undue weight to name a few. Just because some inserted material satisfies WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR does not mean that an editor can insist (repeatedly) on inserting it into an article. And whether the material satisfies those policies should be determined not just by an individual editor but by consensus.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, I certainly accept that other policies may apply. And I know you are acting in good faith with good intentions. But with all due respect, I think your message muddies the waters. First of all, "undue weight" is a subsection of NPOV. By my linking NPOV, I simultaneously included undue weight. The difference is, I made it clear that NPOV is the umbrella policy and "undue weight" is just a component of that policy and has to be interpreted in the context of the policy as a whole. You took it out of context which could mislead some people. Also, "Summary style" is not a policy. I was talking primarily about policies. Summary style is a guideline and it may be useful to editors but it does not have the force of a policy. Finally, I agree with you about consensus, but the consensus policy addresses a different issue than I was raising. My point was about what can go into articles. Consensus says nothing about what can or cannot go into articles. The consensus policy is about interpersonal behavior and process. The consensus policy is not about content; NPOV, V, and NOR are about content. It is NPOV, V, and NOR that determine what is acceptable and unacceptable content. The consensus policy lays out a process for resolving conflicts over content. But it does not establish principles for resolving the conflict. The principles remain NPOV, V and NOR. When editors get into a conflict, we should consult WP:CONSENSUS for ideas about how we can better work together. But before consensus-based editing, the first step to working together is agreeing to abide by the content policies, NPOV, NOR, and V. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "whether the material satisfies those policies should be determined not just by an individual editor but by consensus," but consensus does not mean unanimity (according to the policy), it is a process of collaboration. And to participate in this process everyone has to agree that "if content is a notable significant and verifiable view from a reliable source it will go in even if I do not like it," if they cannot say this, and mean it, they are not participating in a consensus process. And some people above have argued that content should not go in even if it is notable, verifiable, and from a reliable source. Those people are not participating in a consensus-building process. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, SL. very nicely explained for all who seem to be missing these salient points. •Jim62sch• 20:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Good points regarding undue weight being a subset of NPOV, and regarding the difference between policies and guidelines. However, I still argue that content should not go in even if it is notable, verifiable, and from a reliable source, if it violates WP:Summary style. The content should go in a sub-article such as Governorship of Sarah Palin if putting it in this article would make the corresponding section of this article too long.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but continue to note that summary style is a guideline and cannot trump core policies like NPOV, V and NOR. Also, if we are going to be guided by Summary Style, let's follow what it says: first, the guideline applies only when an article gets too long. Second, splitting the article into smaller articles has to be done in a reasonable fashion. The material that most readers will most want to see stays in the main article; less notable material goes into smaller articles, and spin-offs have to be content forks and never POV forks, no coatracking. As long as the discussion about summary style foregrounds these principles I am fine with that. But I continue to insist, a style guideline never trumps a content policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. And, of course, the present article would be way too long if all the material in the sub-articles were included in this one.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks Slrubinstein, well presented. @Ferryloge: if it violates WP:Summary style.WP:SUMMARY is a useful guide on how to approach spinning off articles, and does not dictate any particular way to do this. So, it is up to active editors to work together in summarizing a spin-off article, so that the summary is comprehensive and could stand on its own. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear on exactly what you mean by "notable" here. The notability guidelines are about whether a topic merits an article on Misplaced Pages, not about the content of an article. Your "notable, verifiable, and from a reliable source" seems to exclude the issue of NPOV, which is what most of the extended arguments here and in other political articles are about. —KCinDC (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

To whom are you speaking? •Jim62sch• 20:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV was the first policy I brought up, so that should suffice to make clear that I mean that the NPOV policy applies to this article, I didn't think anything I had written suggested anything but this. The NPOV policy used to feature the word "notable" but following present practice I have changed it to "significant." It is true that I brought up notability about people as topics for an article, but that is only because at least one editor in the past day or two has brought this matter up. That editor seemed to think the policy meant that anything not of a purely personal biographical nature was by definition "not notable" because of the policy. My intention was to make clear precisely what you say: that the policy that editor was invoking was referring to "whether a topic merits an article on Misplaced Pages, not about the content of an article." That was my point precisely and I am pleased for you to repeat it. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I realize you talked about NPOV, but I'm troubled by this part: "And some people above have argued that content should not go in even if it is notable, verifiable, and from a reliable source. Those people are not participating in a consensus-building process." That seems to be saying that those are the only factors that people should consider when looking at content, and it doesn't mention NPOV, but it does mention notability, which you've just agreed isn't a criterion for content (also, being from a reliable source is part of verifiability, so that bit seems redundant). I think that requires some clarification. —KCinDC (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I just made some corrections, do they satisfy you? "significant" and "view" are direct references to NPOV and I hope I have been clear that the whole policy is important. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, Slrubenstein. A well needed compalation of the codes of conduct necessary to maintain order and civility. As you state, early in your lead, many new editors are coming on board. Moderately experienced editors (like myself) are participating at levels they didn't expect 4 weeks ago. Let me say that the ebb and flow of discussion about core Misplaced Pages policies is a tremendous learning opportunity. The Editing Community shines when we find a balance between differing (dare I say it!) points of view.

<soapbox>A wonderful thing happens when I lose the "I" of my edit and give in to the "WE" of being a Misplaced Pages editor. I sacrifice ownership of "my idea, my edit, my contribution" and join a working community focussed on excellence and quality.</soapbox>.

Both you and Ferrylodge and many other veteran editors are providing leadership and training. Many times I have wanted to step away from this article and return to random editing. But the knowledge and experience that is going on here is invaluable...and it draws me back. Thanks to you all!--Buster7 (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I second that. I only wish we'd had this discussion a month ago! Fcreid (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Slrubinstein. "Significant" is good. You still have the sentences I quoted above, though. I understand that changing "notable" to "significant" there doesn't work because I don't think anyone's arguing that "content should not go in even if it is significant, verifiable, and from a reliable source". The argument is usually precisely about what's significant, in NPOV terms. But maybe you were referring to something else. If you're going to be including what amounts to an accusation against some other participants, I think it needs to be clearer what you're objecting to. —KCinDC (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Protection Request

IMHO, this article, along with the articles Joe Biden, Barack Obama & John McCain (plus McCain & Obama's presidential campaign articles), should be fully protected until after the US prez election. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Why?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, FOX, CNN and CNBC should go off the air from now until the election.

Folks, Misplaced Pages has been around since 2001. There is nothing going on now that hasn't come up before, and we have policies for everything that counts. To show up here and ask that we violate or disregard wikipedia is an explicit act of bad faith. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's say something big happens in the campaign or in the lives of one of the individuals. Then we would have to wait for an admin to edit the article, meanwhile not having the info for the people who want the information. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is protected by the editors that watch over it on a daily basis...24/7...--Buster7 (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Rape kits again

I'm having some difficulty with this edit, which inserted the bolded words:

Fannon stirred controversy by requiring rape victims to pay or have their insurance companies pay for rape kits.

The source doesn't seem to say that Fannon did anything other than charge the insurance companies. Fannon stated: "In the past we've charged the cost of exams to the victim's insurance company when possible. I just don't want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer....Ultimately it is the criminal who should bear the burden of the added costs."

Also, this stuff about rape kits was inserted into the article today. Should it remain? There was previous discussion about it here.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The source states "to bill victims or victims insurance companies" so its accurate. I have not read the previous discussion. KillerChihuahua 01:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the "previous discussion" cited Slate, but it wasn't Slate, precisely - it was a blog on Slate. However, I checked FactCheck.org (a far more reliable source) and found this, which states that women had to pay, but that it is unclear whether Palin supported that. Read the FactCheck bit yourself, please - IMO it appears the entire rape kit mess should stay out of an article on Palin, except for the current bit which does state "Palin hired Charlie Fannon to replace Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon stirred controversy by requiring rape victims to pay or have their insurance companies pay for rape kits" - all of which is accurate per the sources. I'm open to other views tho. KillerChihuahua 01:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No record of any victim paying has been found for any records still held by Wasilla (fiscal 2000 on, which started on July 1, 1999). Cite given earlier. No records prior to June 30, 1999 appear to be available for this. Collect (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What about Insurance companies? Did they pay? If no-one (individual or corp.) paid for the kits, why are we making an issue out of something that did not happen? also, more curious than anything else...Are there alot of rapes in Wasilla?--Buster7 (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Re. KC's quote from the Frontiersman article, a fuller quote is: "The new law makes it illegal for any law enforcement agency to bill victims or victims insurance companies...." That doesn't seem to support the notion that Fannon did both of those things, and he only seems to have admitted doing the latter.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

My error, thanks - I was scanning the link which had been used, and frankly didn't pay close enough attention. The FactCheck source - again, far more reliable than the others - clearly states "he had billed women and their insurance companies for these tests". I find no source regarding what Fannin admitted or not, the current phrasing does not address that, so do we care? Are we planning to expand this to cover that? I'm not sure that's a direction we should go, as I've said before, I think the two sentences we currently have are enough weight. KillerChihuahua 01:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree we don't need much on this in the main Palin article, since there's no evidence she was directly involved. It's covered more thoroughly in the sub-article. Anyway, I did look at the Factcheck.org bit, and they are relying exclusively on the article from the Frontiersman, and specifically this quote: "In the past we've charged the cost of exams to the victim's insurance company when possible. I just don't want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer....Ultimately it is the criminal who should bear the burden of the added costs." Fannon only seems to be admitting that he charged women if their insurance could pay. I don't see him admitting that he charged other women.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Factcheck cites the Frontiersman, CNN and USA Today, see end of article. KillerChihuahua 01:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

For the fact in question, Factcheck.org is relying exclusively on the Frontiersman article. They only cite USA Today for Palin's disavowal, and they only cite CNN for remarks by a former Alaska state representative about whether Palin was involved.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) All three are listed as Sources, and all three state clearly that women or their insurance companies were billed. Only the Frontiersman article was quoted, which is not the same thing as cited. All three are linked from inline text within the article as well as under "Sources" at end. So we have three sources (CNN, Frontiersman, and USA Today) all saying the same thing, so the two sentences currently in our article are accurate. If someone wants to add a source or two to the statement, fine - but there is no disputing view. KillerChihuahua 01:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

'if possible' could mean, possibly, that he charged them if it weren't possible to collect from the insurance? Now that he is paying, he wants the criminals to pay. I would have a little more sympathy for his position if he had been motivated to come up with that inspired idea instead of making it the victim's responsibility to pay until he was stopped. Also he says, "-any- more burden put on the taxpayer" Less conclusive than 'if possible', imo, I can't believe you can even read it as the town paying when the insurance didnt. Why do you think there was a state-wide outcry and a law enacted to stop what they were doing? And you better believe there is an alternate position Anarchangel (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) KC, I'm not going to make a federal case out of it, but it's still not clear to me that women without insurance were billed. I don't think the Frontiersman article says they were billed. Also, this is really borderline stuff to include in a main BLP like this, since Palin is not really linked. But if others think it should stay in then I won't quibble about it. I would suggest including Palin's brief disavowal, except that I don't want to give any more space and attention to this weakly sourced matter than it deserves.

Anarchangel, why do I think there was a state-wide outcry and a law enacted to stop what they were doing? Please see sub-article. Municipalities like Juneau were definitely charging the victims, whether they had insurance or not. Other localities were doing likewise, according to legislative records. But neither the legislative records nor the town records show that Wasilla was billing uninsured women for this. It's all in the sub-article.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now this is getting out of hand. I see that Anarchangel has expanded the material in the main article, and I strongly object. I knew this would happen. PLEASE see the sub-article. The notion that Wasilla was the only town doing this is totally bogus. PLEASE don't quote Knowles like he is completely objective. Palin defeated him for Governor, after all.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should include anything about the who pays for the rape kit controversy. It just leaves the door open for scurolous guesswork and ackward contrivances. And, really, it has almost nothing to do with Gov Palin and should not be part of her BLP.--Buster7 (talk) 02:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Bridge Again: Does Palin's Position on the Bridge Matter? I say Yes.

An editor has requested deletion of all of Palin's quotations in support of the bridge. This editor admits the quotations are accurate and not taken out of context, but he wants to nonetheless remove them and put them in the subarticle. However, he wants to leave in all of Palin's quotations in opposition to the bridge. I say leave the quotations alone. I believe Palin's direct and brief quotations in support of the Bridge to Nowhere belongs in a Bridge to Nowhere section in her biography, just as her brief quotations cancelling the bridge do as well. Do I have support?GreekParadise (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on. Consider the following Palin quote: Congress had "little interest in spending any more money" due to "inaccurate portrayals of the projects". She's blasting Congress for not funding the bridges. That is hardly a quotation in "oppositon" to the bridge. But I would be glad to remove it from the article if you would like.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference APbridge was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Hulse, Carl (November 17, 2005). "Two 'Bridges to Nowhere' Tumble Down in Congress". The New York Times.
3. "Ketchikan airport and ferry statistics for December 2006" (PDF).
4. "Ketchikan Gravina Island Access Project". Alaska DOT. Retrieved 2008-08-31.
5. ^ Posted by Alaska_Politics. "adn.com | Alaska Politics Blog : Palin and the Knik Arm bridge". Community.adn.com. Retrieved 2008-09-29.
6. Rowland, Kara (2008-09-19). "Hacker wanted to 'derail' Palin". The Washingon Times. Retrieved 2008-09-23.
7. Jordan, Lara Jakes (September 22, 2008). "FBI searches apartment in Palin hacking case". Associated Press. Retrieved 2008-09-22.
8. Kizzia, Tom. "Palin touts stance on 'Bridge to Nowhere,' doesn't note flip-flop", Anchorage Daily News (2008-08-31)
9. “Bailout Negotiations Continue; FBI Targets Wall Street Firms” (Transcipt), CNN (2008-09-23).
10. http://www.propublica.org/article/palin-defends-construction-of-road-to-nowhere-925/. Citation contains CNN's photograph of the terminal point of the Gravina Island Highway, nicknamed the "Road to Nowhere"

• Former good article nominees
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• High-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Low-importance
• Unassessed United States presidential elections articles
• Unknown-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class Alaska articles
• High-importance Alaska articles
• WikiProject Alaska articles
• B-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Idaho articles
• Unknown-importance Idaho articles
• WikiProject Idaho articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press