Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:24, 12 September 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.

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.

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.

Dispute #1: Alaskan Independence Party

AKIP Inclusion Proposal For Review

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

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

1. I support this text, but would like additional material, as shown in my addition to Talk:Sarah Palin/sandbox. --Zeamays (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)--Zeamays (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   I think the idea of a sandbox is a bad idea, just opening up another avenue for edit warring and potential libel. Could you please move your suggestion here and ask an admin to remove that page?--Paul (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   It wasn't my idea. I saw a note on this pages asking to place proposals for edits via admins to be placed ion the sandbox. --Zeamays (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)--Zeamays (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

2. She not only attended, she was a member, and only switched her party affiliation when she ran for governer, according to Dexter Clark in this video from last year (jump to 6:00).
3. The Dexter Clark youtube video above specifically mentions Sarah Palin, which makes it a valid part of the entry about her- the same goes for the AIP's later retraction. The readers should be given both pieces of information- our job is not to draw conclusions for them, but to publish relevant facts. Dexter Clark's statements in the YouTube video create sufficient reason to question the retraction, so it seems relevant--Grumbleputty (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

A video is a primary source and wikipedia requires secondary sources. Plus, this one is certainly not a reliable source. Including this video is WP:OR original research which is not allowed. At this point this false charge has been thoroughly debunked, and there are many reliable sources testifying that she was never an AKIP member.--Paul (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

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

1. It's a McCarthyistic attempt to prove "guilt by association" with a fringe party which is not even accused of doing anything illegal, but only of having a fringe viewpoint - and with no evidence that Palin herself agrees with that viewpoint. Baseball Bugs 15:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   The simple fact that multiple meetings were attended by her makes this worth mentioning. There is no reason to try to prove guilt by association but if you believe a statement to be added in relation the rumors then please provide a suggestion. 99.228.151.16 (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Are people still pushing the debunked "secessionist" meme? I thought even dKos had given up on flogging that. But Bugs is correct - there's no need to give undue weight to a trivial relationship with one particular group. As governor, she attended and greeted many organizations, from the Better Business Bureau to the Girl Scouts of America. Kelly 15:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   Even if the rumors had never been raised this still warrants a mention. If she has attended multiple conventions for other parties I beleive this would also deserve a mention. 99.228.151.16 (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

3. It might have had some relevance when it was suspected that Palin had once been a member, but since that has been debunked, the only reason for inclusion would be to imply "guilt by association." She attended the 2006 convention while campaigning for Governor, and sent a welcome video to the 2008 convention in her capacity as Governor. And even though it isn't mentioned above, she attended the 2000 convention in her capacity as mayor of Wasilla. Inclusion of the proposed sentence violates NPOV and UNDUE WEIGHT.--Paul (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   If a governor attends multiple conventions for a seperatist group and submits a video then it is worth a mention. I recall you previously agreed that a statement could be included. 99.228.151.16 (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   Rebuttal to 1-3: This is well-documented material. AN AIP leader can be seen on video at their convention stating that their aim is to "infiltrate" other political parties, so this is relevant. My proposed addition doesn't mention "secessionist". More importantly, she expressed support of AIP aims in the video. Did she also send a video to the Democratic Party Convention that year supporting their aims? Misplaced Pages policy for Well-known public figures reads, "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." --Zeamays (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   Have you watched the video? "Your party plays an important role in our state's politics. I've always said that competition is so good. And that applies to political parties as well." Very sinister!--Paul (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

4. As I said above, the story is dead. If she had been a member of the party, I think there would be something here, but those claims (made by that party itself apparently) have since been debunked. Addressing the convention of a competing party is interesting (and something I think should be encouraged), but it's trivial and not biographical, and thus including it in the article would be wp:undue. Should further facts on the matter emerge, though, I reserve the right to change my mind.  :)   user:j    (aka justen)   02:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

   Rebuttal to 4: Once agin, this is not a dead issue. The facts have been documented that she and her husband have been associated with the AKIP, he as a formal member, she as a sympathizer, who stated in the welcome video a sympathy for the party and support for its success. --Zeamays (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

5. Were articles to list every politician's every slight contact with every organization, then perhaps this might be valid. It doesn't. The connection is sufficiently minor as to verge on the use of Wiki for political statements and campaigns. Collect (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Have you watched the video? Palin: "Your party plays an important role in our state's politics. I've always said that competition is so good. And that applies to political parties as well." Then she lists a few issues and says "and I know you agree with that" and then wraps it up. There is nothing at all here that is the least bit notable or out of the ordinary.--Paul (talk) 13:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not the party is secessionist is unclear. Merely sending a video-taped greeting to a meeting of a prominent minor party sounds like a politician reaching out for votes and not particularly noteworthy. I see no compelling reason to include this material. Ronnotel (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The contents of the video as described above merely illustrate a good politician at work - buttering people up. Technically, the AIP doesn't specifically argue for secession unconditionally, they claim that statehood was attained unconstitutionally, and they want the chance to vote on the matter. Last time I checked, expressing opinions was not against the law. Not in America, anyway. Baseball Bugs 10:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Levi's age

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

Paritcularly, you were admonished for going against a consensus that you knew about and for marking the edit as minor despite knowing that there had been a consensus to remove his age completely. The archive is at Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 13#Levi Johnston's age. Accuracy was not at issue in the admonishment, nor is it really the issue in the consensus. GRBerry 03:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I missed that consensus, but I agree with it. I've removed the age per that discussion. MastCell  03:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Consensus was that if we didn't know his age, we shouldn't get it wrong. If this source had been presented in that discussion, the result would have been different. Accuracy was at the core of that discussion, not any BLP violation, since dozens of media outlets were already saying he was 18. Do you doubt he is 18, MastCell? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, did you read the linked discussion properly? All people in the canvass who said remove said so because it was irrelevant to Sarah Palin. Some also mentioned the discrepancy as a factor although some said the discrepancy wasn't a major issue. No one in the straw poll said to remove based solely on the discrepancy Nil Einne (talk) 06:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• I hereby request that his age be added back, take your time to develop a new consensus. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The detail is irrelevant to Sarah Palin's bio and should stay out. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? You haven't really provided any good reason and you appear to have misread the existing consensus Nil Einne (talk) 06:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Phlegm Rooster, I gather that your reference to "a new consensus" means that you're hoping people will change their minds now that better information is available. Can you explain why we should? I think most bio article don't give the ages of the bio subject's in-laws, let alone prospective in-laws. For that matter, I still think we should delete the guy's name. JamesMLane t c 09:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no need to give his age. But he's not an unknown, he's appeared on TV with John McCain. So I think we can give him a name. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• He's "not an unknown." In fact, he's a bit of a celebrity. One of the British tabloids called him "sex on skates," presumably because he's good looking. So let's give him his own Misplaced Pages article, perhaps on the order of other minor celebrities. SkyDot (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem with giving his age? He's an adult. And, if you're going to mention the pregnancy of her daughter at all, then it's relevant. I agree with Plegm. Put the age in.GreekParadise (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If you look, the title of this article is not "Levi Johnson" - his age currently is not relevant to Sarah Palin's biography. GRBerry 19:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it may not be relevent in this article. The article on Levi Johnson, unfortunately, already exists and describes a football player. Oh wait. It's Levi Johnston that we're talking about. :) Hey, that link points back to this article, so it is an article on him. I still think he should get his own article. SkyDot (talk) 07:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Not content to let Obama be the lone "celebrity" in the race, the GOP wanted some celebrities of their own. I've got a hunch they didn't have Levi Johnston in mind, though. Baseball Bugs 10:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Pregnancy with Trig

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

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

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

The first sentence is unacceptable in a whole load of ways: how do we know (apart from human sympathy) that Gov. Palin "had difficulty in coming to terms" with her child's "illness"? in what way did she "conceal her pregnancy"? What does "return to work" mean for a State Governor?

The second sentence is simply not supported by the cited source. Physchim62 (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"She was, it seems, struggling to come to terms with the fact that the baby would be born with Down's syndrome." "... some accuse her of exploiting Trig for political gain." You did actually look at the sources, right? ~ Ameliorate! _{U T C} @ 14:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

How much informational value does this add? A.J.A. (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it says a lot about her personal life. The world's media appear to agree. ~ Ameliorate! _{U T C} @ 23:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"She was, it seems, struggling to come to terms with the fact This is supposition and in a WP:BLP it isn't allowed regardless of the fact that a WP:RS is doing the supposing. The second quote from the source is just repeating attacks. How does that help anything? What _is_ missing from the article is the quote from Palin that "she and Todd feel blessed and chosen by God" to have this child. Now that really does say a lot about her personal life and deeply-held beliefs.--Paul (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Parentage

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

There were continual unsubstantiated rumours that the child was her grandchild - possibly fuelled by the actual pregnancy of her child. But there's been nothing substantiated. Unless that appears, the only use we have for the rumour is to demonstrate that some people are prepared to circulate unsubstantiated rumour, and that's hardly news. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It is probably as "widely believed" as Elvis Presley still being alive. Yet, I gather that an inclusion of the unsubstantiaded rumours in the article could be appropriate. --Hapsala (talk) 04:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

You'd have my support to revert. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Supported. 216.215.233.66 (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ditto, let him come to the talk page. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I edited for length only (the section was longer than ANY other in the ENTIRE article). Palin's support is made clear in the next paragraph (objection #1)- no need to mention it twice. I changed the bridge to its correct name not its nick name (#3) and removed excess background info (#2). The section is way too long and somethign had to go. The background info seemed to be the best candidate. The exact timing of the change also seemed unnecessary. (#6) Three commentaries about here comments was quite excessive, I removed 1 and someone else removed a second. (#7-#8) --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Also there was no need to reference every fact 3 times. Once is suffient. (#5) Objection #4 is just plain false - the $ amount is still there. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's now been an hour and a half since I posted to the talk page and an hour since Thaddeus wrote his response. Hearing no further discussion, I will revert with the support of the three wikipedians. However, in deference to Thaddeus' concerns about length, I'll see if after reverting, I can cut some of the fat without losing the bone (content). Still Thaddeus you should know that "Don Young's Way" is the official name of Knik Arm Bridge, not the nickname. The name is in the earmark legislation.GreekParadise (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering others edited the section in the interim, I don't think going back to the old version was justified. You undid my changes and the changes of several other people all at once, to restore the version you wrote. Why not just work with what's there instead of insisting on your version? I have undid your revert. If any details are missing from the current version, by all means add them back in - but I don't see any missing other than the unnecessary background info. In reference to the bridge's name - wikipedia and most news articles call it the Knik Arm Bridge, so that is the name that should be used. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

NO ONE but you Thaddeus edited it in the interim. Don't believe me? Check the history. I undid no one's changes but yours. And, as I explained on my talk page, I can't work with what's there because you've been busy throwing away sources. Do you even know what are the four references you deleted? Can you tell me why you deleted them? If you want to delete a reference, please tell me why, but that's not tightening. I can't add details and references and everything and have you willy-nilly delete them without telling me what you're doing. As for the name of the bridge, I can't help that. In the earmark bill, Congress named it "Don Young's Way." I would explain it further but you wanted the article kept short. However, if you prefer I am happy to use both names, even though the article will be a little longer.GreekParadise (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What relevance does the bridge collapse in Minnesota have to Sarah Palin's biography? Adding that quotation serves solely an incendiary purpose, and was *not* discussed above. Does anyone else agree that it should be removed?JoeyCG (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I also felt it non-relevant and deleted it. GreekParadise, however, had a cow about my edits and undid them all. Please feel free to re-delete it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not autoconfirmed, so I cannot delete it. BTW, as written the quotation appears to be by John McCain. In the source, it is *not* ascribed to John McCain as a quotation.JoeyCG (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The quote is by John McCain and was ascribed to him. Thaddeus thought the section was too long and so I was trying to cut as many words as I could. I have no problem removing it, however. See? All you have to do is ask.GreekParadise (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

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

I went ahead and removed the McCain quote. I left the first half of the line, since I wasn't sure if that was OK to ditch, although I feel it adds nothing and could easily go too. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, changed my mind. Sorry 'bout that. Reason on my talk page. Suffice to say that it's inaccurate without full quote since McCain had condemned bridge prior to 2007.GreekParadise (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Would like to see this:

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

become:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for complete feedback. My intention behind inclusion of the quote is it shows Palin didn't support the bridge to no-where as a blanket statement. She supported a "link" for the residents of the islands. And that she would "evaluate" the details when it was appropriate. The only reasons I was "removing" the other references was for length. I'm fine with them staying and this new content being included - if everyone else is ok with it. Theosis4u (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me like she said different things at different times. Since I've been urged to keep this section short, why don't you put it in a footnote of this article and/or in the body of the Governorship section where there is a much longer article on the bridge.GreekParadise (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the other's should be footnoted (if any) in favor of this one being in the text. The others imply she supported the full blown POV slant that she endorsed the earmark of the "bridge to no-where" when in fact, she didn't. This quote represents that best because it directly addresses the intent of why people are looking at the section entitled "bridge to nowhere", whereas the other quote doesn't. Theosis4u (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

I believe the Bridge to Nowhere section is very important, but I also think it's way too long. It is more than 50% of the Budget and Spending section. Can we trim it to a single paragraph, or two at most? Some things like the exact names of the bridges, and who they are named after are unimportant. Focus instead on the controversial issues involved. --JHP (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

To reduce space, I also suggest removing all but the most essential quotes. --JHP (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a proposed trimming of the section. It is still three paragraphs, but I removed stuff I thought was nonessential.

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

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

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

--JHP (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GreekParadise, most of the edits were done by User:MastCell. I didn't disagree with him, so I felt no need to undo his edits. I followed up with these edits. My original proposed edits are above.

Regarding item #3, let me point out that the term is "Bridge to Nowhere", singular, not "Bridges to Nowhere", plural. Almost all sources refer only to the Gravina Island Bridge as the bridge to nowhere. The first New York Times reference, which is being used to claim that the Knik Arm Bridge (Don Young's Way) is also called the bridge to nowhere doesn't mention the Knik Arm Bridge at all. It only mentions the Gravina Island Bridge. The source doesn't back up the claim. In fact, it uses the singular "bridge to Nowhere", thus contradicting the claim. If that's not dubious, then I don't know what is. There is one single source referring to the Knik Arm Bridge as a second bridge to nowhere, but that source defies the common understanding of the nickname and it conflicts with almost all other sources.

Regarding item #5, I didn't feel the quote adds much useful information. It mainly just wastes space.

Regarding item #6, you have not established a cause and effect relationship. This appears to be nothing more than a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Fallacious logic does not belong in Misplaced Pages articles.

Regarding #9 and #10, these are just quotes. They don't add any more useful information than the sentence that came before them. Please focus less on useless quotes and just stick to the facts. Quotes take up too much space when we are trying to conserve space. The more words you use to get a point across, the less likely people will actually take the time to read what is written. --JHP (talk) 07:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I was just writing up what I'd done when I hit an edit conflict. You beat me to it.

• On #3, there are many sources that use Bridges to Nowhere (referring to Gravina and Knik Arm) and many more that use Bridge to Nowhere (referring to Gravina). I have fixed all refs. But google "bridges to nowhere" and you'll see 38,000 references. This nickname has been used both ways.
• 5, not wedded to it but shortened it so hopefully you're OK with it now
• 6, I didn't say one caused the other, I just noted the time frame. Some of the articles I've researched have speculated that one caused the other but I have not. McCain spoke in August 2007 and Palin's decision was made in September 2007.
• 10, removed
• 9, shortened greatly but would like to keep in shortened quote because it sums up critique nicely. It's always better, I think, to show a critique than to say it's been "critiqued" and I did it in few words
• Also completed mammoth reference review of every reference in the article. Feel free to double-check, but I expect/hope/pray you'll approve. Now it's 4 am Eastern Time. I've been working on this for 6 hours. Need rest. Good night.GreekParadise (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think references 90 and 91 should go immediately after the quote, instead of where they currently are. In general, I prefer references at the end of sentences, rather than in the middle of them. After reference 92, there is a lone comma sitting in between sentences. Don't go to sleep. This is Misplaced Pages. By the time you wake up, some other editor will have come along and changed everything. ;-) --JHP (talk) 08:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Three days ago--seems like three weeks ago--another wikieditor who will remain nameless (unless you really want his name) told me he hates multiple sources next to each other at the end of a sentence. He said it makes it hard to read. The trouble was, in the interest of both brevity and comprehensiveness, I had crammed four sources in one sentence. (It used to be four sentences, but why say in four what you can say in one?) So where do you put the four sources? If I removed a source, then part of the sentence was unsourced, but I could see how four sources together did make it difficult to read. I also got some complaints that things weren't sourced. (They were sourced, just not in the first source at the end of the sentence.) So last night, I painstakingly reviewed each and every source and put it precisely over the word or words it was sourced to. Actually as an encyclopedia, this makes it easier to use and edit because people can look up exactly what they want to look up in the references.GreekParadise (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. That rant was just prelude. In the case you mention, we have a joint quote from two sources. I can see why you want it at the end. If you really want to put 90 and 91 back together at the end of the sentence, go right ahead. And yes, it's only two sources together, so no biggie. But I warn you. If someone complains again about "multiple sources strung together makes article difficult to read," I'm sicking that editor on you! (Last point. Can't find evil comma. Maybe some other editor removed it.)GreekParadise (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I moved references 90 and 91. I should clarify. I usually prefer references at the ends of sentences, phrases, or quotes, but not within phrases unless it would be unclear what fact the reference is supporting. Whenever there is a quote, the reference should go immediately after it. It is the quote that needs to be backed up with evidence, not where it was said.

Also, I corrected the official names of the newspapers being cited. It is The New York Times, not the New York Times. Same with The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. On the other hand, it is the Associated Press, not The Associated Press, so I kept that as is. I guess the AP just likes to be different. --JHP (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

That's not very clear. How would statements made in a court proceeding be child abuse? This is reasonably well reported in quite a few sources but the significance and context is not all that clear. It is not up to us to decide what raises questions about Palin's suitability for office and what does not. We can't take sides there. If a lot of people decide Palin's involvement in the case is important to the election, that sentiment will be reported in the press and it may be worth mentioning in the election article. If they report it as a major event in her life then it might be relevant for this article about her biography, but that's not obvious from the sources I could find. The argument to include something here is not that it tells us something bad about Palin, but rather than a lot of people (as evidenced by the weight of reliable published sources) think it is worth reporting. If it is reported as a campaign issue then it might be good for the campaign article, and if as a life issue for the bio article. But if it is reported as the blog / news tidbit of the day we really have to take a longer view and not report every last rumor or political argument. Wikidemon (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What's more, our own Misplaced Pages article states "On March 1, 2006, Wooten was notified of the results of an Alaska State Trooper internal investigation. The probe found that Wooten violated internal policy, but not the law, in making the death threat against Heath (the father of Sarah Palin and Molly McCann). Wooten denied having made the threat, but the investigation decided that he had in fact done so. The trooper investigation concluded that the death threat was not a crime because Wooten did not threaten the father directly; therefore, the investigator deemed the threat to be a violation of trooper policy rather than a violation of criminal law. " police investigation found that Wooten did actually make a death threat against Palin's father. So what was called "disparagement" against this trooper at the time may very well have been simple statements of fact. (btw the "disparagement" wasn't done by Palin, she is only included in the "McCann and family" category) Hobartimus (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, my reading of the issue is that the judge warned Palin's sister Molly Hackett that Molly's family and friends should not be demeaning/ridiculing Molly's ex-husband during the course of everyday life because doing so was harmful to the children Molly and he shared. Or put more directly, it is not okay for one parent (or her family) to poison the child against the other parent. What the significance of the judge's statements are with respect to Sarah Palin in particular (as opposed to Molly's family in general) is unclear to me. Dragons flight (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin was one of the people disparaging Wooten's reputation. ;) Starting in August 2005, she sent several strongly worded letters to the head of the Troopers asking why the guy was still employed. --Bobblehead 16:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to disparage anyone with factual statements. Police investigation found that Wooten did make a death threat and Wooten did taser his 10 year old stepson. I'd go as far as propose a mention of the death threat against Palin's father in the main article. It gives a lot of context to the case. Hobartimus (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not obvious that those are the specific and only items the judge was referring to. And even if those are the circumstances, I'd imagine that how one expresses those facts make a difference. For example, "that worthless, arrogant, pig thought he could threaten us and get away with it" would be pretty disparaging even if it were just a reaction to the death threat. Dragons flight (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well.. I'm sure telling the guy's boss repeatedly that he was unfit to be a state trooper is fairly disparaging to one's reputation. But then, I added it to the Troopergate article last night (I also added it here, but it was later removed as an unnecessary detail for the summary here), so unless you think it is a necessary detail in this article... --Bobblehead 17:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Hobartimus added the claim about an alleged "death threat" made by Wooten, which I reverted as he did not add a reference and it is a rather serious charge. Hobartimus then added a note (with a reference) on my talk page. I have not checked the reference (someone should), but regardless the claim is cited or not, I do not think this material is at all suited for the article. Misplaced Pages is not the place to sort out the claims and counter-claims of this ongoing dispute, and as Wooten is now a public figure to some degree, any portrayal of him or his actions falls under the category of WP:BLP. Leave it out. Arjuna (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus added another note on my talk page to the effect that he was re-posting the "death threat" claim described above from another article. I have not checked this out, but will take him at his word, and so this is to confirm that I am not accusing him of any violation or bad faith edit. The material is still very much inadvisable. Arjuna (talk) 09:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin#Reception

This section seems overly positive and fluffy and seems to violate WP:NPV. Any suggestions on how to make it more neutral? I am not sure the section is even needed. Gtstricky 14:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I would not be too fussed if it were sixed. Ronnotel (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a notable reaction from Ed Koch. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The section is very much needed. Please also restore the time article cover that was there but deleted somehow. If you have some proposals that could be added to the section, bring them up here. Hobartimus (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

66.156.63.234 (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)At the least it should mention that she was the focus of major media attention for the first two weeks.

Apart from little known Ed Koch, Rudy Guiliani who is a much more known figure did infact made a notable reaction but others seemed to object to including individual people's reaction. Hobartimus (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the Time cover, and am leaving a note on User:Fasach Nua's talk page regarding his removal of the image. I think the reaction section is an important one, and if you see an area in which it needs to be defluffed, defluff away. But the public reaction to her candidacy has been notable, and biographical, and should be included as such.   user:j    (aka justen)   15:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The section needs expansion. I will tag as such. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It requires additional viewpoints for NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO this section will be a magnet for every bit of news trivia and commentary imaginable. The reaction section on the McCain campaign page is dreadful. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sofixit. Just because a particular section is prone to problems doesn't mean it should be deleted altogether. The public reaction to her selection is notable and has become biographical. Four years from now, whoever is in the White House, the public reaction to her candidacy will still be relevant. The section absolutely needs to be kept under control, but the first few days have had a clear focus: strong and sometimes unflattering media attention, an apparent bump in the polls for McCain due to her, and concerns over very limited media access.   user:j    (aka justen)   15:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I can not see this section ever being neutral. Lets face it, the Republicans love her, the Dems dislike her. We can find sources all over the place to prove those points but they are not needed in her bio. This section currently discusses the press bashing her, her affect on the polls, and her magazine covers. The last section on the magazines and interviews can be moved up to the 2008 Vice-presidential campaign section. The rest violates WP:NPV and should be removed.

There are distinct differences (positive and negative) between the reaction to her and what the reaction would have been if McCain had picked Romney or Ridge or Lieberman. We can usefully and neutrally point these out: general surprise, enthusiasm from the religious right, qualms in many quarters about her perceived inexperience, and the factor of her being a woman (help appeal to Clinton voters? an insult to those voters to think they'll vote for anyone with a uterus?). We could title it "Initial reaction" so that its focus is limited and it doesn't become a grab-bag for everything that's said about her during the campaign.

Right now the section is heavily POV in Palin's favor, giving such prominent positioning to "Some Republicans felt that Palin was being subjected to unreasonable media coverage...." That wasn't even the most prominent Republican reaction. Certainly our discussion of what was said about her in the media should precede any discussion of what was said about what was said. JamesMLane t c 22:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not fond of the section at all. Deep-six it if you like. I did just delete the sentece that said "Time's Palin cover was cited in an article about media bias". That was offensivelt POV to me. Read Time's "McCain's Bias Claim: Truth or Tactic?" if you wish to see how littel value that reference had. The line contained nothing of value, did manage to put "Time", "Palin, and "Media Bias" together in a short little sentence. Spiff1959 (talk) 05:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Remove it It was deleted before, for the same reasons, and it should be deleted again. The reasons; hopelessly POV (one way or the other or both), piling on of more and more opinions, recentism, WP:NOT#NEWS, attracting POV pushers, crystal ball gazing. The information on "general surprise, enthusiasm from the religious right, qualms in many quarters about her perceived inexperience, and the factor of her being a woman..." can be integrated into other parts of the article. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree that it should be removed. Right now it's a one-sided mostly fluff piece, and I think the idea that her nomination was well received depends entirely upon the political persuasion of the person making the observation. I can't see any way this section could ever be NPOV. JoelleJ (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Please understand that removing content that can be improved is really not acceptable on Misplaced Pages. If it is a fluff piece, fix it. If something isn't neutral, reword it. Instead of focussing on "Republicans feel..." or "Democrats believe...", write based on facts. It is a fact that a recent survey showed a majority of Americans believe the media has been unfairly critical. It is a fact that she has avoided giving an interview for two weeks now. But do not delete an entire section because of wp:npov concerns, fix it.   user:j    (aka justen)   22:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

First I wrote a long response but in short I don't see a valid rationale for the deletion of the section. Hobartimus (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Religion

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

The article is already far too big and there is a whole paragraph on her religious views. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

At this point we have thousands of news articles talking about the "glasses" of Sarah Palin other thousands discuss her "hair". As time passes we will have "abundandt sources" on everything regarding Sarah Palin. I checked the Obama article and even though wikipedia has a huge amount of material on religion and related matters relating to Obama not that much is in the Barack Obama main article, his BLP which summarizes his whole life. Hobartimus (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not overly thrilled with everything that's there - a Catholic paper calls her a "post-denominationalist" and that makes it into an encyclopedia article. I'm really not thrilled about having articles where we tell someone else what they believe. If she describes herself that way or her church describes itself that way, ok, fine, but I'm not a big fan of putting words into someone's mouth. --B (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent point. I can see no reason for editorial commentary in a WP:BLP it almost always pushes a POV. Why don't you take it out of the article?--Paul (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree Gtstricky 16:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

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

The Wright controversy seems different. The media coverage of that was immense, because he was a fiery preacher. In contrast, Palin's pastor for the last several years has been relatively sedate, and 99.999% of Americans could not tell you his name.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

More to the point, even if there were a controversy here, we would hopefully rely on either self-identified beliefs or the mainstream media, rather than on a "rival" denomination, to tell us the story. We wouldn't rely on a newspaper put out by an Islamic religious group to tell us what Obama's religion believes and so I don't think we should rely on a newspaper put out by a Catholic church to tell us what Palin's religion believes. --B (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Obama's remark about lipstick

I'm sure this will be brought up eventually. Thoughts? Hobartimus (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems ephemeral to me. See WP:Recentism. Although I agree it would be amusing to provide Misplaced Pages readers with an illustration. :)Ferrylodge (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama responded to it so I think the issue should be included. The question is where. It seems like a pretty minor point at this time so I don't think it deserves its own section. I also don't think it should go under the reception section in the VP Campaign section. Perhaps a new section should be created like "Criticism of Obama" or something like that.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd personally disagree. Seems like much more of a campaign issue then part of Palins bio. Particularly since if it's going to be represented NPOV you have to add Obama's claims that it was unrelated to Palin and was adressed to McCain's policies.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh God. Lipstickgate. I have to agree with Ferrylodge, which may be a first :) Can we give this a couple of days and pray that some issue of substance actually replaces it in the news cycle? If there an element of the McCain/Palin campaign message develops which aims to paint Obama as sexist, then perhaps this would warrant a brief mention there, but right now it's just today's talking point. Let's not run with it unless it gains more traction and becomes more encyclopedic and less newsy (per WP:Recentism and WP:NOT#NEWS). MastCell  17:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(EC)FYI I basically agree with this. I should have said If it belongs anywhere it belongs in the campaign not the bio. But if we write paragraphs on every barb-counter barb from now to November these articles are going to be uglier then they already are.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Agree (that's twice in 24 hours, Mast). No direct evidence he meant Palin. Seems like a pretty bonehead thing to say but I don't think it rises, yet, to notability for this article. Of course that may change if the story lingers and/or (unlikely) snowballs. Ronnotel (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It does seem more of a campaign issue. And of course, we'd also have to include Palin calling herself a dog with lipstick during the RNC speech as well. Aprock (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2)Move along, nothing to see here. We're trying to add information that is notable in the medium and long terms. This is not wikinews. This will be forgotten in a few days, and has no bearing here. Consider this: if you were publishing a biography on Palin, would this merit a mention? Oren0 (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Lipstick-gate seems to have a lot more to do with the election specifically than with the life of Sarah Palin. Not the kind of thing that seems to fit this particular article. Dragons flight (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama's actual words don't smear Palin, they're being twisted by the Republicans to make it look that way. It's just electioneering. Baseball Bugs 17:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of the Republicans (read: Jane Swift).Ferrylodge (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll let you in on a little secret. Both sides have been doing this and both sides will keep on doing it for two more months. And no, none of the back and forth belongs in an encyclopedia. --B (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? Shazam! Clearly we've come a long way since the clean, good old days, for example when some prominent Democrat said that Thomas Dewey looked like the little man on a wedding cake; or when TR, in 1912, said that Woodrow Wilson had a yellow streak down his back. Baseball Bugs 18:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget Grover Cleveland extramarital affair and paternity allegations. Hey, why is that a redlink? We need a content fork! :) MastCell  19:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No reason to include it. Besides if you did, then to be fair, you'd have to include in both the McCain and Hillary bios where McCain used the exact same quote ("lipstick on a pig") against Hillary. I agree it's ephemeral.GreekParadise (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Recentism, and irrelevance. It's a common metaphor used by McCain, Thompson, and others. Now, if he'd said "lipstick on a moose", we'd have more than one word in common.--Loodog (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The appropriate home for this information is United States presidential election, 2008. That's that the point of making two articles, so that not everything that's said during the campaign gets shoved into a bio. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this statement. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment to this article would be absurd. It will be forgotten ten days from now. This is an encyclopedia, not some source of childish "gotcha" journalism. --JHP (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Not needed It'll be a distant memory 3 days from now except for the extremist. There is more appropriate "sexist" comments we could use besides. And even then, I think that content, if it was to be included, should go under United_States_presidential_election,_2008. Maybe under a subartcile that deals with these issues in regards to both Palin and Hillary. Theosis4u (talk) 01:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You're discussing putting this in but you omitted the entire section (except for fly-by sentences) about her assault on the environment (mentioned in political points of view, which, as I have stated before, is not sufficient given the state she governs, the environment, the natural resources, etc)? Obama's comment had nothing to do with her. I suppose this answers my question about the environmental issue: it really sounds like this is becoming a very Republican friendly article, and not a very fact filled one as a result. Jolly momma (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS. This isn't relevant to her bio at all. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin Attention - Please resolve issue with Mayoralty of Sarah Palin and Governorship of Sarah Palin

I can't find references for these subarticles being approved by consensus and there are threads on this showing consensus isn't given yet. So, why are they still allowed? Theosis4u (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are what still allowed? The references, or the articles themselves? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The references of being a subartilce and the articles. I believe all the other references did go through a consensus process . Theosis4u (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

See , Talk:Sarah_Palin#Mayoralty_of_Sarah_Palin , Talk:Sarah_Palin#Mayoralty_of_Sarah_Palin , Talk:Mayoralty_of_Sarah_Palin

I can't find any references to the Governorship of Sarah Palin page consensus at all.

Theosis4u (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can create any article they want. If you'd like to discuss possible deletion of the Mayoral sub-article go here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mayoralty of Sarah Palin--Paul (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Made this then : Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Governorship of Sarah_Palin

This addresses the issue of the articles themselves, not their subartilce links from the main Palin page without consensus (if we are still trying for that). Theosis4u (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that the guideline on daughter articles makes it clear that the information in the main article should be a summary. That's clearly not the case here: Sarah Palin#Mayor of Wasilla is not a summary of Mayoralty of Sarah Palin is very similar to , and Sarah Palin#Governor of Alaska is not a summary of Governorship of Sarah Palin.

And, at the risk of stating the obvious: have very similar, detailed content in two places is absolutely wrong because (among other things) it requires updating two different articles when information changes, it means that content discussions need to take place on two different talk pages, and (worst of all) readers directed to the (slightly) longer "daughter" articles are not going to be interested in reading through them just to figure out what they have already read (in the main article) and what is additional content.

So: let's decide whether we want separate articles (if so, then shorten information in the main article) or not (if not, then delete the daughter articles): Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Governorship of Sarah_Palin, and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mayoralty of Sarah Palin. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey I agree...it is better to have sub aritcles and keep the main page short..plus there is too much control on the main page..I mean a locked page defeats the purpose of the wiki... Probably why all the sub pages started up. It allows more input from people who like to wiki. After all it does take a tremondous amount of time and research. Look how much the sub page Mayoralty of Sarah Palin has improved over the main page article. It is clearer , easier to read, and easier to access the references. Possibly that is why there is so much opposition to it and the fact it is now open to all editors. --207.232.97.13 (talk) 03:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Fred

For the very reasons you state it shows it to be a bad idea. If that is the motive behind the pages then their content will get out of sync with the data as represented on the other consensus based pages. If this resolves to keep those pages...then the talk activities on this page need to go back and re-sync the contents of them. As to minimize any disjointed impressions to the reader. Just an opinion I'm expressing here. My only intent is to get content between all pages to have a consistent flow to the depth of details.

The following is also true for the mayoral page as well. Topics being equally represented in lengths - though content and sourcing is different.

The main topics presented in Governorship_of_Sarah_Palin are the following

Energy & Environment , is already covered in Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Energy_and_environment , Sarah_Palin

Budget , is already covered in Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Government_Spending , Sarah_Palin

Matanuska Maid Dairy, ISN'T covered in Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Government_Spending but could be.

Bridge to Nowhere, covered in Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#.22Bridge_to_Nowhere.22 , Sarah_Palin, and Gravina_Island_Bridge

Earmarks, covered in Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Earmarks, Sarah_Palin

Public Safety Commissioner dismissal, covered in Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal , Sarah_Palin

Theosis4u (talk) 04:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This main page article is by far too cumbersome . I find wading through this page very tiring...and much prefer the sub pages. They are more reader friendly. They also allow the wiki to function as a wiki where everyone can edit, and particpate and they have been doing fine. New information is being added daily.

On this main page it appears the spin doctors are trying to manipulate the content, hence the need for gatekeepers, and to me shows the reason for a topic heading being opened under the title "Three Palin-related content forks need watching ". It clearly shows to me the need of some editors to restrict the flow of information. An ongoing complaint on this board if you read the comments. --207.232.97.13 (talk) 04:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Fred

Again, one of my points is that the content is becoming disjointed across the pages and usually involves 90% of the content from a page that did go through and still is a consensus process. Much of the diff's are items that were rejected by the consensus process. And if you followed this page since the announcement about Palin - you'll recognize most of these at one time on the pages, fought to be kept on the page, and so forth. Do what thou wilt , though. Theosis4u (talk) 05:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, content is becoming disjointed - I find this statement pretty scary: Topics being equally represented in lengths - though content and sourcing is different. Lots of duplicate work, twice the number of fights. This is not the first time that Misplaced Pages has had to deal with this issue: We have a guideline: Misplaced Pages:Summary style, for how to spin off daughter articles. What we don't need and don't want is this massive duplication - either we need to kill the daughter articles, or we need to shorten the main article by only have summaries - three or four paragraphs at most - related to each daughter article. (And yes, I know it's hard to right a neutral, accurate, comprehensive four paragraph summary, but that's no justification for having both daughter articles and long, long sections that duplicate most of the content in those daughter articles. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This bio article certainly shouldn't repeat all the detail in the daughter articles. As John McCain and Barack Obama are, we should strive to make this a high-quality article, summarizing the major sections, and directing readers to daughter articles about each of the major topics. It is there that details and nuances can be wikified and worked out through consensus. One can tell, just by reading this Talk page, that this article has had too many contentious details. Once this article gets down to a respectable biographical summary, its quality can be enhanced and this Talk page will have a more reasonable volume of consensus-building. If the deletionists are successful in killing the daughters, we'll never get there.--Appraiser (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The First Post and The National Enquirer on Palin

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

I'm not sure what you mean by "established". The National Enquirer is not a reliable source as Misplaced Pages defines the term, and it's certainly not a suitable source for use in a biographical article. Somewhat more reputable sources, like the Post, which are skeptically rehashing Enquirer stories are no more suitable. Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid. MastCell  23:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The Corriere della Sera, the newspaper that sells the most in Italy, covers the news along with other details on Palin's familiar life: . --Sum (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't read Italian, but I can read that this is a reprint of the Enquirer story. As Mast noted, this is not a tabloid. Arzel (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"Established" does not equal reliable and encyclopedic. –Juliancolton 00:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The Enquirer may not be a RS, but if cited in other sources and if notable for that reason, the other sources can be used. For example "Newsweek and other media outlets described The Enquirer's blah blah bah, which was rebutted strongly by blah blah blah and threatened with a lawsuit for libel." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we put possibly libelous material in a BLP??--Paul (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

A story like this would have to pass a pretty high threshold before it could get into this article:

1. It must be reported by multiple, independent reliable sources.
2. It must be germane to the article in some tangible way (a mere allegation of an affair, even if widely reported, would still not be relevant enough to Palin's bio to outweigh the due care we must show to the subject of a BLP)
3. It must impact, or be perceived to impact her career in a lasting way (in this case, I hardly think there would be much interest in repeating these rumors were Palin not the VP candidate)

So far, none of these criteria are even close to being met. Ronnotel (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

@Paul h. Absolutely not, that was not my point. Read again. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi's comment is in congruence with WP:BLP's discussion of when Misplaced Pages should include media discussion of a rumor of a politician having an affair. Some seek to set too high a bar. like forensic examination of the bedsheets, rather than a rumor spreading from the blogosphere to reliable sources as WP:BLP demands. I personally like to see a reporter ask the politician about it and they deny it. A politician having an affair is, in the post-Clinton era, quite germane to an article about the politician. Edison (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say it is less germane since Bill Clinton. He has made it a non-issue. Much different climate now then when say Gary Hart was caught with his pants down, so to speak. Not sure if your analogy is a good one here, as IMO if the situation is analogous to an affair of a politician, it's a non-issue.Die4Dixie (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Pardon my extreme skepticism. Arjuna (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

CNN aired the two Tax Plans MCCain and Obama side by side and showed the differences

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/index.htm

since she is running for McCain should this be added to her article, I would Suggest it for Obamas and Also for MCCains.

--207.232.97.13 (talk) 04:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Fred

No, it has nothing to do with her biography. Grsz 13:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact, it has nothing to do with her, just as Obama's tax plan has nothing to do with Joe Biden. It's McCain's plan; Palin wasn't even selected as the nominee at the point where it was published/publicized. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Earmark return

I know the entire Bridges section is being discussed elsewhere but I want to focus on one statement: "Alaska did not return the $454.4 million in the original earmark to the federal government". The dollar amount is not supported by the cited source which says "$223 million". I am guessing that someone has done some OR and added some numbers here. Also, the cited source says specifically, "...Alaska was still granted an equivalent amount of transportation money to be used at its own discretion." The statement made in the WP article seems to come from a statement made by Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein (Democrat), and Mike Elerding (was Palin's campaign coordinator) and is not a statement made directly by the cited source. The sentence in the WP article is very misleading and needs to more accurately reflect the sources. WTucker (talk) 04:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

so fix it..., please. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fixing the sources now. The $223 refers to just one of the two bridges. The 442-454.4 number represents both bridges. This was all perfectly sourced but then folks messed with the text without checking the sources. :-( GreekParadise (talk) 06:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

All sources fixed (and it's 3:30 am and I'm tired!). Let me know if you still have a problem. I made it easier to follow by putting each source in this section directly after the text that it references.GreekParadise (talk) 07:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"Respectfully" or "respectively"?

"In the general election, she defeated Democratic nominee Tony Knowles, 48% to 41%, respectfully."

The word is "respectively," not "respectfully." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.51.55 (talk) 07:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither word needs to be there. The fact that she won indicates that 48% is her, "respectively" is redundant. Good catch, fixed. Oren0 (talk) 07:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Red links in infobox - ethics supervisors in conservation commission

The infobox includes Palin's position as "ethics supervisor" in the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Predecessor Camille Oechsli Taylor and successor John K. Norman are currently redlinked, so how notable was Palin's position? Relevant enough to be included in her infobox? Notably, Palin's position as ethics supervisor is not further elaborated in the article. --Hapsala (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It isn't relevant enough to be included, in my opinion. She was chair of the commission, and happened to also be designated as the ethics supervisor of the commission. One article I read said that she was frustrated because that position gave her no leverage in dealing with the other two commissioners. I think this is something like being designated the person to review EEO complaints, or the person designated to review whistleblower complaints; it's a very secondary role.

I've removed this from the lead section; as noted in my edit summary, WP:LEAD doesn't support adding very minor facts to lead sections. As far as I know, there has never been an article solely about such a role on the Commission, probably because there are relatively few ethics complaints in any given year. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

What about the conservation commission? Is it notable enough to be included in the infobox, as no more elaboration is made in the article? --Hapsala (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Religion - born again

An editor just removed the statement that Palin is a "devout born-again Christian" with a reason given that the term is pejorative and redundant with converting from Catholicism to Pentecostalism. I don't know whether she is or is not born again - but I'd just like to point out that there is nothing pejorative about being born again, being Pentecostal, or whatever. It's perfectly respectable, and if people have an issue with it, that's their deal. Also, does joining a Pentecostal church mean you have to be born again? The article doesn't talk about conversion, it just says she joined a church. They probably welcome people in all stages. The sources seem to be murky. I guess we ought to simply report her religious leanings without judgment, to the extent she has revealed them and they are important to understanding her life and career. And if the sources are unclear or she prefers to keep that quiet we can say that. Some sources say she is "post-denominational", which presumably means she chooses her churches for personal spiritual reasons rather than loyalty to a particular organization. Wikidemon (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the edit. The word "devout" has some interesting implications editing-wise. Is that sourced, uncontroversial, and relevant? Wikidemon (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I removed it on that basis. I don't mean to pose it negatively. I was not suggesting there is anything wrong with born-again Christians. My point is not that everyone views the term negatively. However, there are certainly some significant number of people who view that term negatively. It is like a litmus test, and one group of people would view her in a more positive light, and another group of people in a more negative light. As such, it is probably not best for the article. Also, as I said, the article already explains her origins as a Catholic, conversion to Pentacolstalism, and then rejection of pentacostalism in favor of non-denominationalism. So it seems her religious history is well covered. I don't think adding the term "born-again" adds to that in any meaningful way. (That is, the point that user:Wikidemon brought up. Is it relevant, uncontroversial and sourced? I don't think it is any of those three. Atom (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I also removed the material about her contacting her pastor for spirtual advice after joining the rep ticket since that is not waht the citation says. Thank you. --Tom 15:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is there no separate section on environmental issues?

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

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

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

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

Relevance of Alaska Not Returning Money on Bridge to Nowhere

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

Support One wikieditor argues that it is "irrelevant" to the Bridge to Nowhere whether, after Palin canceled the bridge, any of the original federal earmark will be returned to the federal government and has removed this sourced sentence twice. I disagree. I think the whole point of the Bridge to Nowhere was that it was criticized as a wasteful earmark by the federal government. Palin takes credit for canceling the bridge. But I think whether or not that canceling saved federal taxpayers any money is relevant to the discussion of whether or not canceling the bridge was a good decision. In fact, the removed sourced specifically criticized Palin for Alaska's refusal to return the money. (http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSN3125537020080901) At any rate, the article simply stated neutrally (and pithily) the facts, that which is Alaska does not intend to return any of the federal funds originally earmarked for the bridge. I think it's highly relevant. Do I have support for putting back in the deleted sentence (with source)?GreekParadise (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it's relevant if it gets a lot of coverage by neutral reliable sources. What to make of it should be up to the reader. It's actually pretty complicated, and an odd campaign issue. Would anyone expect a governor of either party in any state to say "no thank you" to federal funds, once procured? Who ever gives money back voluntarily to the federal government? That she didn't do so probably tells us nothing about her governorship, it's just an incident that may or may not be notable to her life history.Wikidemon (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

On the surface, it seems applicable if cited properly. One has to wonder, given the nature of politics, if there may be more to it than what is on the surface. States often are victims of unfunded mandates by Congress. If they get money from another source (earmarks) and then won't return it, placing the funding into an area the federal government would not fund, is that legitimate? Where will this money actually go? Do we know for certain? If a statement could accurately be made, such as "Alaska will not return any of the original earmark to the federal government, but will use it to fund ____ instead." then it seems appropriate. Atom (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

$25 million is going to the gravel access road and I put that in. The rest is being held for future needs.

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

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

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

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

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

What you included even misrepresents the source, you state as a statement of fact a sentence attributed in the article. Your article said exactly, "The state, however, never gave back any of the money that was originally earmarked for the Gravina Island bridge, said Weinstein and Elerding." the people referred are, "Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein, a Democrat, and Mike Elerding, a Republican who was Palin's campaign coordinator in the southeast Alaska city." So two local Alaska politicans, actual political opponents of Palin from the town for which the bridge was proposed (read, when Palin killed the bridge, they and their town got burned). Hobartimus (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that you, GreekParadise outright misrepresented the source, writing "According to Palin's campaign coordinator Mike Elderling", when from the article it is clear that he WAS campaign coordinator (no longer is) in KETCHIKAN ONLY, this was probably in the 2006 campaign before they became politcal opponents because Palin shut the bridge down which was for their town. Hobartimus (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll add "Ketikan" to the reference to the campaign coordinator.GreekParadise (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

And also unless you have a source that he is currently coordinator put in a 'was' also, and don't refer to the money as "earmark" as Alaska never received an "earmark". They received "developement funds for transportation", if you can't help yourself and absolutely must put it back try "federal money" at least that's accurate, earmark is just wrong in any context. Hobartimus (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll add "former" and "$442 million" in place of "earmark". No problem. But please, no more wholesale deletions without discussion.GreekParadise (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The statement, "Alaska will not return any of the original earmark to the federal government and is spending $25 million on Gravina Island for a bridge access road to an empty beach so that none of the money will have to be returned." is, at best, misleading. It misrepresents what its own sources say by implying that returning it was an option. The first source says, "...but Alaska was still granted an equivalent amount of transportation money to be used at its own discretion." Returning this money is not an option that any state legislature would be expected and certainly not lauded for exercising. They would be soundly criticized by their own citizens if they returned the money which your statement implies was the better choice. This is not an earmark but a grant of an equivalent amount to the state of Alaska.

The second references says "Weinstein noted, the state is continuing to build a road on Gravina Island to an empty beach where the bridge would have gone -- because federal money for the access road, unlike the bridge money, would have otherwise been returned to the federal government." Again, this is not a statement made directly by the source but is a comment by Weinstein. "Empty beach" is an exaggeration intended to imply negativity where there is none. The state would be remiss in its duties and would be criticized by its citizens if it did not use this federal money for that road.

In both cases, these statements are not about Palin and are irrelevant to a biography about her. They are misleading at best. They misrepresent their sources and try to imply negativity where none exists. They should both be removed from this biography about a living person. WTucker (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe arguing whether Alaska's return of the money is a good thing or not is POV. The article simply states Alaska won't return the money. State officials gave the reason on the $25 million (so that no money will not have to be returned) When that was spelled out in two sentences yesterday, the article was said to be too long. (I'm between a rock and a hard place. When I consolidate, people feel it's not fully explained. When I elucidate, people say the article is too long.) As for "empty beach," I originally had the longer version from the link "to the spot where the bridge would have gone", or something like that (quoting article). Asked to consolidate, I used the shorter term empty beach. I'm up for putting back in longer version or even pointing out in refs that "empty beach" was said by the Ketchikan Mayor who's a Democrat (and, I'm sure, disappointed by the bridge decision though I can't include this POV parenthetical). But I can't have it both ways. It will make the article longer.GreekParadise (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the quote from the article that doesn't involve the upset mayor:

Meanwhile, work is under way on a three-mile road on Gravina Island, originally meant to connect the airport and the new bridge. State officials said last year they were going ahead with the $25 million road because the money would otherwise have to be returned to the federal government.

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

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

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

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

If she's misrepresenting herself on this issue, then it's certainly relevant. Baseball Bugs 10:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

32 years as a Pentecostal

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

No need to be uncivil. It may be factual, but that does not mean that it needs to be in the article. So, how is the number of years (versus the currently stated history, that includes the years) necessary to the clarity of that section? Atom (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, on this. John McCain's article also mentions his own conversion to Baptism, so this seems not a big deal to include. rootology (C)(T) 16:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jossi, sorry but I reverted before posting in here. The dates given in the article makes it appear that she was there for closer to 34 years? Can you please post a link to the citation that says she attended that church for 32 years. I read the citations in the article but didn't see that fact, maybe I missed it. Thank you, --Tom 16:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The sources provided have the number of years and I do not see why is being kept deleted. It is factual, and it is undisputed, so what's the deal? Why should the length in years a person worshiped in a church be "uncivil"? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems that people keep deleting or shifting the sources around. I have changed as per Newsweek reporting, page 15 issue Sept 15, 2008: "Palin was raised a devout Christian, attending an Assembly of God church from the age of 4 until the age of 38." Hope that settles this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jossi. --Tom 19:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

She's still in the "assembly of God", otherwise known as the Republican Party, a.k.a "God's Own Party". Baseball Bugs 10:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Also - speaking in tongues - makes her different from other politicians how? Baseball Bugs 10:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Background to Traffic-Part II

The following retrieved from Archive. (I assume archiving an ongoing discussion was inadvertant)

What is happening at the discussion is akin to two mighty rivers converging...one is the River Palin, the other, the river Misplaced Pages. The result is the mud and silt of the current talk page. (I havent read the article in 4 days) True...good soil for the crops of differing ideas, but confusing and difficult to wade thru. A conglomeration of quid pro quo. But, I am VERY MUCH un-concerned about the state of the article during its metemorphasis. It will become whatever we create over the next important weeks. My basic and initial problem was the imprisonment of the article by well-intentioned, but I believe, misguided, administrators. This act of disconnecting the article from the vast array of worthy and good faith editors and holding it in bondage where only the privileged few could sculpt it, goes against everything wiki. Freedom and openness are at the core of where this, Misplaced Pages, all started. But, I'm afraid that in all the hubbub about the candidate, the REAL problem that occurred will be swept under the rug. Does anyone know where an open discussion about what happened should take place...under what heading...here or elsewhere. Should a seperate thread be started? Is a discussion happening that interested parties should know about? The freedom to edit is dislocated. Has someone called a Doctor?--Buster7 (talk) 01:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

and again at--Buster7 (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Currently the article is semi-protected. You and any other registered users can edit it. What's the current problem?--Appraiser (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Buster7, I apologize if my archiving was overagressive. I had archived the thread as inactive and you were the only contributor in the last 24 hours, and your comment was asking where the discussion threads were about the locking of the article - which is why I posted that info to your talk page. Thanks also, for your contributions. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Bowdlerization of Bridge to Nowhere

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

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

Hi GP - not deleting - adding that young procured the earmarks in 2005 to the topic sentence. Hope that's ok. Kaisershatner (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem with me. I rarely object to people who add material. As for me, I always want more information  :-) But I should warn you I suspect others might object, in the interest of brevity. I ain't gonna touch it. I only get upset when people cut "bone." Still, you might want to keep this future likelihood in mind and trim as much fat as possible. Isn't there a shorter way to say "financed through Federal budget earmarks in 2005 by Alaska's Rep. Don Young while he was Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee"? Think about it. But no, no objection from me.GreekParadise (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, OK. One teensy thing. Given your changes, the amount of the earmark ($442 million) does not appear until deep into the article in the talk of Alaska not returning the money. I'd like to put it back up front.GreekParadise (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ooops, Sources Problem That's what happens when you move stuff around. LOL. The Congressional reversal was in 2005, not in 2007. Please correct and pay attention to original sources.GreekParadise (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the careless deletions on "hot" articles, are an issue on wikipedia as they discourage to contribute. It should be included in the policy that when one adds an information that is properly referenced, nobody should delete it without a proper discussion.--Sum (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, policy is, and will continue to be, that it is the responsibility of those who want material included to find support, whether that be sources or consensus of other editors. "When in doubt, out" is a sound editorial rule of thumb, especially for a biography of a living person. GRBerry 21:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no such policy. The only case is for libelous material, which is not the case for the Bridge topic.--Sum (talk) 10:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

High Approval Ratings

This section was removed along with this information:

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

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

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

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

I agree that the numbers are remarkable and should be provided; she may well be the most popular Governor in Alaskan history. However, if those references are to the Hays Poll results, that is original research and may be the reason they were removed. We need reliable secondary sources for this data before it can be included.--Paul (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a source that might be useful: Alask's governor tops the approval rating charts. --Paul (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Here is my proposed entry:

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

As Bobble said when he/she rightly excised the text, 'minor issue so far'. Nothing ties this policy directly to Palin, no indication she was even aware of it. Tone it down please. Ronnotel (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I unconditionally oppose addition, unless a reliable source indicates that she publicly supported the policy and/or opposed the legislation banning it. I also object to the unfounded insinuation that there is any evidence she thinks women bring rape upon themselves. I'm tempted to remove your entire post as a WP:BLP violation. --Elliskev 20:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've had to re-remove this from the article. It had looked like there was some pretty clear agenda-pushing behind it (the term "Rapegate" is not in the original source), but seeing the way the argument is being framed here by this contributor, I now think this whole topic could be removed for BLP violation. » S0CO 20:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's see how the story develops in the next couple of days. Right now it's still breaking news that hasn't been thoroughly investigated yet by the national media. Note that a credible national news source is reporting this--USA Today--and that according to that article I linked to, the Wasilla policy even contributed to national legislation on the subject. Here on this discussion page I didn't mean to insinuate that Palin thinks that women bring rape upon themselves, just that if anyone finds a credible source for that to please post it here on the discussion page. Note that that viewpoint, while very unpopular, is still common today and was at one time very common, so it is possible that she might harbor it. My apologies to those who are bothered by the term "Rapegate", but in our national political discourse, very often scandals take on the "-gate" name tag. At various political discussion forums people are referring to the librarian scandal as "Librariangate" and the state trooper scandal as "Troopergate", hence the term "Rapegate". Why do you have such a huge problem with that term? WhipperSnapper (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Your neologism is troubling because Misplaced Pages should not be in the business of inventing scandals or names for them. If reliable sources call it that, then so be it. Until then, let's stick to the facts. Coemgenus 21:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Blogs and forums are not reliable sources, we don't use them or care what they are saying. GRBerry 21:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella said in an e-mail that the governor "does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test."

Comella would not answer other questions, including when Palin learned of Wasilla's policy or whether she tried to change it.

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

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

The rape kits are mentioned in the sub-article Mayoralty of Sarah Palin, and that is plenty. Not everything in the sub-article needs to be covered here. See WP:Summary style.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I was suggesting it be in "Political positions", not in Mayoralty. But I agree, she ought to be given a chance to say that she didn't know before we go using it as evidence of her attitudes to rape. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Not relevant to the article unless it can be demonstrated that she supported it, in which case it would be especially helpful to know why she supported it. That could qualify as a "political position". Baseball Bugs 09:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Contridiction..?

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

(A couple paragraph's down)

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

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

"Mixed opinions" is not supported by any reference... Hmmm... later in the same sentence with "mixed opinions" it also says that McCain's choice "had energized the Republican base. Results from the first few polls after the Republican convention gave indications that the McCain campaign had overcome its deficit and that Palin may have boosted support among white women." - and that statement is supported by three different sources. I'd suggest that the "mixed opinion" - possiby a result of massive edit warring - be deleted from the text. --213.50.111.114 (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The word I'd use is polarising. Some people really love her, because of her views, the same reason for which some people really hate and fear her. Those that strongly agree with her have to date been underwhelmed by McCain (too moderate) so putting her on the ticket has been a big boost; it activated 'the base'. And if they all stay home, McCain loses. So a big spike for McCain, and that means he no longer looks like a certain loser, and Palin gets credit for that, and that makes people love and hate Palin even more than they did before which is circular. The excitement feeds on itself, at least for a while. The question will be how the center behaves. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion sub-page?

I'm wondering if we should create one (or multiple) discussion sub-pages to organize and handle frequently-raised issues. The archiving could be set to persist a little longer than on this page, say 7 days instead of this page's 24 hours, then off to the main archive.

The reason is several-fold. First, it helps organize things so we don't have the same discussion again and again. Second, it makes consensus clearer. If people agree on something that agreement stays visible for a few days and people can comment on it, instead of getting sent off to the archive so quickly. Third, it helps organization. Including this new topic we have 48 open discussions. Half of them are probably duplicates of each other and only a few are truly new proposals.

Does anyone have an objection if I do this on a trial basis to one of the topics, say religion? We'll keep a pointer/link near the top of the page that says discussions regarding Palin's religion goes here. If it works out we can do the same for troopergate, earmarks, and a few other special topics. If it doesn't work out we can always go back to the old way. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear or Nucular???

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

Tomato or Tomahto? Kelly 03:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The apparently-true story is that they phonetically spelled the word on her teleprompter. Better to get it right than to sound like some kind of ignoranimous - not to name any names, of course. Baseball Bugs 09:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Bristol Palin

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

No, I don't think so - at least not yet. Perhaps she will eventually have the same notability as Mary Cheney or Jenna Bush, but the sources aren't there yet. Kelly 03:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Kelly at this time. Bristol only gets mentioned in the news as the daughter of a political candidate. In the future, she might do things (other than getting pregnant) which would support an article or section of her own. The offspring of world leaders often write books, lead charitabl eor cultural efforts, or at least get intereeting job opportunities which lead to substantial news coverage satisfying WP:BIO. Bristol and the other Palin offspring are just not there yet. Edison (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Yet Palen's actual original quote had been: "ray…that our leaders…are sending out on a task that is from God."

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

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

Second term section

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

Those are opinion pieces, not straight news stories. Kelly 03:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Opinions can be attributed. And the material is notable. Rather than delete, you ought to find ways to incorporate the material and attribute the opinion to those that hold them: NPOV 101. ~~

Jossi, where in this source of yours is there any mention of taxes or expenditures? And your other source is merely an opinion piece that quotes an email from a local Wasilla citizen who says that Palin hates her. (Kilkenny: "she has hated me since back in 1996, when I was one of the 100 or so people who rallied to support the city librarian against Sarah's attempt at censorship.") I have left this material in the sub-article, but I don't see why material that is not reliably sourced belongs in this main article.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The source I added had the content of the email by Kilkenny, but seems to have been removed now. In any case, I do not think that the tax increase and expenditure increase during her second term are disputed. Are they? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems like bland info that ultimately may be confirmed by reliable sources. Or not. Factcheck.org says they're in the process of analyzing Kilkenny's claims. I suggest we just wait until there's a reliable source to cite. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Ferrylodge...in any event, more suited to the spinout article than the main article. Kelly 04:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• According to figures provided by the city of Wasilla, the operating budget for Wasilla went from $6,050,160 in fiscal year 1996 to $9,393,768 in 2002. That’s a 55 percent increase. But adjusted for inflation, it’s a 35 percent increase.
• According to a review of Wasilla’s financial reports, the amount of revenue taken in during 1996 was $6,070,806; and rose to $8,710,166 in 2002. That’s a 43 percent increase. Adjusted for inflation, that comes to a 25 percent increase.
• From Politifact @ St. Petersburg Times. "PolitiFact: Palin "inherited a city with zero debt, but left it with indebtedness of over $22-million."". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved 2008-09-11. {{cite web}}: Text "Numbers right, context missing" ignored (help)

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

That looks like a very good find, Jossi. I would suggest an extended write-up in the sub-article, including counterpoints, and then a brief summary in this article if it turns out to look okay in the sub-article.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Kelly should give it a go... Are you up to the task, Kelly? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Actually, I just checked in here briefly, I've been researching Prem Rawat. Kelly 04:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Care to explain what that comments is suppose to mean? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to get to it in the next couple days, if no one else does.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

How much did the population change during this time? Saying expenditures rose by X% without further analysis can be very misleading in the case of towns, people can move in, move out at will. Hobartimus (talk) 06:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the poltifact "article" and it contains things like "And if voters okayed the bond issues...", which is pretty embarassing for a purpurted "fact checker", writing a speculative statement instead of researching this simple question if there was a vote on it or not. Or "The U.S. Census does not provide yearly population estimates before 2000..." it seems that there is no actual research and fact checking beyond looking up publicly available data on the net. There is no estimate on the net by the Census bureu? Better to leave the matter alone then, there is no way to get any information from anywhere else. Another article I saw did "investigative journalism" from back home with the reporter never setting foot in Alaska in his "research" I strongly suspect this was the case here, fact checking from Florida without ever being to Alaska. I suggest in light of the above that we treat these articles as any other news article without assigning any extra credibility for their self appointed, self proclaimed "fact checker" status. Hobartimus (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggest adding NATO-Russia comments from Gibson interview

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

Radical? You do realize this is the exact same position as advocated by John McCain, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, right? And that Article V of the NATO treaty requires that members come to defense of each other? Radical how? Kelly 03:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a reference to substantiate the claim that Obama and Biden have said they would defend Georgia at the cost of going to war with Russia. Edison (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Georgia and Ukraine aren't in NATO right now, so was she saying they should be admitted? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, Palin never said that either. She said "Perhaps, so" and proceeded to explain the treaty to Gibson, who I guess doesn't understand it. Kelly 04:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Supporting Georgia's admission to NATO (which other politicians do) is relevant and probably important enough to include in Misplaced Pages, but perhaps in the separate political positions article. NATO members have a mutual defense treaty, that's part of the deal. Palin's getting cornered on it and saying something that the media picked up on may be a campaign issue but for her bio article it's just the news of the day, and I doubt it's anything that by itself will rise to notability.Wikidemon (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Cornered? She went to that interview, they didn't ask her while she was getting into a car or something. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Nothing really, but it's probably more suitable for Political positions of Sarah Palin than for her biography, since it's really a pretty unremarkable statement. Kelly 04:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not see anything "unremarkable" about the first statement ever made by Palin related to foreign policy in public televison. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to get consensus in the daughter article (since this is really a political position, and actually identical to that of the McCain campaign) and bring a summary here. Kelly 04:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as it was the defining moment of her foreign policy position, it's got every right to be stated here. Grsz 04:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

How is restating a talking point of the McCain campaign (and incidentally the Obama campaign) a "defining moment"? Kelly 04:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's the only foreign policy statement she's ever made! Grsz 04:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

She said it, and it must be worth including. If she had waxed poetic and stated some positions on Georgia and Ukraine, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Tibet, Cyprus and Burma, we might have to find a secondary source that summarized her philosophy for us. But if this is the only thing she volunteered, we should include it here. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

She did say a lot of other stuff, so I will now opine that there is too much to include here. It may fit in the Political Positions article. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless that is the McCain campaign's only foreign policy postion too. Then I'll change my mind. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"She said it, and it must be worth including." Yes let's include everything she ever said. I propose "Small town mayor is sort of like a communitiy organizer except you have actual responsibilities (huge cheer from the crowd)", but seriously though other statements made by her are 100 times more 'notable' (or rather noted by the media) if you will like the "what's the difference between a hockey-mom and a pitbull" line and others. Hobartimus (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, she said a lot of other foreign policy stuff, I did not watch the interview and so I change my opinion above. As for those quotes above, they weren't written by her, and aren't policies. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Pledge

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

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

editing in good faith in cooperation with my fellow editors,

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

I will voluntary restrict myself to one revert a day.

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

Agree

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

Comments

Can we have Felonious Monk or SlimVirgin for a referee instead? Kelly 04:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That was really low, Kelly and very unhelpful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Low? How so? Kelly 04:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Those who agree should go ahead and take the pledge. There's no need to make it conditional on other people taking the pledge. As for myself, I am wary of pledges. Fear of commitment maybe.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. There are too many new editors, and editors arriving as a result of off-wiki POV-pushing campaigns for a "pledge" to have any real meaning. Kelly 04:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Under God? --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

At least outside the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, I belive... --Hapsala (talk)

A pledge is a personal stand, in front of witnesses...--Buster7 (talk) 06:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

18 archives in 10 days

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

Reference in Time Magazine

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

Heh - actually Rudy Giuliani mentioned Misplaced Pages in an interview about Palin tonight, though I think he was talking about the Bush Doctrine article. Kelly 05:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

elope or Marriage

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

Wow, I may be new to this but, I'm afraid that marriage is marriage. If you want to play semantecs, I would say that 'elope' conjures up imagery of something impulsive and/or "quick and dirty". Where is the evidence that this was the case? Levinite (talk) 05:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

LA Times article, 30 August,2008...referenced..--Buster7 (talk) 07:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

For Palin, using the word "elope" would paint a negative picture - because it would make a hypocrite of her. Let's stick to what we know, no speculation. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Just find a reliable cite. If we're going to say she eloped while pregnant we need a real good cite. But how much do you think people really care if her personal life doesn't always match her ideals? What should matters is what she wants to do for other people's families with the vice-presidency and perhaps the presidency? Can't we focus on the changes to people's lives that she wants to make? That's what matters to voters, that's what we should be focusing on. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of focusing on eloping is part of laying the groundwork for infering that she was already pregnant at the time - which can't be proven, so they have to resort to inference. However, it is important, if provable, because it (along with her daughter's unwed pregnancy) shows how little value her so-called "Christian principles" actually have in her and her family's lives, and people might actually care about that. The story about charging rape victims for rape kits is another highly questionable policy. Instead of "doing for other people's families", she ought to focus on her own problems - the biblical principle of removing the log from your own eye before removing the speck from someone else's eye. It's amazing how politicians who would criticize others' behavior are remarkably tolerant about their own misbehavior. But without evidence demonstrating the value of the fact (and as far as I know, there ain't any), the "eloping" part doesn't belong in the article. Baseball Bugs 08:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There ought to be evidence. I've seen references to a 'town hall wedding' because, apparently, they didn't want to put their parents to the expense of a 'real' wedding. We can't know the motive, but the where and when, that can be checked. And I've seen claims that that wedding was 8 months before the first child - which presumably was not >1 month prem. All those dates could be checked. But it doesn't matter. Maybe she 'didn't wait' and , certainly her daughter didn't wait. But Sarah doesn't back down - knowing what she knows, she still backs the same horse. She's been there, and it hasn't changed her mind about whether it's a good place to be. You can't score points by attacking her for that. Not unless you can show that her beliefs are going to be bad for ordinary people. There isn't going to be a knockout blow. If she's going to be taken down it'll be inch by inch, policy by policy. She's reignited the culture wars with a flamethrower and everything, everthing, is up for grabs. She has the guts to say how little she thinks of some people, and that appeals to a lot of people. McCain's old, and the presidency is a tough job, a killer job. She's damn likely to end up as President, and if she does, you know pretty much what to expect. That's what you ought to focus on. Cheers, Ben Aveling 09:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That "ordinary people" comment betrays serious elitism - and having children out of wedlock is about as "ordinary" as it gets. She's in no position to be copping anything resembling a "holier than thou" attitude. She needs to clean up her own house before daring to criticize anyone else's house. She's a lightweight, and anyone with half a brain can see that. She's a "trophy VP" candidate. Do you think this frenzy would be occurring if it were Condi Rice? Not hardly, and Condi is about 50 times better qualified for the job. The GOP is counting on this celebrity-frenzy to get people voting as stupidly as they did in 2000 and 2004. And if they do, they deserve what they get - Just as they did in 2000 and 2004. The article, though, is a different story. It has to be kept as "fair and balanced" as it can be, an especially daunting task since she's such an unknown quantity even now. Every tabloid rumor is finding its way here, and those have to be choked off unless good sources can be found, which is seldom the case. The GOP spent 6 months doing a background check, and they decided that her failure in bringing her daughter up the right way was something they could live with; so unless she's got some other skeletons that she's hidden very well, this is probably about all there is, and the rest is persistent attempts to infer things that can't be proven. Baseball Bugs 10:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You keep thinking that she's a lightweight, and you'll be left wondering how she won the election. Obama has his vision of what America could be. Palin has her vision of what America should be. The tabloids are there to present the world for the viewer's titillation. We're here to present the world so it can be understood: What's being said, what it means. Who has said the same things before and who has tried the same things, and when, and what happened when they did. We're here to strip away the fluff. Did she answer a question about the 'Bush Doctrine'? Or did she answer a question about 'punching back, first'? Does she support "the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq"? If so, is it because she understands and agrees with the policies, or does she just support the Bush Administration? A bit like the Democrats perhaps, these articles are drowning in fluff. I'm signing off for now. Best of luck, Ben Aveling 13:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Bush is a lightweight, and he won twice. Never underestimate the gullibility of the voting public. Look at how the GOP lackeys are "Rush"ing to her defense, like "gentlemen". They wouldn't need to do that if it were a candidate of substance. This does not bode well. And so-called tabloid stuff is relevant if it can be proven, which is the slippery part. Baseball Bugs 13:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is a very unproductive line of argument and is fraught with all sorts of Misplaced Pages policy problems. Best to focus on her policy positions (and contradictions therein), gaffes, and ethical issues. Arjuna (talk) 09:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Along with the eloping is the inference due to her first child being born 8 months later. As they say, "The first one can come any time, the second one always takes 9 months." But as was proven with her latest one, children can come after only 7 months. So, again, there's no evidence, just inference, and it doesn't belong. It is funny, though, how people ragged Clinton about his supposedly low moral standards, yet the Palin apologists are just fine with her behavior - yet which family produced the out-of-wedlock pregnancy or pregnancies? A great role model, yah. But without evidence, her own marriage and pregnancy have to adhere to strict standards in the article. Baseball Bugs 09:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Facts They had to rassle up two witnesses from the old folks home for the wedding. Their parents weren't present. This February article has the story, and a lot of other interesting stuff. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

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

bush doctrine

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

Agreed. If anything, this is John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, not material for her biography.JoeyCG (talk) 06:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to having something discussing that interview, but this particular attempt had too many issues for me to like it. Regarding her biography, remember that she may be the next president but one. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That's someone's interpretation of an interview, hence it's editorializing. If someone told me that a doctrine meant "the right of 'anticipatory self-defense'," I would have to say I don't understand it either. But it sounds like a fancy way of saying, "I thought he was going to hit me, so I hit him back first." Baseball Bugs 10:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, the woman was obviously completely clueless about the Bush Doctrine. But that is an intangible, subjective assessment (collective consensus to that effect though there may well emerge) and so it would be impossible to put in the article as far as I can tell. But if so, it would go into the campaign article, not here. Arjuna (talk) 10:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to say something about it, I understand that it was her first real interview and I think a lot of people were counting on her making a mess of it. But it sounds more like, not much happened. That's hard to get excited about. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Troopergate Back in the NEWS again read all about it

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

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

The source material above is drawing from other news sources

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

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

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

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

dinosaurs and other unorthodox beliefs

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

Yes, it would be appropriate, if adequately sourced material can be found. Speculative articles and blogs won't do; it has to be pretty well-documented. Speaking personally, it would be very interesting if you are able to locate that material (my guess is that there are lots of people now in Alaska looking for such material), and I would support its inclusion. Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 10:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• NO, that was from a humorous blog posting that went viral because it seemed plausible to some people. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There are many fundamentalist Christians that do believe all of that stuff. But unless there's a reliable quote of her saying that, it's not relevant. Baseball Bugs 10:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Reception section creep

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

Eloped vs married

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

I agree that "married" is a more WP:NPOV term. From what I recall, the paragraph used to go into more detail about the reasons for the elopement (the family couldn't afford a big wedding) - I think this was someone's attempt at a "human interest" angle. That's been appropriately pared down, but "eloped" remains. It should simply say "married". Kelly 12:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I could accept "married" or even other descriptions "Her husband of 20 years, Todd is a ..." "Her marriage with Todd Palin was ..." etc. Hobartimus (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to discussion above, elope or marriage. As you know, since you were the editor that removed a previously verified edit (from eloped with to married), in good faith I contacted YOU hours before I made any edit to this section. My reasons for changing are as I state. I have no subversive intentions. "married" paints a less than complete picture in the readers mind about what happened. I have no intention of adding any mention of pregnancy. I believe the cited article will inform the reader that it was an economic decision (to elope). Feel free to add more congenial reasons, if you like.

This broad jump to "basic human dignity" is a stretch. We edit what we find. It so happens that 42 years ago, my first wife and I eloped. If someone was writing my bio, I would certainly want that fact included. Its Romantic.--Buster7 (talk) 12:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I somehow gave the sense that your edits were not made in good faith - that was not my intent. I accept that some may be happy with describing their own marriage as an elopement. However, it would be incorrect to assume that everyone would prefer that term over the more general, and less-value laden, married. You refer to painting a picture in the reader's mind. On the contrary, WP must strive to avoid painting anything but instead choose the most neutral language possible. It's the term elope that paints a picture. Ronnotel (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The term/word "elope" is the best word possible to describe what happened. The term/word "marriage" is NOT specific enough to describe the facts. --Buster7 (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the "facts" that are imparted by the term elope, i.e. that the ceremony was private, civil, and not attended by guests, etc., are simply not relevant to her bio. In fact, because these "facts" have a largely negative connotation, they have no place in the article. Ronnotel (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"The term/word "marriage" is NOT specific enough" you claim that there is no legal "marriage" between Todd and Sarah Palin? I could understand questioning phrases "they married on x day y year" but to deny that there is an actual marriage existing between them is weird. Hobartimus (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Elope" doesn't mean they were Not Married. They certainly WERE married. Don't put words in my mouth or put your POV onto my simple edit--Buster7 (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"They certainly WERE married." So what's the problem with writing this in the article? You yourself say that "They certainly WERE married." Hobartimus (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with saying "eloped". It's factually correct (I assume that's not in dispute). Maybe that fact can be interpreted as having negative connotations, though I don't think everyone reads it that way, but this is her biography. Interesting and well-documented facts about her life should be included even if some are marginably negative. Our goal shouldn't be to make the history look better (or more "neutral") than it actually was any more than our goal should be to make it look worse than it was. An elopement is the kind of fact that I would expect a public figure's biography to mention. Dragons flight (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I believe most serious biographies would prefer to avoid the value-laden and tabloid-esque term 'elope'. How about "married Todd Palin in a private civil ceremony". Ronnotel (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm - the problem is that "eloped" carries all kinds of connotations, both positive (some people think it's romantic) or negative (assumptions that families disapproved of the match, or that they "had to get married"). The word "elope" by itself is either too much information or not enough. I could see using it if it explained that the reasons for the elopement were economic in this case. Kelly 12:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to elaborating on it. This is her biography, not just the political history of Sarah Palin. Right now, this article has substantially less discussion of her personal history and development than any of the other candidates. Dragons flight (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If she had eloped and her first child were born a year later, no one would care. It's the inference that she "had to get married" which is why editors are pushing for it. Baseball Bugs 13:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd expect the elopement to be mentioned even if she never had kids. I know that some people are pushing it to foster to pregnancy meme. For my part, I've actually removed references to that first pregnancy more than once. I simply consider the elopement as the kind of biographical background that is natural to include in a biography. Dragons flight (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well Track was born in April 20th 1989, and they were married in August 29th of 1989. That means he was conceived in July of 1989. I suppose they chose to get married, and I don't see the relevance of any connection between getting married and having a child. This isn't the 1950's. No one cares about whether someone is married before they have a child or not anymore. Regardless, they chose to elope, so we should just be honest about it. Atom (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have never considered eloped to have any negative connotations. IN any event, they did elope to get married. It applies. If there were, for some people, negative connotations, then those would seem to be applicable if they did elope. This is Misplaced Pages, not a marketing document or a job resume. Also, if eloped were somewhat negative for some people, well, we have NPOV that allows expression of differeng views. How could we have a neutral article if every fact that could remotely be considered to be negative in any way is prohibited in the article, (even if true)? If she uses the term eloped herself, well then she must be okay with other people describing it that way. Atom (talk) 13:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If she herself says she eloped, then it's not a problem. Where's the citation? Baseball Bugs 13:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Let me look. Atom (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The sentence has two sources - one is the Johnson book, which I know one of the editors of the article now has in hand. The other is here, which says in relevant part

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

GRBerry 13:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Describing the facts isn't spin. "Eloped" is more descriptive on a major life event and we aim to present relevant biographical details. It sounds like a classic elopement. It has all the elements. You know, getting married without telling the parents in advance so as to spare the fuss of a formal wedding. Calling it a "private ceremony" sounds like 1950s euphemism - that is definitely spin. We all know why this is an issue, something having to do with the apparent disconnect between conservative religious values and her family's history vis-a-vis sex and pregnancy outside of marriage. But that's a judgment people are making, not one the article supports. We can just present important biographical facts - we cannot control what people make of them. It looks like most of the major sources say that they eloped. To avoid the negative implications we can follow the lead of the Telegraph and many others which explain why they eloped: "the couple eloped to save the cost of a wedding."Wikidemon (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If she eloped, and she apparently says in numerous places when she was running for governor that she eloped to save money, then saying she eloped, because she did elope, should not be an issue. Elopement is not negative, it is merely factual. If someone wants to attach negative connotations to elopement, then that is their prerogative. Also, the article must be NPOV. Avoiding saying something that someone may think is negative (even though factual) is hardly NPOV, but an attempt to spin the article to be only positive, rather than factual.

The pregnancy outside of marriage thing is entirely different. From what I can tell she is not on the record for discussing this, and so it should not be in the article. It is not notable anyway. This isn't the 1950's, 30% of parents in the U.S. have children without being married. Marriage is not a requirement for having children. Why would her being pregnant before getting married even be an issue? Atom (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Good Christians" aren't supposed to conceive children out of wedlock, especially if they're putting themselves in position to tell other women how to behave. However, there is no concrete evidence that she herself was pregnant when married. She herself has apparently used "eloped" freely, so there's no reason for the article not to. Baseball Bugs 14:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You've hit on the problem with using the word eloped. It is meant to suggest, connote, and imply -- falsely -- that Governor Palin conceived a child out of wedlock. SnapCount (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Leonard Doyle. "Palin 'hid her pregnancy from aides'". New Zealand Herald. Retrieved 2008-09-09.
2. ^ Jodi Kantor. "Fusing Politics and Motherhood in a New Way". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-09-09.
3. http://www.knikbridgefacts.org/invrpt07.pdf, Page 2
4. "'Bridge to nowhere' abandoned". CNN. 2007-09-22. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
5. Cite error: The named reference Tumble was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
6. http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/politics2944951
7. Dilanian, Ken (2008-08-31). "Palin backed 'bridge to nowhere' in 2006". Gannett News Service. Retrieved 2008-09-08.
8. ^ Tom Kizzia (2008-08-31). "Palin touts stance on 'Bridge to Nowhere,' doesn't note flip-flop". Anchorage Daily News. Retrieved 2008-09-08.
9. "Palin's maverick trail goes from city hall to gov's mansion". CNN. 2008-09-02. Retrieved 2008-09-02.
10. State of Alaska (2007-09-21) Governor's office press release.
11. Rosen, Yereth (2008-09-01). "Palin "bridge to nowhere" line angers many Alaskans". Reuters. Reuters. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
12. http://www.observer.com/2008/politics/fairy-tale-palin-reformer
13. "Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Alaska Governor Sarah Palin". 2008 Republican National Convention. 2008-09-03. Retrieved 2008-09-08.
14. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/09/palin_defends_bridge_to_nowher.html
15. Romano, Andrew (2008-09-08). "The Politics of the 'Bridge to Nowhere'". Stumper. Newsweek. Retrieved 2008=09-08. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
16. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122090791901411709.html?mod=loomia&loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r4:c0.0766691
17. Fact Check: Palin and the Bridge to Nowhere. Published by the Associated Press, 8 September 2008; accessed 10 September 2008.
18. Account of a Bridge’s Death Slightly Exaggerated, by David D. Kirkpatrick and Larry Rohter. Published in the New York Times on 31 August 2008; accessed 10 September 2008.
19. "An Apostle of Alaska". Newsweek. 2008-09-06. Retrieved 2008-09-08.
20. As Campaign Heats Up, Untruths Can Become Facts Before They're Undone, by Jonathan Weisman. Published in The Washington Post on 10 September 2008; accessed 10 September 2008.
21. ^ Cite error: The named reference wall was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
22. Cite error: The named reference Sean was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
23. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/01/AR2008090102305.html
24. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/09/bristol_palin_is_pregnant.html
25. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/01/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4405099.shtml
26. http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837862,00.html
27. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7592636.stm
28. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/palin-confirms-daughters-pregnancy-915378.html

• 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