Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:12, 3 October 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archives

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

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

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

"She was always good looking but never vain...."

....are we serious here? Is she running for VP of the United States or trying to become VP of a high school? And not that it matters in the real world, but when, ok look heres the truth Palin is a National Dumbo. She believes in Creationism. I challenge anybody to try and prove creationism is real. It is B.S. We could not have livedpeacefully with the dinousars they would crush us eat us and hate us beyond belief. Evolution is real and Z Palinator is a feak. By the way if all that Palin could think of for being connected with Russian Parlament is seeing Russia from her house I think there is something wrong with her mind you enter a pageant you are indeed vain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.27.11 (talk) 04:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Please confine comments to discussion of the article. This is not a blog. Edison (talk) 05:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

abstinence only education?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rape Kit Controversy?

Mary Pemberton of the Associated Press reports in a story headlined "Palin's town billed rape victims to get evidence"

(cut-and-paste of article redacted)

According to Alaska officials, Palin did not inherit the policy and the previous police chief allocated funds for rape kits in his budget.

Her new chief, Charley Fannon reduced and then eliminated the fund in 1999, putting the burden on the victims. It was this action that inspired the state legislature to step in and require municipalities to pay for the kits. The fund reduction, reflecting the change in policy, is detailed in the 1999 budget which was signed by Palon.

So, yes, it was her policy, implemented by her staff in 1999 with her knowledge. The documents are available on line from the wasilla mayors office.

Okay. What do you want us to do about it? Include it? This was talked about before here, here, and here. Overall people seemed to think it was adequately covered in another article and was not significant/relevant enough about her to be worth describing here.Wikidemon (talk) 08:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Some people thought that. Some people thought the opposite. Some people thought that more information would probably emerge that would make the dispute easier to resolve. My personal opinion is that the information now available merits inclusion, notably because Palin's spokesperson expressly declined to answer some key questions from USA Today. The suppression of this information is another instance of pro-Palin bias, but I'm willing to wait a bit longer and see if the MSM do some actual digging and come up with answers to the questions that editors raised in the talk-page threads you cite. JamesMLane t c 09:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

According to Alaska officials, Palin did not inherit the policy and the previous police chief allocated funds for rape kits in his budget.

Waitagoddamminnit. Where are you getting this from? It's not in the article that you linked as a reference. I call shenanigans. -- Zsero (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

And I assume good faith.--Buster7 (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The rape kit controversy should be included in the article. It is significant enough that it is the subject of an article in the NY Times today - - --Zeamays (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not an article. It's an opinion piece.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, I agree: The NY Times article is an opinion piece, but I didn't propose the article as a reference, rather to show that the issue is significant enough to be discussed in such a prominent forum. Therefore, your point is irrelevant. --Zeamays (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The NYT parroting the latest desperate Democratic talking points doesn't make them significant. -- Zsero (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but it does. Coverage in the major media is part of what goes into making a subject important. Or is it your view that a subject is important only if it comports with the personal political opinions of Misplaced Pages editors? We have a whole article about the lies that were told about John Kerry's military service. Those lies were mere Republican talking points but they got enough coverage to make them important. JamesMLane t c 22:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What would make it significant would be if there was move evidence that she knew it was happening. If there is, I haven't seen it. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If, as mayor of a town of 7000, Palin did not know what her staff was up to, that is arguably more disturbing than if she was just trying to save some money in an insensitive way.--agr (talk)

The coverage I listened to said the Chief of Police was her appointee, and mocked the idea that he would take such a controversial stand without telling his mentor. Geo Swan (talk) 10:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Slate debunks this smear, and Palin herself specifically denies it in an interview with her home town newspaper. It also turns out that Wasilla and its police chief were never mentioned in the state testimony about the bill outlawing the practice; it was passed because of hospitals that were employing the practice.--Paul (talk) 04:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Attorney General

In this edit, Grsz11 edited the phrasing, "the validity of which were disputed by Alaska's Attorney General, who was appointed by Palin", to remove "who was appoined by Palin" with an edit summary of "yes, thats usually what a governor does: appoint people". I undid the edit, with an edit summary of "Not all attorneys general are appointed - for example Attorney General of Pennsylvania." Paul.h then reverted my edit with a summary of "entirely non-notable all executive branch officials are appointed by the executive".

My rationale for including the edit is that is not self-evident to a reader not familiar with Alaska politics that the Attorney General is a governor-appointed position. In Pennsylvania, for example, the attorney general is an elected position, and has been since 1980. The current Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Tom Corbett, is not even from the same party as Pennsylvania's governor. Further, the Pennsylvania Attorney General is elected to 4-year terms in the same years as presidential elections (2008, 2012, 2016, ...), while gubernatorial elections take place on the "mid-term" cycle (2010, 2014, 2018). It is therefore common in Pennsylvania for a governor to serve at the same time as an AG elected during a previous administration.

Until seeing Grsz11's edit, the idea that state Attorneys General would be appointed rather then elected honestly never occurred to me. For this reason, I believe the "appointed by Palin" language should be included. In the interest of WP:BRD I therefore invite discussion of this proposed edit. --Clubjuggle /C 05:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

When you pointed that out to be I went to State Attorney General and discovered only 6 of the 50 are appointed by the governor, so yes, it's important to clarify that distinction to readers. Grsz 06:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This is poisoning the well. Should we also include that the subpoenas are a nakedly partisan move by state Democrats to undermine Palin?: "Palin attorney Thomas Van Flein told reporters after the vote that the Democratic lawmaker managing the investigation, state Sen. Hollis French, "has partisan motives for doing this." And Palin's lieutenant governor, Sean Parnell, repeated claims that the investigation was "a political circus."" Or maybe we should try to stick to the facts on both sides. Subpoenas issued, validity disputed. Ok? Kaisershatner (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

To cite the typical right-wing mantra, "if they're innocent, they've got nothing to worry about." Baseball Bugs 19:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Kaisershatner, you're oversimplifying. "Validity disputed" by whom? A dispute by someone independently chosen by the people as the State's top legal officer is significantly different from a dispute by someone who serves at Palin's pleasure. Consider the comment by the State Senator overseeing the Troopergate investigation, that the outcome could be politically damaging to Palin. The quotation itself has now been relegated to a footnote, but even there, the legislator involved is specifically identified as a Democrat. Presumably the reason is to show that his statement might reflect a bias. The same rationale applies here, only more strongly, where the AG isn't merely of Palin's party, but is her personal appointee. JamesMLane t c 17:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see why one would object to the insinuation that the AG is politically allied with Palin and, thus, could not be objective. I'm sure the AG would disagree, but if it is included, it would be equally fair to include French's comment that this would be an "October Surprise" to derail Palin. I feel strongly neither way, but we need to balance things to make it clear there may be partisan interests on both sides. Fcreid (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I know you know it's a pretty serious character assassination to level against an AG that he/she would not represent the truth in an investigation. Now I'm sure you're going to respond that you're not "charging" him/her with anything, but if you weren't then you wouldn't be trying to include that fact. Fcreid (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

My starting point is always service to our readers. The Alaska AG may be a paragon of objectivity, but many of our readers will believe that his statements about a political matter, like those of most human beings, will certainly or at least probably be influenced by which side he's on. Therefore, many of our readers will find it relevant to know that Colberg is a Palin appointee, just as they will find it relevant to know that French is a Democrat. At present, both those pieces of information are in the article. Did you object to the description of French as a Democrat? JamesMLane t c 22:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

My expectation is that anyone involved in a legal investigation acts within the bounds of the law. In that regard, I consider the political party with which they're associated as insignificant and not worthy of inclusion. However, if one were to have evidence that one party or the other were acting in a partisan manner, but did not recuse themselves from the investigation, that would certainly be notable. Fcreid (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There are many readers (myself among them) who believe that "the bounds of the law" are often vaguely defined and subject to interpretation. Note the number of U.S. Supreme Court decisions that are 5-4 or 6-3 -- people eminently well qualified come to different conclusions. Many of us further believe that, where there's an issue on which reasonable people can differ, the politics of the situation will have some effect on the judgments of the fallible human beings involved. If your personal beliefs are to the contrary, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. All I'm saying is that many (perhaps even most) of our readers would think it relevant to know that Colberg is a Palin appointee. We should provide them with the information they want, even if you don't want (and even if you think they shouldn't want it). JamesMLane t c 18:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't recall any of the Supreme Court justices being quoted as "Let's make this an October surprise!" :) Fcreid (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The vast majority of Attorneys General are elected, so the fact that Palin appointed the Attorney General who is making arguments beneficial to her should be included in the article. It would be POV to censor this fact. Note that I edited the article to change it from "Palin's Attorney General" to merely noting the the AG was appointed by her. Edison (talk) 05:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Merely an attempt to ascertain notability and relevance, and certainly not censorship. It would warrant inclusion if the ratio is as disproportionate as you indicated, for no reason more than its deviation from the norm. One of my firm beliefs is we give everyone the benefit of the doubt in having integrity, and to not insinuate a lower expectation by our own words. Fcreid (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

SemiProtection

Do you think y'all can handle protection being downgraded? I (or another admin) can throw it right back up if need be, but if people think they can handle in influx of newbies and the occasional vandal, I think we should downgrade protection.--Tznkai (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The Biden, Obama, and McCain articles are all semi-protected. Why on earth would we downgrade the protection here, an article that is much more controversial and subject to disruptive edits????--Paul (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think unprotection would be a bad idea. "Occasional" vandal? --barneca (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As much as I think wikipedia should really stay true to its "anyone can edit" essence, there's just too much contention about Palin. This article has been mulled over so much that seemingly every sentence represents the consensus of some involved talk page discussion.--Loodog (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

So "Thanks but no thanks"? :-) -- Zsero (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Bad idea, Tznkai. All other candidate's articles are semi'd and for good reason. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep it semi-protected until after the election, maybe. Baseball Bugs 19:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think the WorldNetDaily dittoheads on here are going to unprotect Caribou Barbie you are naive. The woman speaks in tongues, is a beauty pageant model, and ran a town smaller than my left nut --- so yeah give her the nuke codes, what a great idea. You can DEPENDS on McCain. 72.91.113.17 (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

And here we have exactly why the protection needs to remain.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Cube lurker. Give 'em an inch and they'll take 20 miles.Zaereth (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Zaereth and Cube lurker. There have been a huge number of non-consensus changes over the past weeks, and making it "open season" for POV editors is insane. Collect (talk) 02:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm about to give up. My preconceived notion with WP was that articles of topical or political content fail miserably under the community model, but I thought to be fair I actually had to participate before damning it. It looks like I was right. Worse, I'm starting to think that some here may actually be getting *paid* to taint this article. I guess political "reform" is a relative thing. Fcreid (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I love how the presence of editors with a differing point of view and an equal level of persistence somehow becomes evidence of a vast conspiracy in these discussions. Contributors cannot be expected to assume good faith in their fellow editors when they are accused of being paid shills simply for having the audacity to disagree. »S0CO 16:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

..I agree, Fcreid. And the editors that are being paid by the Republican Party should proudly state that their sole purpose for being here is to protect the Sarah Palin article from those "braying donkeys (Democrats) at the gate". Back in late August and early September, under the guise of repeated vandalism, a protective shield was implemented to prevent any non-favorable content. Editors with too much power prevented a natural editing process from taking place. Nothing has changed. If there is any "tainting" taking place it is predominately from the pro-Palin forces that evade fact and promote censorship. If anything, the editors that you berate have brought balance and stability to what would have been an advertising campaign.--Buster7 (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Accusations that editors are being paid "being paid by the Republican Party" are reprehensible. That sort of charge is about the most heinous you can make. It does appear, moreover, that your position is highly POV against Palin, which reduces the need to grant you "good faith." Sorry that my opinion of you has hereby fallen. Collect (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Fcreid threw down the gaunlet of *paid* editors. Obviously, he meant Obama supporters since his POV has become well-known. I merely pointed out that his sword cut both ways. Those of us that have been at this since early September pretty much know where the gaggle of editors "line up". I am not anti-Palin. I am anti-hiding Palin. I am anti-pretending this article is something other than what it is. Rather than reprehensible, it's common sense that both political parties are extremely concerned and protective of what is written here and in the article. I can assure you that members of the "Campaign's to Elect" all four candidates have been envolved in the editing process from the very start. It would be reprehensible if they were NOT!!!--Buster7 (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Fcreid did not make a specific accusation. You did. And your POV does not need any exposure. And your accusation was that current editors ARE being paid. Absent any sign of understanding, I think thiis conversation is pretty much over. Collect (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My comment about paid attacks was out-of-bounds, and I regretted making it almost immediately. I do assume good faith. As Collect correctly surmised, it was not intended at a specific person, but rather at the non-stop flow of personalities here who had obviously spent oodles of valuable time researching sources to create (mainly negative) content in this article (and, in many cases, before such stirring existed in the mainstream). When I see smart people wasting that much time on here, I get concerned. The economy's not that bad yet! Now, someone will surely note I spend a lot of time on here. Maybe I'm just not a smart person! You'll also note that I rarely (never) come up with an original reference. I'm also a pretty fast typist. :) Fcreid (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but with that in mind do you have any thoughts about the subject of the NYT article about this article, found at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/technology/01link.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin ? It details the way this article, in the 24 hours BEFORE Palin's candidacy was announced, was plastered with bubbly, glowing commentary of Palin sourced from her published-just-in-time-for-the-election biography? This editor has since admitted working for the Palin campaign and has a massive list of rationale on his talk page as to why it was ok to do this. This includes blatantly false claims like "Every single one of my edits complied with Misplaced Pages policies regarding reliability, verifiability, and neutral point of view." Does this concern you?

Looking through the edit history, I can also see that Ferrylodge had a burst of activity nearly coincident with YoungTrigg's, that day/night before the announcement. This included polishing the blatant POV pushing / borderline crystal-balling original research YoungTrigg was posting. It suggests the possibility that Ferry, despite having an established Wiki account and a history of working on that article, may also have been a campaign operative preparing for the big announcement. That certainly concerns me.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyone who has contributed to this talk page "may also have been a campaign operative". If you have particular edits of mine that you think violate Misplaced Pages guidelines, then please provide diffs. Otherwise, please stop making frivolous accusations. I was not and am not anyone's operative, and I have not been and am not now in communication with any presidential campaign. Regarding Palin, the closest I came to contacting her campaign was to email her office to request permission to use her official photo (never heard back). Regarding McCain, the closest I came to contacting his campaign was attending a fundraiser about four months ago in Connecticut, during which I made a contribution and watched him speak. That's it, and I've been up-front about this for months. I'm interested in politics, I had no idea Palin would be selected any more than I thought Jindal would be selected, and I edited his article before the selection too.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You and I wouldn't even be having this discussion if this weren't a campaign article. Palin was foisted upon the world as a little known public figure, and the world (and WP) scrambled to find facts. However, she was not unknown to Alaskans, so let's assume they aren't morons and have researched her qualifications and history for her role as governor. She was also not unknown to those who follow politics closely, and I understand some blogger may have played a role in spreading her notoriety for months. Finally, let's assume there are some genuinely good things to say about Palin (biographical in nature--personal, professional, etc.) If there weren't, she wouldn't be governor of Alaska and now being considered for VP. In my estimation, both the good and the bad were ferreted out very quickly by interested parties with opposing objectives in this article.

That said, here we are a month later, and we're *still* seeing people arrive with outlandish claims that she called dinosaurs "Jesus ponies", sought counsel from witch doctors and who knows what else! That should be a clue that we probably already know what's important to know about Palin, and that we should be particularly circumspect of new topics (positive or negative) being introduced that are not based on current events. We should particularly scrunitize interpretive "reliable sources", i.e. any source that takes a well-known fact, such as her religious beliefs, and derives convoluted conclusions. Finally, I'm sure you already understand human nature, but it's always much easier to praise than to criticize. Those who generally sit on the sidelines, myself included, only trigger on the bizarre claims that are clearly inappropriate or interpretive. After all is said and done, she is a fellow person and deserves that. Fcreid (talk) 10:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I note the specific claim or implication by Factchecker that Ferrylodge was either paid or a sockpuppet, and that he is connected to YoungTrigg. I fail to see how that is in any way shape manner or form proper usage of this Talk page. It also violated WPLAGF, and a host of other policies. Such concerns, if FactChecker believes them, should be aired as an adminstrative complaint, and not only do not belong here, they poison this page. Collect (talk) 11:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is certainly a stretch. By Ferrylodge's own admission to the world, he is a "right-minded Republican" (hope I got that right), so it's no surprise that he has an interest in this page. He also obviously follows politics closely and is not a "Sunday Partisan" like others, so it's no surprise he knew of Palin well in advance of her nomination. However, to imply he was "appointed" for a role of stewardship here is ludicrous, particularly given that he actually moderated many of the early undue claims painting Palin as a saint (even when there was a bigger groundswell to support it). From what I've seen, his edits have the net effect of bringing the pendulum back towards NPOV. Fcreid (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Calling other editors reprehensible, their edits heinous and implying they do not edit in good faith poisons this page. Ferrylodge was "spring-cleaning" the Sarah Palin article 5 (FIVE) weeks before she was asked to join the ticket. A truly remarkable co-incidence!!! To pretend that operatives don't exist and to take editors to task for stating the obvious is improper behavior.--Buster7 (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it wasn't your intent, Buster, but these selective facts lead one to an incorrect conclusion. Ferrylodge has been a constant participant on pages of notable Republicans (Reagan, McCain and others), and he has continuously participated in articles on the full range of potential VP candidates. He has edit histories on Romney, Jindal, Hutchinson and even Palin that date back further than five weeks. More importantly, he is an expert in the biographical background of these individuals, which is exactly the kind of individual we should be encouraging to contribute. Finally, and I contend his edit histories on the articles themselves support this, his edits have been very effective in "righting" the language to avoid or undo wildly POV attacks and bring them more to NPOV. Fcreid (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if anyone actually is getting paid to waste time on here, drop me an email offline. (Doesn't matter which side... capitalism trumps all!) Fcreid (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Buster, kindly do not ascribe words to me which were first used by you, and have never been used by ne to describe ANY edits. I did state that libelling other editors does poison the Talk page, perverts the proper use of the Talk page and is errant and wrong. I would also state and aver that libeling editors is not proper behavior. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect,I believe you made the following comment, about me.....

Accusations that editors are being paid "being paid by the Republican Party" are reprehensible. That sort of charge is about the most heinous you can make. It does appear, moreover, that your position is highly POV against Palin, which reduces the need to grant you "good faith." Sorry that my opinion of you has hereby fallen. Collect (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

And now I am "craven". Is that not 'poisoning the page"???

Also, I have absolutely no problem with Ferrylodge (operative or not). (And, if you would read what I said it is in no way liable or even derogatory). He is fair minded and makes every attempt to be civil. My mention of his early appearance was only to clarity my belief that BOTH political parties are here safeguarding their respective positions. I agree with Fcreid regarding Ferrylodge and appreciate Fcr's attempt to be a peacemaker. As far as I am concerned, this matter is over. I will say no more about it!--Buster7 (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned the issue of good faith only the highlight that editors who appear sympathetic to Palin have repeatedly questioned the good faith of editors who appear unsympathetic to Palin. This is merely to remind everyone of the context in which these claims are being made. Speck in neighbor's eye, boulder in own, and all that.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you most kindly. Read your own posts. Collect (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I note that you still consider Ferrylodge an "operative." Such charrges have no place on Talk pages. I made no claims that people were paid here. I think you ought to understand that accusing people of being paid is improper. Thank you most kindly! Collect (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

All, it was I who introduced that snide comment about being paid, and I deeply regret it. It's not nearly as funny as I thought while I was typing it. Beat me up if you must. :-

TY User:Freid...for your "ooopps". You penance is to compile a composite directory for the archives to these talk pages. See you in 2009. (LOL)--Buster7 (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Good thing storage is cheap nowadays! :) Fcreid (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we're back to a topic that everyone agrees upon... The Bridges to Nowheres in Particular.  :) Fcreid (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Content of Palin's Convention Speech

The only thing you need to say about her speach is that she did NOT write it! It was written by the McCain camp before he even got around her (his third pick for the job)--203.192.91.4 (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

From http://dailysource.org/special/palin/175#in_her_convention_speech%2C_palin_quoted_a_racist_author_who_advocated_killing_rfk

In her convention speech, Palin quoted Westbrook Pegler:

“We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty and sincerity and dignity.”

The quote was also used in a book by Pat Buchanan, “Right From the Beginning.”

In 1965, when Senator Robert F. Kennedy considered running for president, Pegler said he hoped that “some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter his spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow flies.”

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., RFKs son, expressed outrage about Palin’s quoting of Pegler, calling Pegler a “Fascist writer” and an “avowed racist.”

Pegler was kicked out of the infamous John Birch Society for being too anti-semitic. He worked near the end of his career for a group of neo-Nazis and professional racists from the White Citizens Council and the Rev. Billy James Hargis’ Christian Crusade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.202.139.195 (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

And this makes the quote less valid? Talk about ad hominem! -- Zsero (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's condemnation through the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon! Fcreid (talk) 01:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

: : At the single biggest moment in her life, Palin invoked this quote from a person known to have publicly espoused rascist ideology. Certainly she knew the prominence of the political moment would invite analysis into the views of those she elected to quote. This reveals Palin both identifies with Pelger's ideology and wants America to know this. Adnd so America should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.42.233 (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No, this is not ad hominem at all - nor is it anything like 6 degrees - she is using a quote from a reprehensible source. If Obama had quoted Karl Marx without attribution, would you say it was irrelevant? Somehow I doubt that. Her speechwriters knew who they were quoting even if she did not - and quoting someone like Westbrook Pegler can be seen to be code, and should be exposed. Maybe she'll want to disavow herself of her own speech. Tvoz/talk 22:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly ad hominem — you can't find anything wrong with the quote, so you claim she shouldn't have used it because of who first wrote it. It's a good quote, it speaks a great truth, and if the author later went nuts, well, lots of authors went nuts late in life. That doesn't retroactively turn everything they wrote into falsehood. And to read some sort of "code" into it is insane. -- Zsero (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm hardly alone in that insanity - in addition to Martin Peretz and RFK, Jr., Frank Rich sees it, as does Thomas Frank in The Wall Street Journal. And who is it ad hominem against - Pegler? Tvoz/talk 23:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

An argumentum ad hominem is by definition one made not against a person but against something he's associated with; the argument consists of the fact that he's associated with it, and he's a bad person, QED. This attack on Palin's quote is a textbook example of this fallacy. -- Zsero (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

And here's a better citation from Martin Peretz - from The New Republic editor's online blog, which would be acceptable as a reliable source. And Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s reaction to her use of a Pegler quote is foundhere. Something about this should be included in this biography - this was indeed her biggest life moment, and this was her speech. Tvoz/talk 22:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any facts in Peretz's piece, to support the idea that there was some sort of code here. All he adds is that his mother hated Pegler; I don't see why that's relevant. The fact remains that it's a good quote, and the only reason to object to using it is the later writings of its author. It would have been different had she referred to the author approvingly: "as that great American writer Westbrook Pegler wrote..."; but she didn't. So there's no there there, except an exercise in witch-hunting to do Muthee proud :-) -- Zsero (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, does anyone know when Pegler wrote that line? Was it while he was still a respectable writer, or in his radioactive stage? -- Zsero (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

More silliness. Does anyone have any evidence that Palin was even knowingly or unknowingly quoting him? Fcreid (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

First, some editors try to get material into this article to imply that Palin is a lightweight Bobblehead (tm) who doesn't have the intellectual heft to be VP (e.g. she doesn't know what the "Bush Doctrine" is!). Now we are supposed to believe that Palin is familiar with Westbrook Pegler, a newspaper columnist who's career started 31 years before she was born and which ended several years before she was born. Today, even those of us with gray hair need to do some research to find out anything about Pegler. The facts of the matter are 1) there is no evidence Palin put the quote into the speech, 2) there is no evidence Palin knows anything about Pegler, 3) there is no evidence that the speechwriter knows anything about Pegler, and this entire matter is an ad homiem attack by proxy three or four people and 50 years removed. The original quote was praising President Truman, and was also used in that context in the speech. Does anything about Pegler and his enemies change the clear meaning of the quote and the context in which it was used? I don't think so.--Paul (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

She's not responsible for the content of her speeches? That's an odd defense. So if someone says there's a specter haunting Europe, and that specter is Communism, no blowback will follow from the right because of the source of that statement? Tvoz/talk 21:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Its bad for Palin even if she did NOT know the source of her quotation... Its HER speech; at the single biggest moment of her life. She is accountable, whether or not she was aware. Surely accountability is still important in our prospective politicians.?! Right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.202.139.195 (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• • I also strongly agree that Palin's quotation of Pelger in that seminal speech is highly relevant because her invocation/usage (whether or not intentional; let the reader decide) implies that she has a veiled association with Pelger's views, or is a coded message intended to elicit the support of those Americans who do. Given the circumstances of the speech, this reasonable inference is highly relevant to who Palin is, who she purports to be, and what kind of political leader she would be for America. It would take a very powerful argument to deflate this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.202.139.195 (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but your comments have deflated any potential for powerful argument. However, in fairness, I'm going to examine all of her speeches using simple character substitutions to see whether we can find any further coded messages being broadcast to the minions in her global following. Fcreid (talk) 10:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your parsing of "comments" from the argument I make through them, which you acknowledge is legitimate (which I very much appreciate). I also appreciate your expressed intention to examine other Palin speechs, although I deem them irrelevant to this analysis given that no speech Palin has ever made approached the weight and significance of her convention speech, through which Palin introduced herself to American voters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.202.139.195 (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems a bit silly. Any semi-sophisticated adult realizes that "small-town values" is a code phrase. That's politics, but Wikpedia isn't really the right forum to press that point. Of course it's legit to question the sources of the quotes used in Palin's speech. I mean, if I'm going to praise the benefits of a vegetarian diet or the harms of cigarette smoking, I don't quote Adolf Hitler, even if he was enthusiastic on both topics. It wouldn't be ad hominem to say: "Hey, wait a minute... did you just quote Adolf Hitler?" More to the point, this issue may have some relevance for a subarticle, perhaps about the campaign, but the level of coverage doesn't seem to warrant inclusion in this parent biographical article (my 2 cents). MastCell  18:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? "Small town values" is a code-phrase for racism? That's something I hadn't heard! Fcreid (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Opinions probably differ on what, exactly, "small town values" signifies, but as used in current political discourse it's obviously a code phrase meant to evoke the culture war in a broad sense. That's all I was getting at; I don't have any reason to believe that the inhabitants of "small towns" are any more or less racist than those of big cities. MastCell  20:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I thought you were lending credence to this nonsense about the quote being a "code" to bring out the fascists, like the latest al-Qaeda video or something! :) Fcreid (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No, they use terrorist fist jabs for that. :) MastCell  19:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll watch tonight to see if I can decode any signals and then report back! :) Fcreid (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Putin rears his head

Why was the reference to Putin rearing his head removed. I think it is becoming one of the most important quotes from the campaign. Mpondopondo (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes her extensive foreign experience she explains should be talked about

"That alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country Russia and on our other side the land boundary that we have with ah Canada itit its funny that a comment like that was s kinda made to er ummm caret er um I dont know you know"

"It certainly does because ourw our next door neighbours are foreign countries. There in the state that that I am the executive of (Have you ever been involved in any negotiations for example with the Russians? ) we have trade missionss back and force we we do. Its very important when when you consider even nation security issues with Russia as Puttin rears his head and and ah comes into a the air space of the United States of America. Were where do they go? Its its Alaska is just right over the boarder. It is a from Alaska that we sent those out to make sure an eyes being kept on this very powerful nation Russia because they are right there they are right next to ah um our state" --203.192.91.4 (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Keep. Include. Illustrative of her reasoning, and in her own words. Tautologist (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Should we also keep the "ums" and "ers" in there? Fcreid (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Clearly that is his poition. Shall we quote Obama's "ums"? I should hope this is dispositive of this side excursion! Collect (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Despite the fact that the 'ums' and 'ohs' are humorous, they're probably not noteworthy. Removing them, and fixing the grammar with the appropriate tags is likely the way to go.Trocisp (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Prodigious amount of backlash on Sarah Palin from GOP

A little backstory. Ever since the Charlie Gibbson interview, and now the widely ridculed Katie Couric interview, the media has been criticizing her left and right. Ever since day one of the VP choice there has been concerns about the VP choice from Sarah Palin, but now the amount has risen exponentially and notably.

Here's one example, titled "Calls rise among Republicans for Sarah Palin to step down from GOP ticket" : http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/09/27/2008-09-27_calls_rise_among_republicans_for_sarah_p.html

Here are hundreds upon hundreds more examples: http://news.google.com/nwshp?tab=wn&ned=us&ncl=1251026514&hl=en

There are a varity of politicians on Misplaced Pages that have a "controversy" section, or a "criticism" section. If any politican, you'd think Sasrah Palin would have one as well. Again, you guys have three days or I'm adding the section in my self. And yes, there will be a mountain high list of sources to back up all my claimes ranging from CNN, Fox News, Washington Post, MSNBC, New York Times, etc.

Fourtyearswhat (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Why wait? Have at it, Fourtyearswhat! - Writegeist (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that BOTH the Gibson and Couric interviews (the TV versions) were HEAVILY edited to make Palin look less convincing than she really was. In particular the foreign policy part of the Couric interview. Now, compare that to the fact the O'Reilly/Obama interview was aired UNEDITED. It's obviously to me that the media is intentionally trying to make Palin look bad. 75.81.214.73 (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources who compared the actual interview with the allegedly edited broadcast version, so we can be sure you are not engaging in original research and POV spin-doctoring. Then we can include those reliable sources in the article. Edison (talk) 06:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's going to be awfully hard to get relief on such a concern, especially in the small amount of time remaining before this article becomes partially or fully moot on Nov 4. A bias pervading the entire "media" would be difficult to demonstrate, let alone compensate for. At that, avoid over-generalizing. Bill O'Reilly is a member of "the media" too.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Again. You guys got three days or I'll do it myself. I'll add an exceptionally large criticism and controversy section to her name. It won't be pretty, and it'll be provided with a very large amount of credible sources. Fourtyearswhat (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

...and unless you get consensus for it, the material will immediately be reverted as an NPOV / WEIGHT / COATRACK / CRITICISM violation. Instead of announcing deadlines and making threats, and setting yourself up in opposition to other editors here, please respect the collaborative nature of the encyclopedia and use the talk page to make any specific proposals you may have for improving the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Re;3 Days Notice to shape up or ship out. To enter into an on-going discussion with abrupt demands and unreasonable declarations is contrary to WP:AGF, WP:Civil, and I'm sure many others. It implies that existing editors are incompetent which is FAR from the case. Fourtyyearswhat...do your edits, but don't expect to have them excepted with open arms. And, when fellow editors have a problem with them, be willing to take some responsibility for the manner in which they were presented.--Buster7 (talk) 12:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Be bold. Go ahead and make your edits. Insofar as they are reasonable, well-sourced, and compliant with guidelines, a bit of opposition from other editors will not keep them out. Just be prepared to justify your edits.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

question?

I'm embarrassed because this is probably a question any poli sci 101 student would know; but what would happen if McCain died before the election? Cyngl (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If it happens before the election, the RNC chooses another candidate, who would probably not be Palin. Congress could delay the election, but it would almost certainly not. Ditto if it happens after the election, which he wins, but before the Electoral College meets on December 15. If it happens after the EC meets, but before its votes are counted on January 6, then Congress could ask the EC to meet again and send in new ballots to replace the old ones; I don't know whether it would do so. Once the votes have been counted, if the President-Elect dies the VP-Elect becomes President-Elect. And of course if it happens after inauguration on January 20, the VP becomes President. -- Zsero (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify the above response, in the U.S. presidential elections, we do not vote for a candidate, but a slate of electors, separate slates for each state, who have pledged to vote for that candidate. Those pledges are not binding and the electors could vote for anyone. They might actually do so even if their candidate was alive but, say, incapacitated by a stroke. --agr (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not clear that Congress has the authority to delay a Presidential election. Edison (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah and the Dinosaurs--Jesus Ponies and Dinogate (aka Dinosaurs and Evolution vs. Creationism and Intelligent Design)

I just added this to her Misplaced Pages entry.

• Palin has also said that she believes that humans and dinosaurs coexisted on Earth 6000 years ago, that dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time, and that she has seen pictures of dinosaur tracks showing human footprints within the tracks.

Reference -- Stephen Braun, 09-28-2008, http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-palinreligion28-2008sep28,0,3643718.story Palin Treads Carefully Between Fundamentalist Beliefs and Public Policy, Los Angeles Times.

The electorate should be aware of this information because it has implications for voters' perceptions of her IQ, her education, and her philosophy.WhipperSnapper (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. It is not a political position. Also, the way it was presented did not accurately reflect the source. According to the source, one person says that Palin said this. --Elliskev 14:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose that it isn't a political position though it does modify and elaborate on her belief in creationism and her position that perhaps creationism should be taught in the public schools. I do hope that the Dinogate story (as I'm calling it) makes national headlines and gets featured on television; the American electorate deserves to know who exactly they are voting for or against. Hopefully journalists will dig deeper and further investigate this juicy story.WhipperSnapper (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Even though this is the L.A. Times, it is not a reliable source. Philip Munger, the single source quoted in the article, runs an anti-Palin website Progressive Alaska. This is just another partisan attack.--Paul (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It may be an attack, but do you have any reason to believe that she does not believe that? Don't you think it's consistent with her beliefs?WhipperSnapper (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Most people dop not have ESP sufficient to insert this issue into a BLP. Collect (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe Kelly at one time heard a speech where she referred to dinosaurs as "Jesus ponies". I forget the source, though. See if you can dig that up, Whippersnapper. Fcreid (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a repository of speculation, WhipperSnapper. It does not matter at all if it is consistent with her beliefs (and it undoubtedly is). Really, Misplaced Pages should not include ANY fact that is not established beyond a reasonable doubt, let alone a fact one guy mentioned in one article on a topic that is saturated with bias in both directions. Or should I go edit Obama's page with the various attacks published by the less scrupulous neocons?

And for the record, your arguments about people judging her IQ and the like based on such weak evidence are invalid. If she is unfamiliar with evolution aside from the constant misunderstandings of it that get so much more attention from the public, then it is much more accurate to say she is simply ignorant (and as for that charge, isn't her clearly well-substantiated college record much more condemning of her education anyway?). The influence of intelligence is far more subtle than you seem to realize. -- Drlight11 (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The article I referenced was published in the Los Angeles Times. Is one of the nation's largest newspapers not a reliable or appropriate source? As another poster mentioned, might questioning the reliability of an article published in a major newspaper constitute dreaded original research? As far as IQ goes, people will indeed judge other people's IQ's based on their philosophical beliefs and how seriously they take them. I find her beliefs on this issue to be insightful in this regard. -- WhipperSnapper (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the nation's largest newspapers would NOT be a reliable source for any other encyclopedia, no. Again, judging strictly on your posts, you don't seem to recognize when a fact would be well-established. And if it's an innovative suggestion to you that an editor, who might have gotten his article published simply on reputation, MAY be biased...I have nothing to say. Just know that it is NOT "original research" - such a label applies only to insight not possessed by the community at large. -- DrLight11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.30.65 (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I am under the impression that editors are not entitled to pick and choose their "favored" contributors from a reliable publication. Simply being controversial or non-sympathetic to the subject does not automatically disqualify inclusion of material produced by a writer for a reliable source. If I am wrong on this, please cite the relevant guidelines which mandate this material be excluded. As for its placement in a "political positions" category, this objection would be easily avoided by placing it in a "Religious views" or "Positions on science" section. If this BLP is going to contain anything other than dry biographical information, then such categories are completely fit for inclusion here.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This BLP should contain nothing but "dry biographical information". --Elliskev 16:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the arguments supporting that course of action, but I do not personally have the time to excise everything but dry biographical information. If anyone takes this upon themselves, they should be diligent to avoid removing only material that is critical or only removing material that is sympathetic, otherwise it will just be blatant POV pushing.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We certainly have to comply with BLP, no compromising that. But there are two issues here: first, do we have a reliable source, and second, is it notable. I believe it is notable because she made the alleged statement in her capacity as an elected official, it is she who would have chosen to make this a public issue. Is the source reliable? I dunno and agree we should wait and see. In a few days it will either be confirmed or disappear into the blogosphere. Let's wait and see if there are reliable sources for this. But if it turns out that there are, it certainly is relevant. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear to me that LA Times = reliable source and therefore end of story. My understanding is that second-guessing a reliable source constitutes original research and is therefore inappropriate.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As Paul mentions down below, the entire evidence for this claim, posted in LA Times or not, is a single source, which as he points out is immediately suspect. LA Times reliability (which is already suspect) is no longer the core question - you need to look at the contributor. Don't forget, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia - do you really think Britannica would print this with such dubious support? I agree with Paul that you guys seem oddly determined to ignore fairly obvious considerations... -- Drlight11 (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if others agree I am not objecting, just saying we can wait a couple of days to see if anyone else picks this up. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Include it If not, when the slow motion encyclopedias come out, Wiki will be the only ecyc w/o it. Certainly something an encyclopedia user investigating the teaching of evolution in the US would want to know about a major politician. It was the core issue from the evolution debate (before it was resolved well over a century ago). Tautologist (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again before the chorus of reinforcing voices takes over here, there is a single source for this claim: Philip Munger. He made the claim on September 3, 2008 on his anti-Palin activist leftist blog. Any first year journalism student knows that something is that has no corroborating sources, and which is based on a charge by a biased source is no good. All this shows is that the L.A. times is biased and, in this case, is not a reliable source. Unless there is some corroboration published in some additional sources that are reliable, this is BLP radioactive. Forget it. People that are pushing this after the problems with the source were pointed out are making it hard to assume good faith.--Paul (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that this claim of yours constitutes original research. See WP:Verifiability, specifically the primary criterion: "readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true". If we had a reliable source calling Munger a biased liar who was willing to say anything to slander Palin, that could also be included in the article as a counterpoint. But the LA Times is not a questionable source, even if Munger is (which remains to be seen). Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The WP:BLP guidlines override the lax requirements of WP:Verifiability especially the part about "not being true"--Paul (talk) 04:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Unless there is a quote directly from Palin about the "young earth" theory, this doesn't really belong in the article. Right now what we have is a second hand claim from a biased party, and that doesn't mesh well with the BLP guidelines. AniMate 04:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing about "not being true"... only about where you believe it's true. This article is full of things that I think are blatant falsehoods yet they must stand because somebody important is on record saying so, some paper has quoted somebody saying some bs, or else somebody has done their best to avoid answering a question, instead giving a non-answer.

Anyway, the BLP guidelines also specifically require this sort of material: "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is 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 take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone."

No matter how much of a liar you think that guy is, he's a critic, this is on reputable record by a publication with a factchecking department and the ability to be sued for libel, and that is the whole basis for Misplaced Pages's reliance on mainstream news publications. The only appropriate thing to do here is to include this with the reference and attribute it specifically to this guy with explicit mention that he is a liberal critic of Palin. (He's also a Wasilla resident, in case that means anything to you.) That's a neutral, encyclopedic tone. This is what allows readers to form their own conclusions and that is what Misplaced Pages is supposed to do.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 04:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

We would then have to include multiple conflicting accounts (and there are many impromptu testimonials from both adversaries and friends) that state Palin does not "wear her religion on her sleeve" (to quote one I recall). Let's not degrade WP into providing a voice for everyone with either an axe to grind or a pin to polish... the blogs do plenty of that already. Fcreid (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Has Palin herself said anything and has this been broadly reported? AniMate 05:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The only thing we could possibly report from this source is that some guy from Wasilla says he heard Palin make these claims. At some point, we have to ask whether the claim of any random resident of Wasilla that is mentioned in a single story (of thousands written about Palin) carries enough due weight to be included here. Even if it weren't a BLP violation, the idea that this story carries due weight is laughable. Oren0 (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Did Palin also say something to the effect, at some point, that she thought that the dinosaurs were Jesus Ponies? I know that it's possible to find t-shirts on Cafepress where she is being mocked to that effect. -- WhipperSnapper (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for sending you on a wild goose chase, Whippersnapper. Anyone who has been around this talk page for more than a few days knows I'm occasionally a wise-ass. Frankly, I was going to leave your comment as the final exclamation point to this entire topic, as I felt it illustrated your motivation and the sincerity of your academic pursuit for the truth. That said, the factoid you really want is already in the article--in Palin's own words. In there, she describes herself as a "Bible-believing Christian". Apparently, in your estimation, that simple fact means she (and the other 75% of Americans who believe similarly) is utterly unqualified to serve in public office. Fcreid (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No apology needed; I enjoy the thrill of a quick Google hunt for incriminating information and enjoyed a chuckle at the sight of the Jesus ponies t-shirts. And, yes, as an intransigent atheist I believe that people who take religion very seriously and without a good deal of skepticism are unqualified to serve as president. From my perspective, someone's saying that Palin believes that humans and dinosaurs co-existed is tantamount to someone saying, "look at the retarded child, she really believes that the Moon is made of green cheese, isn't that cute?" I'm not a particularly big fan of Obama and I disagree with him on many issues that are important to me (foreign outsourcing, immigration, foreign work visas), but at least he possesses advanced reasoning capability. -- WhipperSnapper (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

We agree in principle on more counts than you know, but let's hope we don't usher in an age where laws don't require any book of religious belief to carry a disclaimer that it is fictional or, worse yet, be banned. We fought too hard to have those rights. Also, don't be so quick to judge that this person, in particular, lacks the skills for advanced reasoning. Fcreid (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I think that if cafepress has made a T-shirt, we should include it as a notable and encyclopedic fact. OK, that was sarcasm. Look: assertions on a blog run by a political opponent are not particularly good encyclopedic material, for obvious reasons. The L.A. Times used them as an attention-grabbing lead-in, but the focus of their article is actually much more nuanced. We are not going to say in this encyclopedia that someone believes dinosaurs and humans coexisted based solely on the self-published words of a political opponent, even if those words have been mentioned in a reputable newspaper. This seems like it should be self-evident, but apparently it's not. MastCell  16:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course it shouldn't be included on that basis alone, but I sure would like to know the exact source of the reference. -- WhipperSnapper (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the exact source on Palin and dinosaurs. Certainly not a reliable source, and even a reliable source, like the LA Times, quoting the blog doesn't pass the threshold for WP:BLP. If Palin explicitly discusses her faith or clear evidence of her beliefs is presented, perhaps these kinds of details can be included. AniMate 22:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. After reading that entry, you almost get the sense that she might also believe in the Rapture. -- WhipperSnapper (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I can not believe this is still around. It is joyfully irrelevant, and has no part of being in a BLP. By the way, Joe Lieberman "believes" the world is about 5,770 years old. "La shanah tova tikatevu" to those holding that faith. Care to try adding that to his BLP? I thought not. Collect (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The dinosaur issue isn't what's worthy of inclusion in a politicians BLP, it's the position on intelligent design. Remove the quote about man and dinos walking the earth together if you must but Palin's recommendation that intelligent design be taught in schools helps define her political position and is relevant here.--Rtphokie (talk) 22:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

When you add the dinosaur thing, which you know violates BLP and other policies, in the same edits as your ID additions, you can't expect people to only revert you selectively. If you want to add neutral and well sourced information regarding her stance on Intelligent Design in schools, feel free. But you're going to get reverted if you add the dinosaur BS without getting consensus. Oren0 (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't appreciate any implication of deliberate attempts to disrupt this article. This is not a violation of BLP. It is well sourced addition to this article which has been widely covered. If the quote proves to be invalid or the newspaper's source unreliable, then information can be removed from the article. Neutral point of view means doesn't mean avoiding the controversial and doesn't just apply to what's included in the article, it applies to what is excluded as well. NPV says all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. The coverage of this is significant and the subject matter is also significant given the position Palin current holds and is seeking. We aren't talking about some actor's views on religion and education, we are talking about a major political figure who's personal views may impact public policy. Also, BLP guides us to choose reliable sources, which the LA Times is. WP:V and WP:RS guide us on what is considered a reliable, verifiable sources. It is the wikipedia editor's responsiblity to present properly cited information in a nuetral form, it is the LA Time repsonsibility to vet their sources. Without some similarly reliable source challenging the validity of that article, excluding it from this article is original research.--Rtphokie (talk) 03:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"The coverage of this is significant" - Is it? Link more reliable sources reporting this story and the conversation changes drastically. Regardless of that, your edit makes a huge leap that the LA Times article doesn't: supposing that the "dinosaur" thing is something Palin believes. All the LA Times says is that one individual (and known Palin critic, but that's beside the point) claims she said something about dinosaurs once. To jump from that report to saying that she "believes that 'dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time'" as a totally unqualified statement (not 'some guy says') is such an absurd leap that assuming that these edits are in good faith is difficult. And the fact that you'd make an edit like that and then accuse those who disagree with you of original research is the height of irony and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the policy. I suggest you read the Misplaced Pages policy on Original research. It applies only to the content found in articles, not editorial decisions. Editors must constantly use their discretion to decide what material to exclude, how to organize it, and so on. Editorial discretion is not forbidden by Misplaced Pages's prohibition on original research and in fact is a necessary part of writing any article. Oren0 (talk) 07:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I know of no evidence that Leiberman believe the world is 5770 years old, but that is a matter of discussion for the article on Leiberman, I do not see how it is relevant here. And how exactly does the dinosaur remark violate BLP and other policies? Please no threats to remove something on sight when it is under discussion here. How does it violate BLP? It certainly is relevant to an article on a person actively campaigning for the position of vice-president, and whose public career is a matter of record. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The answer to that is simple, and has been addressed here already. The secondhand dinosaur "quote" originated on the blog belonging to a political opponent of no particular notoriety. This demonstrates nothing about Palin's personal beliefs, since it cannot be verified that she actually said it. It is a violation of BLP to attribute a belief, statement, or action to a person which no reliable source can solidly link them to. »S0CO 00:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read up on Orthodox Judaism, and the dating of the Jewish Calendar (about to enter year 5770). http://en.wikipedia.org/Jewish_views_on_evolution#Orthodox_scientists_respond_to_Darwin

"The vast majority of classical Rabbis hold that God created the world close to 6,000 years ago, and created Adam and Eve from clay. This view is based on a chronology developed in a midrash, Seder Olam, which was based on a literal reading of the book of Genesis. It is attributed to the Tanna Yose ben Halafta, and covers history from the creation of the universe to the construction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. Although it is known that a literal approach is not always needed when interpreting the Torah, there is a split over which parts are literal."

Further cites are available. And the most "liberal" Orthodox view is that Man was created 5770 years ago. Collect (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Collect, this is a perfect example of why we have an NOR policy. Your quote is about classical rabbis. It is not about Joe Leiberman. Joe Leiberman is not a classical rabbi, and a quote about what classical rabbis believed is not a quote about what Leiberman believes. Moreover, Orthodox rabbis are not classical rabbis. There are many Orthodox rabbis who believe all the things Classical Rabbis believed. But there are also many Orthodox Rabbis who accept modern science and, like the Catholic Church, accept that the universe is about 13 billion years old and accept the theory of evolution. Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist Jews - like many Orthodox Jews - all go to synagogue on Rosh HaShanah to celebrate the "birthday of the world" and yet believe that the universe was created 13 billion years ago. If you have evidence that Joe Leiberman believes otherwise, present it at the Leiberman article. But the issue here is, did Leiberman ever make this claim in a speech he gave as a US Senator? The issue here is what Sarah Palin said as mayor i.e. in her capacity as holder of an elected office. Now, there may be some debate over the reliability of the source, but the source is claiming that Palin said this in a public event and in her capacity as mayor. Your bringing up Leiberman is a red herring. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/29/lieberman.religion/index.html ""As a people, we need to reaffirm our faith and renew the dedication of our nation and ourselves to God and God's purposes," the Connecticut senator said. " Joe is a scholar of Torah, and a firm believer in Orthodox Judaism. I would suggest that the beliefs of "reform" Jewish rabbis do not apply to him. Collect (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again you bring up an irrelevant quote. We all know Leiberman is shomrei mitzvoth but one need not believe that the earth is 6000 years old or whatever to be shomrei mitzvoth. You have yout to provide any evidence at all that Leiberman does not believe the current estimates of astronomers as to the age of the universe, or the current theory of biologists as to how species evolve. Keep blowing smoke if you want, or find a quote that actully says what you say it says. It is disingenuous to cite a quote and claim it says one thing when it doesn't. Don't srew around with quotes. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the lecture. The primary issue is whether a belief in "Creation" is a valid issue wrt Palin, and whther Orthodox Jews hold that belief. Joe attended Congregation Agudath Shalom http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/12/07/a_moral_drive_for_the_presidency/ , which had a very famous rabbi, Joseph Ehenkranz. http://www.sacredheart.edu/pages/12231_rabbi_ehrenkranz_attends_united_nations_peace_summit.cfm

Let us for a moment contemplate what each of the Abrahamic faiths believes and holds sacred:

There is only one God.

God created the universe, and human beings are the crown of creation.

In simple terms: Creationism. Somply stated by Lieberman's rabbi (and stated to me as well). Care to claim that this is not a "creationist" statement? Collect (talk) 10:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I guess you are admitting that you have no quote at all demonstrating that Leiberman believes the earth is only 6000 or so years old, and denying that he accepts the scientific theory of evolution. If you just do not have the quote, you don't have it. Since you have given up on Leiberman we can return to Palin: she is reported to have made a direct statement in her role as mayor. If we have a reliable source supporting that this actually happened, we have something to add to the article that is important, relevant, and (unlike your imitation of "research") we actually have a quote. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You are bing deliberately obtuse. I cited Joe's rabbi on the belief in Creation. I cited Joe's strict Orthodox beliefs. The issue was whether others would have the absurd claims made about them that have surfaced about Palin. I demonstrated it in spades. The fact I knew Joe is irrelevant. The fact I knew Rabbi Ehrenkranz is irrelevant. You know neither, and that is relevant. There is absolutely no sane basis for the "dinogate" absurdity which was attempted here. That is a fact, and everyone who reads this knows it is a fact. As for your continued posts to me -- they verge on impropriety on your part, and I would encourage you to cease. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk)

Uh, I do not like the way you are demeaning me, but since you bring it up, you are the one being obtuse. You have not cited Joe's beliefs about scientists' claims about the age of the universe or evolution. Nor have you cited his rabbi's beliefs. The statement by the rabbi is clearly tied to a moral purpose: "Our task is to partner with God who constantly improves the world through the people He created. If one country is depleting its resources and destroying the environment, then this is a global problem, and we need to come together financially and technologically to challenge and assist that country to the benefit of everyone on the planet. We are God's instruments and we have the responsibility tirelessly and lovingly to improve the world." This is the point of his claims that God reated people in His image. I know too many observant Jews, including rabbis, who are devout, who attend services regularly and praise God as creator of the universe and yes, even attend shul on Rosh HaShanah and celebrate the "birthday of the world," and yet who believe that the universe began with the bib bang about 13 billion years ago and that life evolved on earth through natural selection and genetic processes like drift, to fall for your falacious claims that because someone says they are observant Jews or that God created the universe it somehow magically therefore means they also do not believe in the claims of mainstream science. So you know Joe and his rabbi - and yet you still cannot find a quote in which they deny that the earth was created about 4 and a half billion years ago, and humans evolved more than a hundred million years after the dinosaurs? Pathetic - you claim you know them and still have no quote backing your claim. As for my relationship with the senator, you have no idea what it is and I am not going to bring it up because Misplaced Pages is not based on personal claims it is based on verifiability, something you clearly do not care about. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You could also ridicule some Christians by noting that they believe they are drinking human blood and eating human flesh when they consume the Eucharist at church every week, making them Cannibals, or that they believe in a ghost. Edison (talk) 06:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's run with that one for tonight's headline! Fcreid (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, it is worth looking for other sources for this. We need a reliable source. My point is simply that once we agree that we have a reliable source, this issue is relevant enough to the article to merit inclusion. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Concur. We need to hold true to our "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources" principles on this one, particularly given the only attribution for the claim is from Munger, who rarely lets a day pass without maligning Palin on his blog. In addition, there are myriad other sources that indicate such a discussion is out-of-character for Palin, including sworn rivals. Fcreid (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

All - I did find an unusual prayer which was almost definitely said over Palin. Does the following sound odd?

" I adjure thee through the living true and holy God, the God who made thee for the well-being of the human race, and commanded thee to be hallowed by his servants for the use of those who come to the knowledge of her by faith."

"I adjure thee, unclean spirit, in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost to depart and remain far away from this servant of God (Sarah). He commands thee now who walked dry-shod upon the waters, and when Peter would have perished in the sea stretched out to him his saving hand. And so, accursed spirit, give heed to the sentence passed upon thee."

How would you interpret such a prayer? Collect (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? It doesn't sound odd to me - it sounds close to the typical baptism prayer. This is a ritual that is pretty common in lots of Christian churches, I do not see how Palin's being baptized merits any more comment in the article. I know it already says she was born into a Catholic family, do we really need to add that she was baptized a Catholic? I think identifying her as a Catholic is sufficient. And I do not see how this has any bearing at all on the far-from-ordinary pronouncements she made ... no, not as a minister or priest, but as mayor and governor ... about religion and politics or religion and public education. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet it is very akin to the African prayer much in the news. Amazing, isn;t it, how cultural references taken out of context can create false controversy? Vide also "Thank you that I was not born a woman" as a liturgical statement ... and a host of others from all faiths. Seems to me that placing any such religious controversy in any article ill-serves WP. But that is just my own opinion, of course. Collect (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Boy, you really do not understand WIkipedia's policies at all, do you? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"Boy"???? I would suggest that placing a question which goes to the heart of this entire section of the Talk page is exactly and precisely in line with WP policies. Thank you by the way very much for calling me "Boy" as it is quite dispositive of the "AGF" issue with regard to how you view it. Collect (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! Not here too! I believe consensus above was that the Witch Doctor, while interesting in a trivial kind of way, certainly did not reach the criteria for inclusion. Fcreid (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Collect, I did not call you a "boy." Please find a dictionary - "boy" is a common exclamatory term, like wow or golly. And your question runs counter to WIkipedia policy. I personally have no issue with that African prayer. Apparently you do not either. But you know what? Your view on the matter is irrelevant. So is my view. Editors' views do not go into articles. You throw around words like fact and false a lot, but Misplaced Pages is about notability and verifiability, and not about true or false. You ropinion that the controversy is false has no place in any discussion on this article. Someone lese's view that the controversy is "true" also has no place in this discussion. The only question is, is the controversy notable and if so, are there verifiable and reliable sources for providing an account of the controversy and the various views involved in, and about, the controversy. Then it is just a matter of writing an account of these notable views from verifiable sources. There is only one ground for excluding it from Misplaced Pages: that it is not notable and to include it would give undue weight to a non-notable set of views. And perhaps the controversy is not notable enough for inclusion (I never heard of it and I listen to and watch the news regularly). But this is the only grounds for exluding it, not the fact that you think it is false or silly. You really need to get over this belief you seem to have that your judgement that a one view is better than another, or one topic truer than another, is simply irrelevant. Boy! Slrubenstein | Talk 20:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

First -- "Boy!" is an exclamation. "Boy, ..." is NOT an exclamation. Your message to me did not use "Boy," as an exclamation. Exclamation marks are not commas. A comma is used when you are addressing someone with the name you give before the comma. Yhe issue I was dealing with is the relevance of ANY statements which might inaptly deal with a subject's religion. This entire section about dinosaurs falls into that classification. Giving weight to a view which is notable only because of deliberate misinterpretation is improper. In the case at hand, I have sought to show that such wilful misinterpretation is errant. I am sorry that you only feel "notable" is your only concern. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

if that is how you want it, that's your business. boy as an interjection, with a comma rather than an exclamation point, can still mean the same thing as boy with an exclamation point, just as boy with an expclamation point can still be vocative. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Exclamations in the form of "Boy, you ..." are quite rare. Since this seems to be degenerating into English grammar discussions, I think it has outlived its usefulness here. Rather like having a (sic) contest, or the like. Interjections generally are not followed by commas, at least not in any Manual of Style I have found. Collect (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Reception, take 46

The final para, currently utilizing the Guardian source (which I think is Good) and a bit too long of a Romney quote (which I and at least one other editor think is Bad) needs some reworking. I suggest these sources:

• Palin: McCain campaign's end-run around media, San Farancisco Chronicle
• Let Palin be Palin, CNN
• [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/30/uselections2008.sarahpalin Goldenberg, Suzanne. "Palin begins three-day cramming course for crucial TV showdown", The Guardian, September 30 2008
• ADDED: Google search for "Palin's Favorability Ratings" - please feel free to do more research in order to determine whether it is a general view that Palin's isolation and performance has caused her approval rating to slip. Its the ONLY view I can find, but I may have missed something - KillerChihuahua 17:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

be used to rework that paragraph. Anyone want to give a first try at the rewrite, or shall I? I mean here on the talk page, prior to moving to the article page, but of course if any one suggested edit meets with strong approval we can implement it without waiting for the entire paragraph to be done, thus "fixing" that problematic para in stages. KillerChihuahua 13:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. Time is a tyrant.--Buster7 (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed the Romney qoute so it won't be trouble any more. This whole stuff is more the campaign section, not the reception section though. Hobartimus (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As no one has objected, we may actualy have one edit everyone agrees on. I've added the Guardian to the article links above, tho, as I still feel a more Global view would be nice to have. k. I will make a stab at writing this later today, meanwhile of course if anyone else has the time and inclination feel free. KillerChihuahua 16:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian is not a reliable source concerning anything remotely related to the Bush family (which it has repeatedly linked to Hitler). A biassed "global view" is no more valid than a biassed local view. Collect (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that's incorrect. The Guardian is a reliable source for news items; their opinion articles are as useful as any opinion articles, which is to say not so much in this context. As to Bush and Hitler, the story is here. The Guardian publishes in an incredibly strict libel environment, and the Bush family undoubtedly has the means to bring legal action if they are defamed. The article is neither evidence of "bias" nor unreliability. MastCell  16:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. FoxNews hates Kerry, but they are still a Reliable Source, and should be used in the Kerry article. I'm not suggesting we use Weekly World News for crying out loud. It isn't even the Huffington Post, which IMO fails RS, but people keep using as a source. KillerChihuahua 16:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be nice if you used the same arguments elewhere! I have done my damndest to have NPOV, and it bothers me that a person who appears to have less experiemnce than I online would even think of using experience as a trump card. The Guardian has been widely described as having an anti-Bush bias, and that is a fact. BTW, the British libel laws do NOT allow the dead to sue, as I am sure you are aware. The Guardian is unlikely, therfore, to be sued by people a half century in their graves. Collect (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here goes, and yes I know it needs WORK (also please someone fix my refs if you are good at it)

Unprecedented in modern politics, Palin's limited interviews have resulted in lowered support for her among the voters, and her performance, especially in the interview given by Couric, is viewed as harming her image. Her candidacy has been called "embarrassing" her answers on the economy "gibberish".and "confused and rambling." Palin is preparing diligently for the upcomng debate with Biden, which McCain's campaign hopes will restore her initial high approval rating.

Open for criticism, suggestions, and edits - don't just tell me it sucks, tell me how you think it should be fixed! KillerChihuahua 16:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Um WP-SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:COATRACK spring to mind. Let's try:

Palin had given interviews to ABC, CBS and Fox reporters as of 29 Sep 2008. The Associated Press and CNN have claimed she is being shielded. Some columnists have decried her answers, while others have stated that the interviews have been edited to promote a point of view.

This eliminates the OR claim that her ratings are specifically affected by her interviews, eliminated "single word quotes" which are one-sided, adds the other side and removes the Guardian which has a specific and well-known editorial bias (calling the Bushes Hitlerites). And it is short. Collect (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ratings affected is from the SF article. Avoiding plagarism is not SYNTH. KillerChihuahua 17:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Prefer the one written by Collect. Hobartimus (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

So you prefer the version which omits all mention of the actual reception in the Reception section, and violates WP:WEASEL flagrantly? KillerChihuahua 17:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Watch WP:WEASEL -- this does not approach it. "WEASEL" is using vague language to support ONE side of an argument -- it does not apply to balancing statements. In fact, the editting guidelines specifically suggest balancing opinions. That you do not wish balanced opinion is regrettable. Accusations do not make for "good faith" KC. Collect (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Strike your personal attack, please. I strongly object to your entire statement after the first three sentences. KillerChihuahua 19:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I demur that I made a "personal attack." And I strictly stand by "accusations do not make good faith." Thank you most kindly! Collect (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

← I'm not crazy about the "some people liked Sarah Palin alot. Other people didn't like her at all" phrasing of the second proposed paragraph. It seems a bit empty of meaning and suggests that the reception is just a matter of partisan disagreement. It also uses "claim", a word to avoid, to marginalize the protests of two independent and respected news organizations. Let's go to the sources. There is ample sourcing for the fact that Palin has been shielded from the media to a remarkable degree; this tactic of the McCain campaign is being increasingly criticized even from the right ().

• Re: the relationship between her poll numbers and the interviews, the AP sez: "Polls show her popularity waning as she has struggled to answer questions about foreign policy in the few interviews she has given journalists."
• The New York Times: "Her halting interview with Katie Couric on CBS News alarmed many Republicans and gave fodder for a devastating parody on Saturday Night Live... Polling suggests that the number of Americans who think she is not fit to be president has increased since her introduction to the country last month. A number of conservative columnists and thinkers have publicly turned against her, or criticized Mr. McCain for choosing her."
• Also from the Times: "The rapid change in fortunes has led some Republicans to question the decision by Mr. McCain’s advisers to restrict her exposure to unscripted settings."
• Canwest: "The decision came amid widespread criticism in the media and - more distressing for McCain - mounting anxiety among Republicans over Palin's performance during an extended interview last week with CBS News anchor Katie Couric. In its aftermath, Palin's favourable ratings have fallen."

I could go on, but the point is that numerous reliable sources attest to the fact that Palin's performances, particularly in the second interview, are seen as contributing to a decline in her poll numbers and growing concern in her own Party. The McCain campaign's strategy of quarantining Palin from unscripted media encouters has been widely and independently noted and is deserving of a single, well-sourced sentence without a bunch of well-poisoning. MastCell  17:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Strongly support the version by KillerChihuahua as the only well-written and sourced version, avoiding weasel words as well. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 17:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not crazy about the selected quoted descriptions in KC's proposal - they seem a bit over-the-top. It may be better to summarize reaction (e.g. "Palin's performance, particularly in the Couric interview, is widely viewed as leading to a decline in her poll numbers and increasing concerna about her readiness within the Republican party.") Otherwise I do like KC's version. MastCell  17:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I support KC with the following modification:

Palin's limited interviews have resulted in lowered support for her among the voters, and her performance, especially in the interview given by Couric, is viewed as harming her image. Her candidacy has been highly criticized by some pundits. Palin is preparing for the upcoming debate with Biden, which McCain's campaign hopes will restore her initial high approval rating.

I think this keeps the substance without undue emphasis. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"Her candidacy has been highly criticized by pundits" is way too over-generalized. Her candidacy was initially met with surprise and, in many cases, enthusiasm. The subsequent deterioration of that enthusiasm, particularly among elements on the right, is what these sources attest to. We're best off ignoring the opinions of pundits and op-ed writers here; there are just too many to produce an accurate, properly weighted summary, and we should focus on harder news pieces in any case. MastCell  18:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I endorse Killer Chihuahua's version - would move each cite to immediately follow the quote it refers to, and would add the National Review citation as a criticism from the right, but otherwise thi k it covers it. Tvoz/talk 18:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I also think that a citation is needed immediately at "harming her image"; don't see how we can avoid opinion pieces here, as this is by definition not a matter of hard news. Tvoz/talk 18:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think KC's version is a good start but I generally agree with Mastcell's comments - MC can you propose your revision or version (I mean, make the changes you advocate and show us what the result is for the whole passage)? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Beat me to it- I was about to say the same thing, that it would be good to see the alternative. Tvoz/talk 18:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Better yet, lets try my version, with MastCell's cahnges, + try to include a "favorable" beginning sentence - perhaps based on the Telegraph article Collect links below. IMO that is what I was looking for when I said the para needed work - clearly her approval rating dropped, but from what? We need to have a strong sentence at the beginning which makes it clear she was initially met with enthusiasm. KillerChihuahua 19:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) or is that repetitive with the first sentence of the section? "A series of polls suggested that Palin gave a boost to John McCain's campaign and excited the Republican base.". Although certainly she did better in the earlier interviews than the CBS one, which she tanked badly. KillerChihuahua 19:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, this works for me too! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Mastcell's proffer

Mastcell? We are waiting with bated breath. (I wrote the first draft, its your turn surely?) KillerChihuahua 20:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Aw, do I hafta? I already broke my pledge to make zero article edits and <4 talk page edits to Palin-related topics per day. But OK: I'd propose something like this:

The McCain campaign has restricted press access to Palin to an unprecedented degree, prompting protests from CNN and the Associated Press. Palin's first major interview, with Charles Gibson of ABC News, met with mixed reviews. However, Palin's performance in her second interview, with Katie Couric of CBS News, was widely criticized, prompting a decline in her poll numbers, concern among Republicans that she was becoming a political liability, and calls from some conservative commentators for Palin to resign from the Presidential ticket. Following this interview, some Repbulicans, including Mitt Romney and William Kristol, questioned the McCain campaign's strategy of sheltering Palin from unscripted encounters with the press. Palin was reported to be preparing intensively for her upcoming debate with Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee Joseph Biden; some Republicans have suggested that Palin's performance in the interviews may benefit her in the debate by lowering expectations.

What do you guys think about the text and sourcing? I tried to use some "liberal" sources like the Guardian, some "neutral" sources like the AP/UPI, some "conservative" sources like the Telegraph and Canwest, and of course the New York Times, which is like the Communist Manifesto with a Sports section. :) MastCell  20:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I especially like "preparing intensively" - the absolute worst word choice in my version (which I hated) was "diligently", but I didn't want to use "cramming" like most of the headlines and couldn't think of anything else. I like. KillerChihuahua 21:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Change Joseph to Joe and I'm on board. Good work. Tvoz/talk 21:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"unprecedented degree" is opinion. FDR kept the papers as far from Henry Wallace as possible, for example. The Telegraph part about the ABC interview being heavily edited did not make the cut here? "prompting a decline in poll numbers" is opinion and argumentative. "some conservative commentators" is pure weasel, since I found a total of two such -- who had opposed Palin ab initio. Sort of like saying someone who hated Biden would call for his "resignation" and be given weight. In short - not conforming to any sense I would have of NPOV. At the very least add in the comment about the editing of the ABC interview and remove "unprecedented" as being unsupportable as fact. Collect (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Both opinions are widely held and strongly sourced. I'm missing what your objection is? KillerChihuahua 21:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What about the Hannity interview? I'm not too found of the hopeful projection of lowered expectations. It's just reaching. That clause could go. Otherwise, it's okay. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The hopeful future is sourced twice, and I am sure I saw it more than that. Its been fairly widely reported. One of the sourced MC used is the NYT - how strongly do you feel it should go? KillerChihuahua 21:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Not as strongly as I feel the Hannity interview should not be ignored. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Then again. Since it's commentary about what might happen in the future, maybe it's just not encyclopedic. --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The Couric interview was actually the third interview, not the second. Also, I'm not thrilled with the "prompting protests from CNN and the Associated Press", because it gives the impression they were protesting the limitations in general when the only thing they were protesting was the limitations around the UN visit. Once the McCain campaign let a producer go in with the cameraperson CNN dropped their protest and the AP dropped theirs when the campaign promised to give more access after the photo-op with Karzai. The press in general is complaining about the limited access. --Bobblehead 21:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Okie dokie. What I'm thinking is we keep and merge most of:

Palin appeared on the covers of Newsweek and Time, which had been critical of the level of media access to Palin allowed by the McCain campaign. Her first interview with the press was with Charles Gibson of ABC News and aired on September 12. Her interview five days later with Fox News's Sean Hannity went smoothly, with Hannity focusing on many of the same questions from Gibson's interview. Palin's performance in her interview with Katie Couric of CBS News on September 24 was heavily criticized by the media and prompted some conservative columnists to worry about how prepared she is.

and remove the abysmal:

Some news media outlets, especially the Associated Press and CNN, have accused the McCain campaign of attempting to shield Palin from the press.

Palin has given three interviews (to ABC, CBS and Fox) in September 2008, and did not appear on any news coverage following the first presidential debate.

and replace those two lame and weasely statements with this para. Is this making sense? KillerChihuahua 21:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, re: User:Collect's concerns:

1. You're right about "unprecedented"... it's a bit hard to support that particular word. We could instead simply say that the McCain campaign has "tightly restricted" press access, prompting protests, etc etc.
2. I do not see anything in the cited Telegraph article about editing of the Gibson interview - am I missing something?
3. "Prompting a decline in poll numbers" is supported by the cited reliable sources. Likewise with "some conservative commentators"; I named two, but could easily add more (David Frum, Kathleen Parker, George Will, and David Brooks are all mentioned in the sources I cited). Numerous sources have attested to unrest within the Republican ranks on this issue, making it notable. If you find a comparable slew of articles in comparably reliable sources about Biden (e.g. "Biden raising fears among Democrats"), then it probably warrants 1-2 sentences in his article. MastCell  21:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, should the paragraph mention that the McCain campaign just announced they are going to be releasing Palin onto the conservative radio shows starting today?--Bobblehead 21:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Where was that reported, Bobble? KillerChihuahua 21:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Argh. I knew you were going to ask that. I saw it somewhere this morning. I'll start the hunting. --Bobblehead 21:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Aha. Found it, but looks like it's only on Politico so far... Not sure it has reached the threshold of inclusion though since it is only one story (that I've found so far) and it's not full on interviews, it's just a "re-introduction tour". --Bobblehead 21:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, one blog? We can ignore that for now. Why don't you give a try on the merge I proposed, above? Isn't it your turn to write the magic paragraph? KillerChihuahua 21:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I'll give it a go, but before I do I have one question, is there a particular reason why her mixed performance in Gibson's interview isn't mentioned? The current wording goes directly from saying her first interview was on the 12th with Gibson to saying her interview with Hannity was much smoother, but doesn't actually say she had a rough go of it with Gibson. --Bobblehead 22:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, the only really rough spot mentioned by pretty much everyone was the Bush doctrine question. We can mention that specifically, or simply keep the old verbiage of "mixed reviews". Thoughts? Input? Corrections? KillerChihuahua 22:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Collect was referring to an online Poligazette - I do not think this is a notable source like the Guardian or the Telegraph - which has an essay on Charles Gibson: "They note that ABC clearly edited the interview, to make Gibson look more authoritative and stronger than he actually was. His stern demeanor, then, was not something visible during the interview itself; it became visible after ABC edited the footage." I have no idea how this is relevant to the article on Palin. The quote does not suggest that Palin's views were distorted, which is the only issue I can think of as relevant. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

In other words, editing done to make the interviewer look "more authoritative" has no relationship as to how the interview is perceived by others? I demur. Collect (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It was only mentioned in a blog, is that correct? That's like Bobblehead's Palin on radio news, above - no, not sourced even close to well enough to include. KillerChihuahua 22:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

A professionally written epaper is not precisely a "blog" but never mind ... Let's look at http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/12/abc-edits-out-palin-objection-to-holy-war-question/ regarding the editing done on the Gibson interview. How many would you like to be comprehensive in covering all opinions as is called for? Collect (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

We give it one sentence, which is probably appropriate weight considering this is the bio and not the campaign article. We give the 2nd debate not much more (2-3 sentences). That means we summarize. The FoxNews piece is one of about 1 zillion written about the Gibson interview. The Telegraph nicely summarized them as "mixed reviews"; the FoxNews piece is one of those "mixed" reviews. If we assert their claim that the interview was edited in a biased fashion, then we'll need to assert someone else's claim that she didn't know what the Bush doctrine was, and then we'll get back into a never-ending spiral... the point of my proposal was to summarize, and the Telegraph source did this nicely, I thought. Thank you for bringing it to the table. MastCell  22:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead's tweak

As requested an attempt by me. Mostly just a tweak of MastCell's offering. The only big change was redoing the first sentence to eliminate the "Unprecedented" wording, add in Hannity's interview.--Bobblehead 22:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Since announcing Palin as McCain's runningmate, McCain's campaign has restricted press access to Palin, allowing three one-on-one interviews and no press conferences with her. Palin's first major interview, with Charles Gibson of ABC News, met with mixed reviews. Her interview five days later with Fox News's Sean Hannity went smoothly, with Hannity focusing on many of the same questions from Gibson's interview. However, Palin's performance in her third interview, with Katie Couric of CBS News, was widely criticized, prompting a decline in her poll numbers, concern among Republicans that she was becoming a political liability, and calls from some conservative commentators for Palin to resign from the Presidential ticket. Following this interview, some Repbulicans, including Mitt Romney and William Kristol, questioned the McCain campaign's strategy of sheltering Palin from unscripted encounters with the press. Palin was reported to be preparing intensively for her upcoming debate with Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee Joe Biden; some Republicans have suggested that Palin's performance in the interviews may benefit her in the debate by lowering expectations.

Also, quick explanation as to why the press protest was dropped. It seemed like a detail that was better suited to the sub-article as it was just a one time thing and only over a single event rather than a general protest. --Bobblehead 22:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking good to me! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. I think I can support the compromise on this. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me too. Tvoz/talk 02:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I like Bobbleheads version. I would like to see "only" three one-on-one interviews. It emphasizes the uniqueness of the Palin 'no-free wheeling interview' tactic. I had trouble with "However' as a transition in Mastcells version but that was set aside with the Hannity interview inclusion.--Buster7 (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

On this talkpage above there was consensus that particular WP:RECENT interviews have no lasting notability(relevance, significance, suitability for inclusion for the nit-pickers out there) to be included in a biographical article covering the whole life of the subject. The solution? Ignore the past discussion and propose versions with massive discussion of the interviews that were just rejected. I strongly reject this practice and the proposals which try to ignore past discussion by attempting to push one's favoured RECENTISM into the article. Individual interviews and random comments about them simply have no lasting relevance or significance. Hobartimus (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not recall any consensus being reached. In fact, quite the contrary a discussion has taken place. It is not about the interviews that happened...it is about the 17 that didnt happen. Sarah Palin is a hidden candidate. Why? To what end? Don't know. But there is no denying that it is unusual, and so, our reader deserves to know about it--Buster7 (talk) 04:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You should read the talkpage then. I was unaware that "unusual" is a qualification for inclusion in a high profile BLP, I remember our standards and policies regarding biographies of living persons to be quite different. Surely there are countless things, all of them "unusual" that are not included in the Obama BLP. Hobartimus (talk) 04:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus, Please specifically point out when and where a consensus was reached? And what the proposal was? I can't seem to locate it anywhere. O...I find 25/30 editors having a discussion that weaves in and out of three threads relating to 3 interviews and Gov Palin's relations with the press and political voices calling for her to step down. And there are repeated references to a consensus building. But, for the life of me, I can't find where a consensus on any of these issues was reached. What was the count? Also, if unusual doesn't work for you ...replace it with...unwonted or unreasonable or unique or unparalleled or underhanded or unfortunate or impractical or impertinent or imprudent or any one of a thousand words that convey how unusual it is when a politician that wants to be elected ignores the press. Thank you.--Buster7 (talk) 06:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

see above It's about a very similar proposal put up by Bobblehead containing a lot of content about individual interviews. See Wikidemon's comments in particular explaining the rationale behind WP:RECENT interviews and comments about recent interviews not having any lasting notability, significance or relevance to the biography as a whole and thus inappropriate for inclusion. Hobartimus (talk) 07:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I recall no such consensus either, but whether there was or not, frequently Consensus can change - in addition, RECENTism cannot possibly apply to the very odd fact that Palin has given 3 interviews since being named VP candidate and there will be no more interviews prior to the VP debate. 100 years will pass and that very odd circumstance cannot change, as there are end markers between which there are only the three. KillerChihuahua 11:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)@ Hobartimus...I see that proposal but what I DON"T see is consensus. I see 3 threads that run together with editors conversing in and out with wide ranging input about each. 3 points, 1 conversation. No consensus reached on any of the three. Wikidemons comment's clearly explain his rationale. But so do other editors with opposing rationale. I'm not sure why you isolate his as the "consensus builder."

I was one of the first to "vote" on Bobbleheads proposal so I was well aware of it and watched as editors worked together (myself included) to formulate a para about Gov Palin's unusual election strategy. The para above is the result. Is that the consensus you mean? You imply that consensus was reached to NOT mention the three interviews when, in fact, a very supportive and vibrant interplay created a well-formulated, informative paragragh that mentioned all three.

Re:consensus. It has been my limited experience that as a discussion requesting consensus about a proposal is taking place, a tally is ALSO taking place. Many times an editor or editors will take it upon themselves to keep the discussion on topic. And, the proponent will keep count. That did not happen here and no clear cut consensus was achieved (except for the paragraph).

It is misleading to take it upon yourself to declare "Consensus" without specifying what had been decided. No need to comment. Let's move on! Thank you--Buster7 (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Buster, a new thread is not a free pass to ignore past opinions articulated a short while ago. You confuse the consensus process with voting with comments like "proponent will keep count" I suggest to read Wikidemon's comments on why it is not appropriate to include material that has no lasting biographical value or significance. The strength of argument is an important part of the deliberation process. I see no evidence that "odd" or "unusual" would be the standard of inclusion on Misplaced Pages, there are countless examples, the Obama-Ayers relationship is "odd" and "unusual" to such a degree that it has it's own article "Obama–Ayers controversy" meeting the standards of Afd. With it's own fully notable article it still couldn't achieve inclusion in the Obama BLP. BLPs seem to have extremely high standards as to what gets included. In a short while there will be a 90 minute prime time appearance of Palin on TV I don't see the argument that some of the newspapers make "the voters can't see Palin on TV enough" holding up much after that. Hobartimus (talk) 12:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We had a thread seeking consensus, then additional threads imposing revisions were placed here. I just hope that no one sought out people to muddy the consensus building process! For WP to get or maintain respect, it must be assiduous in even-handedness in all articles, lest MPOV be viewed as a joke. Collect (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose the Bobblehead revision which is inappropriate for all the reasons discussed above and in the other thread. Individual interviews are not notable. Reaction given the individual interviews are not notable. Hobartimus (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) WTH do you mean, "Oppose the Bobblehead version" - that's completely unhelpful. To what do you object? How do you propose to improve it? How would you fix the problems you see with it? This isn't a vote, that's in November. KillerChihuahua 15:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

For example BLP says stuff needs to get consensus before inclusion in a BLP and deleted content shouldn't be restored without consensus. I don't beleive there is consensus, as to the arguments they were stated in this thread and the other thread many many many times over. Hobartimus (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You still havent' identfied what in that paragraph you feel violates BLP. You cannot do page-blanking vandalism or blind reverts and simply yell "BLP" and somehow its covered. Please identify what in that paragraph you consider a BLP violation. Be specific, or your BLP claims are useless. KillerChihuahua 15:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The section of BLP I cited above covers all material as I read it. Basicly it's there to ensure that BLPs are written conservatively and anything only gets included if there is consensus to include it, not before. Maybe I misread the section but that's my interpretation. Basicly many people objected to excessive coverage of interviews and biased interview reactions on grounds of UNDUE, RECENTISM, SYNTH, NPOV and other grounds not just in this section but elsewhere where it was discussed. It doesn't violate BLP directly, only that it's inserted into a BLP without consensus that it would meet other policies. I'd imagine it would fall under the umbrella of wording which makes biographies a special type of article held to higher standard. Again maybe others read the text of BLP differently and controversial material can be included without consensus. Hobartimus (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I ask again, what controversial materiel? You must object to something as violating BLP, or you are, in effect, objecting to nothing at all. Either identify what you object to, or cease this as a violation of KillerChihuahua 16:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There were many objections from many editors so the others should explain theirs. Excessive discussion of interviews that lack any long term notability, biographical relevance. Excessive discussion, of the hand picked reactions to these interviews, "some Repbulicans"

"some conservative commentators" the word "some" clearly indicating the selective nature of the reaction comments included, and not the mainstream opinions within these groups. Is the mainstream conservative opinion that she should resign? Who should take her place, just the ticket should be disbanded? Without recommending someone to take her place it's not a serious comment to begin with, it's not a serious suggestion. "prompting a decline in her poll numbers" exceptional claims without exceptional sources to back them up (this would need a multitude of polls that clearly separate the interview form the 1000s of other reasons effecting the numbers, like partisan attacks, smears and the like) etc. But the main objection is that the consensus process was entirely bypassed and one controversial version implemented outright. Hobartimus (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a content dispute, not a BLP violation. A content dispute on a BLP is not the same as a BLP violation. Do you have a BLP concern regarding this paragraph? Not to belabor the point, but is there anything, anything at all - just one thing which you can name which is a BLP violation? KillerChihuahua 16:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"In order to ensure that biographical material of living people is always policy-compliant, written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material." If the material is to be restored without significant change, then consensus must be obtained first" says it must "always be policy-compliant" I assumed this meant all policies in a case of a BLP not just the BLP itself. It also says consensus must be obtained first. I'm not sure this is the same as a "BLP concern" rather about the text of the policy itself, not the same way "BLP vio" meaning "unsourced or poorly sourced content". If we are only talking about in the "unsourced or poorly sourced" meaning than anything goes in biographical articles until it's sourced. Hobartimus (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

However I think the objections were always clear, maybe citing the text of the BLP policy is worthless since it's often misunderstood to mean the stock reference to "unsourced or poorly sourced controversial content". I feel I made my position clear as to why Bobblehead's version with it's excessive focus on RECENT interviews and their reaction is inappropriate I'll leave it to others to comment as well. Hobartimus (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your objections either. Frankly, the RECENT interviews are and the public reaction to them and her nomination are all we have to go on when it come to her reception on the national stage. Looking at all of the sources around discussing her they all mention the interviews. I'm not sure what you would have us use to discuss her if we discount that information. AniMate 16:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I see no "consensus" that recent interviews should not be used or refered to in this article. On the contrary, given that this article is notable largely because of current events, recent interviews are highly relevant. Be that as it may, so what? The passage we are discussing has to do with a controversy over her availability to the press. A politician's relationship to the press is always noteworthy, all the moreso during a campaign when a politican's relationship with te press is always in part the outcome of the candidate's campaign strategy. This paragraph is not about a specific interview. It is about a controversy over one element of Palin's campaign strategy, which has to do with careful and limited access for members of the news media. This is highly relevant. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It works the other way around. According to BLP one should achieve consensus for inclusion not for exclusion, "the burden of proof", etc. So the fact that you see no consensus is exactly the point. Hobartimus (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I would note that in my vain attempt to get consensus and compromise, I tried to keep track of opinions. Then deus ex machina presents versions which bear no resemblance to the crafted consensus in progress. !!!!

Hobartimus, the call for consensus cannot be so simple as giving any one editor a veto-power over making changes. That would simply be absurd. For an editor's view - whether positive or negative - to count in a consensus-driven process, that editor must actively participate in attempts to build consensus. That is why it is critical to explain your objections and explain them in addressible terms: "this sentence x violates policy y for reason z." That is the only way that others can respond either "Okay, we make this change and now the sentence no longer violates policy" or "oh, well, there is no way to fix it so the sentence has to go" - only on this basis can we build any consensus, whether to add or not add a passage. And as far as I can tell every objection of this sort ("sentence x violates policy y for reason z") has been addressed. SO we are building consensus. As far as I can tell, in every case that someone has objected that the proposed passage violates a policy, either the passage was modified or it turned out that in fact the passage did not violate any policy. This is how we build consensus. So, please show us which sentence violates which policy in which way! If any such sentences still exist, we will either change them or delete them, but first you have to demonstrate that a specific sentence violates a specific policy in a specific way. If you cannot do this, then that means we have consensus to include the passage. Simply objecting, on no grounds, is an attempt to veto (which no wikipedia policy grants to anyone, not even the exalted Jimbo), not a lack of consensus! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

← Looks like CNN is now reporting what Politico reported yesterday. Basically, the campaign is going to start putting her in more "comfortable settings" to sell her life story and "folskiness". --Bobblehead 20:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair and Balanced, Brit view

For a better "global" view, try http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/sarahpalin/2823573/Sarah-Palin-interview-pundits-give-mixed-reviews.html

The self-styled "hockey mom", who portrayed herself as a "pitbull in lipstick" during her party's national convention, took a tough line on national security and foreign policy in her discussion with Charles Gibson of ABC World News.

She "presented a confident face in what was considered an important early test of her knowledge of foreign affairs," according to The Boston Globe.

You might wish to note that this cite presents bothe sides of opinion. Is there a problem here? Or are POV-pushers going to push yet again? Collect (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Cease mentions of "POV pushers" - that is hostile and does not promote a friendly working atmoshpere. If you feel specific edits tend to appear biased, it is easy to say so without making personal attacks at no one in particlar, or at specific editors with whom you disagree. KillerChihuahua 19:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I recall having made zero claims against editors, or threats against my peers. It is "disingenuous" to suppose that one person who said that some editors are "paid by the Republican Party" does not have a POV. Pne should also note, moreover, my constant attempts to get compromises worked out, rather than making wholesale edits. Indeed, I trust you will find my input on the talk page is substantial, and my input on edits, small. I thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's hope she doesn't do well in the debate. We'll then have to run the NY Times lead, "Palin disingenously misleads American public and press for a month". :) Fcreid (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's try another "global" cite: http://poligazette.com/2008/09/12/gibsons-palin-interview-too-demeaning/

Some of those who belong in the second category do criticize Gibson, however. They note that ABC clearly edited the interview, to make Gibson look more authoritative and stronger than he actually was. His stern demeanor, then, was not something visible during the interview itself; it became visible after ABC edited the footage.

Quod erat demonstrandum for those who think only their side merits inclusion. Collect (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Collect, I am really disappointed that you view this as being about whose side someone is on. We should all want to write a great WIkipedia article. This means complying with our policies. This means providing an account of all notable views from reliable sources. What difference does it matter what side anyone is on? Is the view notable? Is the source reliable? That's what counts - then it is just a matter of grammar and style! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I am more disappointed that my record of seeking compromise goes unrewarded here. My "side" is the WP official side -- that of NPOV. WP is not a repositiory of every piece of information on a person in a BLP, nor ought it be. I would moreover state that I find the Telegraph to be a "reliable" source. Do you demur? And please try to avoid personally attacking me or the others who have worked on this. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes, the Telegraph is a reasonably reliable source, as are nearly all of those listed above. Your sources all deal with the Gibson interview. I think it is reasonable to say that the first (Gibson) interview met with "mixed reviews" (as the title of the Telegraph piece notes), while Palin's performance in the subsequent interview with Couric was greeted with more universal alarm, concern, and (from some quarters) ridicule. These sources are not mutually exclusive, so it would be most productive to find ways to bring them together into a coherent summary rather than assigning each to a given "side". MastCell  20:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Mashing stuff is SYNTH, if I recall correctly. Guidelines suggest that where one source covers the whole content of a sentence, that it is a proper source to use. If one needs two or three sources in a sentence, that goes to WP:SYNTH. Here we have one source which presnets criticism and praise all in one package. I also furnished this as someone kindly asked what my ref was for the "edited" comment in my two sentence draft prior. I trust this also fill that requirement, n'est-ce pas? Collect (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that is an incorrect interpretation of WP:SYN, which states: "Best practice is to write Misplaced Pages articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page." That's what I'm proposing. MastCell  20:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) With all due respect, "mashing stuff together" is not SYNTH. We combine sources all the time, that is part of the job description in writing an encyclopedia, SYNTH is only using distinct primary sources to create a novel argument, and KC is clearly not doing that. Also, about the Telegraph, I already expressed my views on using the Telegraph in my 19:25, 30 Sept reply to you. And everyone's side here is "the WP official side," surely if this is what you meant by "side" you would know that you, me and KC are all on the same side, right? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, Collect, the way you expressed itself suggests you may be thinking about this backwards - you write as if we have a sentence in an article and then go out looking for sources to back it up, and if we find one source for a sentence that is the best source. But the proper way to write an encyclopedia article is the reverse: we read various sources and then write sentences and groups of sentences that provide an account of all the notable views. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Collect..just yesterday you said my claim of paid operatives at work here was, let me think, o yea....reprehensible and that I was not editing in good faith. My claim was, as it turns out, verified by this ]. My POV is that Kelly and ferrylodge were editing the Sarah Palin article in mid-July---5 weeks before she was a twinkle in the eye of Americans. Ok....maybe they are not paid. But someone would have to have blinders on to not realize that this article needs to be controlled by the Republicans. And, the Democrats need to do their best to counter. It only makes sense in this CyberAge. Perhaps you don't agree. But you needn't condemn me and call me heinous. War is reprehensible and heinous. I edit in good faith!!--Buster7 (talk) 03:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are stating that Kelly and Ferry lodge were being paid, report it to WP proper. Such libels do not belong on a TALK page, for G-d's sake! Palin, by the way, has been in the news for 2 years now -- that you think she was "conceived" just now indicates a portential POV proble. She was even mention in the New York Times, and other media long before July. Editing and making charges are two different matters. If you have evidence against Kelly and Ferry lodge, be mensch enough to charge them openly. Casting aspersions in Talk pages seems a tad craven. Collect (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, Both of you - cease the accusations, direct or veiled, about other editors. This page is for discussing the Sarah Palin article. (btw, I have worked with Ferrylodge here for some time, and I would be highly surprised to find he was paid by anyone but his employer. I have objections to many things about Ferrylodge, but that is not something I have ever seen any reason to suspect him of.) Thank you - KillerChihuahua 16:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Um -- read my posts. I accused no one of editing in bad faith. I did state that accusing editors of being paid by the Republican Party did not belong here. I somehow think that DEFENDING AGF should not be a problem. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 00:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

section uneditable

Unfortunately, a prior section is showing as being uneditable (infinite time loading) -- so I am using a new section to reply. I know that I have been on WP a full year less than KC, but I think my c.v. is more than adequate. I did not think quantity of edits was needed to get the presumption of "good faith." I have been online since 1982, and have acttively overseen as a wizop more than four million messages, and more than 50,000 files. Closer to seven million messages by now. KC avers no presence in anything related to Sarah Palin in the past. Except for Talk:Sarah Palin Archive 18. Talk: Political Positions of Sarah Palin Archives 1 and 2, and possibly other places (including User Talk pages). I am therefore claiming that I have made no improper claims about anyone, and that I endeavor to grant the presumption of good faith to everyone. Is that clear? Collect (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no thoughts at all about your CV, but I am disturbed by one of your recent comments in the preceeding section (about The Guardian) that shows me you misunderstand what Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy and policy on Reliable Sources mean. NPOV does not mean that we write articles that are completely lacking in bias, or use sources that have no bias. It means that we represent all notable views. And reliable sources ... well, just read the actual policy. The Guardian is certainly a reliable source if we are writing about news media reception. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As you will note above, I offer a British BALANCED view as a cite. Do you have a problem with the Telegraph? I would suggest that it offers a more balanced view than the Guardian offers. Thanks!Collect (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Collect, I urge you to read our NPOV policy. According to whom is the Telegraph more balanced? You? Me? It doesn't matter! NPOV is designed because editors are going to disagree over right and wrong, fair or unfair, balanced or biased. Instead, we represent notable views. Is the Telegraph notable? That is the question, and the answer is yes. And The Guardian is just as notable. We should draw on both as sources. But none of this silliness of claiming one is more balance than another. Let's just follow our policies; in this case they represent a tremendous amount of wisdom that has been tested and proven a lot. Please, just read our NPOV policy and let's follow it. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That would certainly be true if this were an article on a Mars landing. However, I think it is patently disingenuous of editors not to acknowledge the only thing reliable about certain press outlets is their propensity to bash whatever political bent is opposite their own. This is demonstrably true during an election cycle, and it has been incredibly so in the case of Palin. (One need not look hard to find myriad sources outlining specific unfounded criticisms and plain-old smears of Palin--on an order of magnitude not "enjoyed" by any other candidate--and with no remorse about having to recant in the fine print a few days later!) Finally, let's look at the big picture of our situation. Palin's first debate is in two days. Even people without political interests have already pre-programmed their DVR. What would you estimate will be the number of page views here between now and Friday morning? How sweet it would be for either side should this article be manipulated and tained in either direction before then? Fcreid (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ought we include every possible newspaper? I would suggest that an article which is seen to be NPOV is suited for citing here more than one whose POV has been disputed, no matter how much you like it. As for your suggestion that I have NOT read the policies -- I assure you that I have (actually over 200 pages of policies now) and I find your statement to be demeaning in the extreme. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You find my statement demeaning? Look, you are the one who keeps insisting that one POV is better than another, it is you who thinks that someone we should only be using sources that are "NPOV" when in fact NPOV is a policy about how to use different sources and views. If you have read the NPOV policy, I suggest you read it again. This is not a demeaning comment or personal attack, it is a constructive suggestion. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting as I can not find one place where I demeaned someone's POV. Or stated that one POV is "better" than another. BTW, as I iterated I have read the NPOV policy. Tp wit in part:

"The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions."

Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You now deny having denigrated the view of The Guardian and having claimed that the view of The Telegraph was in some way better? You have on several occsasions stated that we should not use the Guardian as a source. You now quote our NPOV policy, and a passage that makes it very clear that views other than your own should be included. This means that just because you do not like the Guardian, this is not a good reason not to use it as a source. The NPOV passage that you quote certainly does not support your attempts to dismiss the use of the Guardian as a source. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Stating that an outside source might have a bias is denigrating or demeaning to an editor here? NPOV would imply that a point of view OTHER than the Guardian's ought reasonably be included. I fail to see why insisting on a SINGLE source is better than using a less biassed source or both sources? And I stand by my comments on the Guardian's biases in some matters. Use booth then. Just don't claim that the single source represents all points of view on the matter. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course I do not think saying something is biased is demeaning. The Telegraph is biased - now, I did not say anything to demean it, and this does not mean that it is an unreliable source for notable views ... did I ever say this? But to return to what you have argued: You did not simply write that the Guardian had a bias. You wrote, "The Guardian is not a reliable source concerning anything remotely related to the Bush family (which it has repeatedly linked to Hitler). A biassed "global view" is no more valid than a biassed local view." Now, I interpreted this to mean that you were opposed to our using The Guardian as a source - if you really think it violates our WP:RS policy then we cannot use it. Did I misinterpret you? Are you actually saying that we should use The Guardian, and that the Guardian and the Telegraph are equally acceptable under our reliable sources and NPOV policy? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I was accused of demeaning people. Stating what has been averred by others -- that the Guardian has biases, does not per se disqualify using the Guardian. It does, however, imply that other sources ought be considered in order to balance statements. This is in accord with NPOV

"Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.

By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That The Beatles were the greatest band in history is an opinion. That the United States is the only country in the world that has used a nuclear weapon for military purposes is a fact. That the United States was right or wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion. However, there are bound to be borderline cases where it is not clear if a particular dispute should be taken seriously and included."

I trust this is clear. Collect (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You were accused of demeaning people? Who accused you of that? When? Where? About "facts" - the claim that all people agree about something is itself a view that needs a source; in any event, your claims about "facts" suggests you haven't read our V policy or do not understand the point that wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I am still very curious to know who accused you of demeaning people, and when and in which section. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Check your own posts where you state that you are not demeaning me. As I stated, I never demeaned any edotor whatsoever. Zaereth below wished to end this stuff, and I was done until you decided to add "the last word." Then I would suggest this part of Talk is finis. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, NPOV is a Misplaced Pages term of art and has no meaning when applied to newspapers. The Telegraph is a generally reliable news source. So is the Guardian. One is not "more reliable" than the other in any meaningful or general sense, and this line of argument seems a bit silly. More silly is the contention that the Guardian is inherently biased because of a news article about the Bush family which one editor dislikes, while the Telegraph is "BALANCED". MastCell  20:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Certainly I didn't contend that. In fact, I asked nearly a month ago of editors involved in furious debate (about the infamous "bridge" as I recall) if there were a single source that both sides agreed presented information neutrally. I received zero responses. Fcreid (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that; I was responding to comments by User:Collect higher up. "Neutrality" of a source is highly subjective and impossible to nail down, whereas a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and solid editorial oversight are somewhat less elusive qualities which are possessed by any number of sources, including the Guardian, the Telegraph, etc. MastCell  20:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This whole thing is getting out of hand. As Collect has said, this whole section is about the opinion of others. Then a debate over who "others" should be insues, which inevitably leads to a sourcing war, each claiming their source is more reliable ... and this is what we end up with. Who's to say what opinion is more valid than another. Because this section is about opinions, I think it will become a powerful magnet for POV, not just from the pushers, but even subconsciously from the most well intended individual. For an article primarily about opinion, not to bring out our own predjudices will take a lot of careful thought and discussion. I'm gonna stay away from this one, and trust that the many good editors here will be able to cease hostilities and work this out in a dignified manner. Zaereth (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to whomever fixed the font. I thought I'd been on SP so long that my eyes started failing. Fcreid (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Rearrange Last Paragraph

Palin has stated that she would not allow her personal religious beliefs to dictate her political positions. She stated, "I would never presume to know what God’s will is...that's a repeat in my comments , 'let us not pray that God is on our side, in a war, or any other time. But let us pray that we are on God’s side.'" However, she has come under scrutiny in the press for comments made at a commencement address to a graduating class of ministry students at the Wasilla Assembly of God church in June 2008. In that address, Palin stated, "Pray... for this country, that our leaders... are sending out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan." Critics have argued that she was justifying the Iraq war as part of God's plan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.66.137 (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

My only comment for the day (::waits for applause::) ... while I personally think Palin's claim is contradicted by her views on creationism being fair game in school, and overturning Roe v Wade, among other things this quote introduced above only confirms her analysis of her own comments. Notice: "Pray THAT there is a plan and THAT that plan is God's plan." Clear use of the subjunctive indicating that it is a hypothetical statement of volition (wish, intent).

In essence: "Pray that we are doing the right thing". Although heavily tinged with religious dogma, it explicitly does NOT presume that God justifies the Iraq war. It also does not directly imply any particular political action although it could be said that it seems to suggest it. On the flip side, this draws a fine line that is quite likely to inflame the radical Muslim world which needs little confirmation that they are engaged in a holy war and will probably not pay attention to the minute details of what was said (in a foreign language). But, to tie in to Palin's own analysis, that quote is the exact quote which she was referring to (more or less correctly) as a paraphrase of Lincoln.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 05:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I would commend you to go to church or synagogue (or mosque). Prayers for the nation are routinely found in virtually every formal denomination. "Pray for peace" was, in fact, the primary postmark in the US for many years. "...-" was the primary postmark in the British Empire during WW II, and QE II is head of the C of E. Prayers in churches internationally contain prayers for the leaders of nations and nations. Ought we include all of these? I would trust not. http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=7903

God bless you and God bless America.

Collect (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

2/3 of the personal life section is about her religion and its effects on her politics. I would remove most of that into a sub article but who am I to do that :). Cheers, --Tom 14:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I trimed it, but it could use more since there is still material about her religion and her political beliefs. --Tom 15:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

VP debate moderator wrote pro-Obama book which is being released on January 20, 2009

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

closed because identical post / edit / discussion taking place at Talk:United States presidential election debates, 2008 - Wikidemon (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Ifill, the scheduled moderator of the October 2, 2008 vice presidential debate, wrote a pro-Obama book called "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," which is being released on January 20, 2009. --- unsigned by user:Grundle2600 15:24, 1 October 2008

Personal / Religious

Hey Jossi, what specific objections do you have to Homung's recent edits? Thanks - KillerChihuahua 15:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I restored one edit, the deletion of a vague and unsourced statement. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that to me was very insulting and a bizarre sentence anyway - I have seen no claims her faith is fake, so why on earth would we have a sentence "countering" a non-issue? KillerChihuahua 16:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this is Homung's other edit, which I thought was an improvement. Not saying it was the best possible, but it seemed better written than what was there, to me. KillerChihuahua 16:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's my suggested sentence from that edit: "Palin's use of religious language in relation to non-religious subjects, such as an oil pipeline or the Iraq war, has caused comment." My intent was to have a sentence that would allow the average politically-aware reader to fill in both sides of this issue ("She says God wants us in Iraq! No, she just hopes she is doing what God wants!") without actually taking sides. I fully agree that the sentence is imperfect, but it is much better than "Some of Palin’s assertions relate her personal religious beliefs to public policy, e.g., that development of an oil pipeline for Alaska is God’s will, or that the Iraq War is part of God’s plan with the US military on a task from God in Iraq." which clearly takes sides, imputing a debatable interpretation to her quote. Jossi, as someone who felt strongly about wanting this article to be able to grow, I really think that you should try to respond to productive edits with more productive edits, not with reverts. I will not war on this but I think the article is silly as it stands. Homunq (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Give me a f#%&g break. "She has made appeals to American sensibilities in several comments relating her personal religious beliefs to public policy"????? And she likes apple pie, I hear, too, and is a mother of 5. Whoever it is _{(note: Ottre)} didn't even bother to change the reference...

Let's recap: I, an editor who personally dislikes Palin, makes an edit that takes the article from an unfair attack on Palin, to being something in the neighborhood of NPOV. I get a comment on my talk page saying "Great edit" (thanks, by the way). Jossi, another editor who dislikes Palin, reverts it. It starts a talk page discussion. Then the sentence is twisted around to be totally pro-Palin with no comment on the talk page.

This is a really pathological process here. I'd love to put my own edit back, but I promised not to edit-war on this one and I will stand by that promise. Homunq (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I do not "dislike Palin". I am interested in a neutral presentation of this person as reported in the numerous sources available on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That can be assumed. I was talking about your personal feelings; "dislike" may be a poor characterization, but most of the editors on this talk page, you included, have long past tipped their hands about which "side they're on". The point is not that that's bad in itself, just that NPOV means compromise on both sides - not based on who yells louder, but based on using verifiability and logic to find statements that are as unarguably true as possible. "She said God is on our side" just isn't, based on the quotes we have. Homunq (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've cooled off now, but I really don't get where "American sensibilities" even comes from. Homunq (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here is what is there right now:

She has made appeals to American sensibilities in several comments relating her personal religious beliefs to public policy. After the Republican National Convention, the McCain campaign told CNN that Palin "doesn't consider herself Pentecostal."

- I am sure we can do better than that. KillerChihuahua 19:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I just tried!! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That works. NPOV writing 101! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

... and now the article is back to the anti-Palin slant. Please, people, if there are two redundant statements covering the same material, remove the POV one, not the NPOV one, even if the NPOV one is newer (looking at you, Grsz). Homunq (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone want to edit this one before I do or have some suggestions to improve it and reflect the truth? "Some of Palin’s assertions relate her personal religious beliefs to public policy, e.g., that development of an oil pipeline for Alaska is God’s will, or that the Iraq War is part of God’s plan with the US military on a task from God in Iraq. " Fcreid (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This was a perfectly good statement a day or two ago. Someone has distorted it to a completely POV shot at her. I don't like to review edit history, because I'd prefer not knowing who that was. Fcreid (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the end result of any statement that includes either of this clauses (Iraq War and pipeline) will also include that it was provided to a group of missionary students at a commencement address in the Wasilla church. Boy, this irks me after we spent days on end making this right. Fcreid (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It irks me, too. My suggestion is above: "Palin's use of religious language in relation to non-religious subjects, such as an oil pipeline or the Iraq war, has caused comment." I think that this issue deserves no more than one sentence. I understand your point about it having been said in a church; however, I think that adding "in church" to that specific suggested sentence would be awkward and come across as clunky POV. Homunq (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding the venue and the audience is absolutely critical to the context of that statement. Otherwise, it has no merit. Unless someone can cite something she said in a political forum, e.g. to the Council of Mayors or state legislature, then the statement must include that very relevant context. Fcreid (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Fcreid. It makes a huge difference that she was speaking at a religious service, rather than to the legislature or something like that.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

She was invited to speak because she was mayor, not because she is a theologian. ANd I have no idea why you think that the claim that someone links their religious views to public policy is a bias against Palin, unless you are so anti-religious you think that any claim that someone has religious beliefs is an insult. personally, I find that offensive. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be reading into my comments something I never said.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No one is making any statement or judgments about her personal religious beliefs here. This is purely the need that material we present is accurate. If she had made these now-renowned comments to a departing brigade of National Guard soldiers or the Wasilla High football team, they would have been wholly inappropriate. That they were made as a commencement address to a graduating class of the "Jesus Masters" program at Wasilla Assembly of God makes them absolutely appropriate. Fcreid (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Fcreid that we ought to very briefly mention that the comments were made at a church.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

And to graduating ministry students. Fcreid (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This might precede smoothly into the campaign clarification statement: "Palin's use of religious references in a speech to graduating ministry students at Wasilla Assembly of God, specifically regarding the topics of the Alaska-Canada oil pipeline and the Iraq war, has called into question the influence of Pentacostal Christianity on her politics. Fcreid (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I have a somewhat improved suggestion below, in this section of the talk page.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Some background. I've been here every day for a month, and I count the edits I've made to the article on one hand. I'm a consensus-builder, here and in real life, as I've found that always brings me closer to the truth. When I first saw this quote (badly mangled at the time, claiming she said "Iraq was a task from God" and "God will bring us a pipeline", I was blown away (read into that what you will). When I peeled the onion just a single layer, I quickly learned this speech was made as a commencement address to these "Jesus Masters" graduates and given in a church (from a pulpit), it made a helluva lot more sense to me. Ironically, this quote is *all* that stands as criticism of Palin's alleged conflict between governing and religion. There is no other quote, in any other public forum, to reinforce that assessment. Therefore, it is imperative that those elements of context be included. Otherwise, the next Joe coming to the article will also be blown away. Fcreid (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and SLR, my knee-jerk response wasn't directed at you. As I said, I really don't care who made the edits today, but the end result was a clear POV-push. If you had known how many hours and days of discussion were spent on making that one idiotic quote stand on its own enough to pacify both sides, you'd appreciate my ire. Fcreid (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Here was my original contribution at the end of the paragraph, using NPR as source-

Some of Palin’s assertions relate her personal religious beliefs to public policy, e.g., that development of an oil pipeline for Alaska is God’s will, or that the Iraq War is part of God’s plan with the US military on a task from God in Iraq.

The idea was that it is very accurate as to what she said in her church speech, is consistent with the "spiritual warfare" teachings of the church, but does not sound like an unusual thing to say for the unbelievers, so is neutral.

Looking at the mass of words on this talk page above, apparently I missed something. Tautologist (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you did. The current proposed wording is above. You're welcome to join in. Fcreid (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) This article currently says: "Palin's use of religious language in relation to public policy has caused some to speculate on the influence of Pentacostal Christianity on her politics." I see two problems.

Problem #1: See WP:Weasel. The phrase “has caused some to speculate” is weaselly. It seems that it refers to the following two sentences of the cited source: “Poloma says some people might hear that and say Palin believes this is a holy war, or that Pentecostals think this is a holy war….Bock, however, warns against drawing conclusions about anyone's policies from his or her faith.” So, Bock is warning people not to speculate, and Poloma only admits that some other people might speculate.

Problem #2: There’s no mention that Palin made these remarks in a church, rather than to a legislature or something. The cited source says: “Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin dropped in on the Wasilla Assembly of God, the church she and her family attended until 2002.”\

So, I'd suggest: "In a speech to graduating ministry students at Wasilla Assembly of God, Governor Palin used religious references in relation to public policy, which has led to some discussion about whether (or to what degree) her faith influences her politics."Ferrylodge (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That works for me, FL. I suspect it won't be enough for the meat-lovers who want to see "Iraq" and "pipeline" prominently in there. Fcreid (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Currently states: "In a speech to graduating ministry students at Wasilla Assembly of God in June 2008, Governor Palin used religious references in relation to public policy, which has generated discussion about whether (or to what degree) her faith influences her politics" - which is completely acceptable to me. Are we all done trying to make it sound like she was shaking chicken bones and reading entrails now? Sorry for being short tempered about this, but honestly, people! KillerChihuahua 22:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks great. Thanks and apologies to all. I appreciate your humoring me. Fcreid (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks great to me too - I am pleased with Ferrylodge's changes. I hope this shows everyone here that whatever our personal beliefs, it is actually possible to build consensus! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - anyone who knows the history between myself and Ferrylodge will surely realize that if we can work together, virtually anyone can. KillerChihuahua 23:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Acknowledged. :) Fcreid (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite through here. It seems the article has now implied that she may mix her religion and politics. We should also include her denial. "Palin has stated that she would not allow her personal religious beliefs to dictate her political positions," according to CNN.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Her campaign says she doesn't mix her faith with government business….Palin has done little while in office to advance a social conservative agenda. She told The Associated Press in an interview in 2006 that she would not allow her personal beliefs to dictate public policy. "I've honestly answered the questions on what my personal views are on things like abortion and a lot of controversial issues," Palin told AP. "I won't hesitate to answer those questions about what my personal views are, but I am not one to be out there preaching and forcing my views on anyone else."

Yes, that was there earlier but somehow during all the editing it must have been removed. IMO we should be careful to balance the weight - concerns raised, she says no, but a sentence each should do it, you agree? KillerChihuahua 23:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Not sure what your subsequent remark (immediately below) means.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, its probably best it was removed, since you're working on it - the one before said something about "the McCain campaign" rather than Palin, which sounded like McCain's crew was talking out of their hats. KillerChihuahua 23:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No, darnit, it is there (apologioes all, I am sorry I'm spamming here) - this sentence: "After the Republican National Convention, the McCain campaign told CNN that Palin "doesn't consider herself Pentecostal" - does anyone feel this strikes a really lame note besides me? I don't know whether Palin considers herself Pentecostal or not, I haven't seen any press on it, but McCain's campain told??? Hrm. KillerChihuahua 23:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(this is literally at least my 6th try to add this comment, I would be about 20 comments up if not for edit conflicts). Getting closer. How about: "In a speech at Wasilla Assembly of God in June 2008, Governor Palin spoke in religious terms about the Iraq War and the Alaska-Canada oil pipeline.(ref) Palin has stated that she would not allow her personal religious beliefs to dictate her political positions.(ref)" (changes: 1. choose church or ministry students - either one establishes religious context. 2. religious terms, not religious references - I think that is a totally neutral change but a little bit more accurate 3. mention specific issues 4. instead of weaseling about conclusions "some" draw, let reader draw their own. 5. Include her denial.) Homunq (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. But are we removing or leaving the McCain-Palin statement that she doesn't consider herself Pentecostal? If it's true that she doesn't then that seems noteworthy, if we actually want to describe her religion correctly. And there doesn't seem any reason not to believe it's true; i.e. it's basically the same as her saying it herself. BTW, here's some more from her: "Faith is very important to so many of us here in America, and I would never support any government effort to stifle our freedom of religion or freedom of expression or freedom of speech….freedom of religion and freedom of expression will be things that I will fight for."Ferrylodge (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

IMO, we ditch it completely. I was wavering between "ditch" and "rephrase" but the only source is a rambling CNN article which also states that she said thetroops in Iraq were sent on "task that is from God, and includes a lot of views and Palin's 20-yr membership in a Pentecostal church, but darn little which merits inclusion. If we start adding He said, she said, others disagree crap, we're writing a sub-article. I say cut bait. KillerChihuahua 23:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ouch, a lot of that was my multi=posting, I'm sure, sorry about that. Yes, I think your changes are definite improvements! Especially including Palin's clear denial, which as you see FL and I both feel should be included. What is your take on the McCain's campaign sentence I pasted above? Is it clear why it bothers me, or do I need to explain? KillerChihuahua 23:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As to the "not pentecostal" thing, if the only problem is that "the McCain campaign" sounds bad, how about "a spokesperson" or something? I think we can justly conclude that the McCain campaign speaks for her since there's no RS doubting that. Oh, and move it up in the paragraph to where it makes sense. Homunq (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. KC disagrees, but maybe can be persuaded. KC, if we don't include that a spokesperson says she's not Pentecostal, then many people will think that she is Pentecostal. Do we want that?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If the consensus is, and it seems to be, to keep, than rather than the somewhat nonsensical "campain told CNN" - I mean, how can a campaign "tell" anyone anything? and yes, that crappy phrasing is in the CNN article as well - we should rather say "A statement from the McCain campaign" or "A McCain campaign spokesperson stated" - you get the idea. A sentence which actually makes some kind of sense would be nice. KillerChihuahua 23:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I understsand KC's point but my feeling is, if we have a reliable source that says it, we should keep it. That said, I have no problem at all with either Homunq or Ferrylodge's proposed additions. And if we need to choose one of the three, well, I leave that up to you guys because any one of them is fine with me. The important thing is we are now working together - a refreshing change from last night! Slrubenstein | Talk 00:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I was bold and put the article to where I think this consensus is settling. Feel free to make further adjustments. Homunq (talk) 00:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Just a comment: I think we could have come to much the same place with a lot less "verbiage" here if people weren't so hair-triggered with their reverts. It is a lot easier to understand where someone's coming from if they propose new versions of things, even if it's essentially the same stuff, rather than just reverting.

Thanks Homunq. Good job everyone. Good night John-boy. Good night KC.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. After all that, we have another overhaul of the section. No, I do not agree with this. See WP:Weasel. The new phrase “leading some to question whether her politics are influenced by Pentacostal Christinaity” is weaselly. It seems to refer to the following two sentences of the cited source: “Poloma says some people might hear that and say Palin believes this is a holy war, or that Pentecostals think this is a holy war….Bock, however, warns against drawing conclusions about anyone's policies from his or her faith.” So, Bock is warning people not to speculate, and Poloma only admits that some other people "might" speculate. This new phrase is unnecessary, and it does not seem to be supported by the cited source.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, i think the added clause is necessary, indeed crucial context for understanding why the McCain spokesman and Palin would make statements about religion not influincing her politics - they were responding to the kinds of concerns that the National Public Radio story covered. And the source that we are using - the NPR story - is explicitly about people having concerns about pentacostalism influencing her politics. It is a straightforward matter of representing the source accurately. That She has made clear that religion does not influence her political acts is an important view to include. That some people have made concerns over this a campaign issue is also an important view. Adding it provides both views and complies with NPOV; and the view added is verifiable and from a reliable source. It fully complies with our policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Please quote what portion of the article you're relying upon.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, what do you think the article, as a whole, is about? An article or news story is not just a collection of individual lines, those lines fit together to form a whole. If people didn't wonder about he religion affecting her politics, there would not be a story, period. Look, perhaps you do not follow American politics closely to know that lots of people have raised this concern. This has come up repeatedly in many news outlets, and it is something that many people opposed to her are talking about. It is easy to find sources that support this, and I will add one or perhaps more right now. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

So, you're not going to revert yourself, and you're not going to quote anything from the cited source? Please note that it's not only me that has objected. Homunq said above: "instead of weaseling about conclusions 'some' draw, let reader draw their own." Ferrylodge (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, like I just told you: I was busy adding additional citations to support the point. Didn't I say that was what I was going to do? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the two sources I added more than cover the point. As for the NPR story, my response, as i suggested above, is not a single sentence or paragraoh from the story - taken out of context - but the story itself, i.e. the entire context for any sentence you might select. The only reason authorities on Pentacostal Chrsitianity would be given time on NPR to warn people not to think that her religion is influencing her politics is because people are concerned about this. The story ends: "Bock says President Bush and Democratic nominee Barack Obama have already been through this sort of spiritual vetting. Now it's Palin's turn." That is, Palin's turn to be vetted. What do you think this sentence means? Clearly, it means vetted as to whether her Pentacostal religion will influence her politics. And I repeat: making it clear that this is the concern many people have is essential context so that the denial that she is penatcostal, and the denial that religion will affect her politics, makes any sense. I am puzzled as to why this is unacceptable to you. We have added material you considered essential context, and have not reverted other changes you made. I have explained at length my reasoning and I see no reason for me to revert myself or for anyone else to revert a loine that adds balance and context to the paragraph. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, I quoted directly from the NPR story to show you that it does not support your point. Just pointing to the article's aura, without quoting it, does not help you.

Regarding your other two sources, I haven't looked at the NY Times article yet, but will shortly. Your Huffington Post source is unacceptable. The primary author of the HuffPost piece is Nico Pitney, an editor at Huffpost. He was previously Deputy Research Director at the Center for American Progress and Managing Editor of ThinkProgress, both renowned liberal institutions (the latter being a subset of the former). He says in his blog post that Palin views the war in Iraq "as a messianic affair." It's not a reliable source.

Also, see here. "Further, in recent times the Internet has become a major source of information about current events. These include blogs, and sites like The Drudge Report and the Huffington Post. According to WP:RS blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. However blogs that also collect news information present a unique challenge to the Misplaced Pages Editor. For example the Huffington Post blog also contains an extensive repository of news articles from around the country."

I'll get back to you in a moment about your NY Times source. I hope you realize that you're turning things upside down here. Editors have objected to including the kind of language that you want here. That means there is no consensus to include it, and you ought to remove it until there is such a consensus.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, regarding your NY Times cite, again you have not quoted any particular language in the article that you're relying on, presumably because you think that it's enough to simply rely on the aura of the article, notwithstanding what it actually says. So, I'll quote for you the part that comes closest to supporting what you've jammed into this article against consensus: "Ms. Palin’s religious life — what she believes and how her beliefs intersect or not with her life in public office in Alaska — has become a topic of intense interest and scrutiny across the political spectrum as she has risen from relative obscurity to become Senator John McCain’s running mate." Does that really support your inserted language that some people have been led "to question whether her politics are influenced by Pentacostal Christianity"? I don't think so. See how the NY Times balanced out the matter: "how her beliefs intersect or not", acknowledging both possibilities. In any event, I agree with what Homunq said above: "instead of weaseling about conclusions 'some' draw, let reader draw their own."Ferrylodge (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

When my initial insertion, which had the clause in it, was removed the explanation given was solely that it was redundant. Then you and others faulted it for not giving information about the audience. These were the objections given when I last added this, and we have responded to them. As fr your current objections, I am not talking about aura, I am talking about the point of the articleas a whole. Also, the Huffington Post is an extremely reliable source for what people on the left think. Reliability depends on the view. In this case the viewpoint is partisan - it is the view of people who oppose Palin; thus it is precisely because it is partisan that HP is a reliable source. It is like a creationist publisher is a reliable source on what creationists think, even though it is not a reliable source on evolution. HP may not be a reliable source on what Palin thinks, but it is a reliable source on what other people think. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC) This quote from NYT explicitly supports the clause I added: "Ms. Palin’s religious life — what she believes and how her beliefs intersect or not with her life in public office in Alaska — has become a topic of intense interest and scrutiny across the political spectrum" Slrubenstein | Talk 01:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I previously quoted that passage from the NYT article above. You're right; it's the closest that the cited sources come to supporting the language you inserted. I've reworded to more closely track the NY Times: "In a speech at Wasilla Assembly of God in June 2008, Governor Palin spoke in religious terms about the Iraq war and the Alaska-Canada oil pipeline, leading some political observers to question whether her politics intersect — or not — with her religous beliefs."

Regarding the Huffblog piece, you can say about any essay that it accurately reflects what the author thinks. But that does not satisfy WP:RS.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have no objection to your rewording - if this satisfies you, go ahead with it. And you seem to be misunderstanding my point about the Huffington piece. My point is that reliability of a source is in part a function of the view that the source ius being used to articulate. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor Ottre

Not even going to bother reading this farce. You have no idea how much history you are attempting to summarize... in a single sentence, no less! The only things which need to be said in this article are: Palin is a life-long Christian, and Palin has appealed to American sensibilities in this regard. Nothing further. Ottre 23:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

And just in case I have underestimated some of the editors here, note: KC, that connotes the need for a separate article which makes some attempt to represent sociological opinions. Ottre 23:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"Uninvolved", ottre? You put that in the article earlier today. If you can't read the talk page, I understand, but please then refrain from editing the article, as consensus is delicate. Homunq (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So you won't bother reading, but you want us to read what you wrote. i did, and it wasn't worth the bother. Really, Ottre, not only are you uninvolved, but this idea of "American sensibilities" is meaningless and I doubt that anyone who has worked hard on this article considers it a constructive contribution. The above discussion is much more interesting (and constructive). Slrubenstein | Talk 23:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ottre, I agree that a much shorter discussion of her religion would be better. However, whenever it is shortened, it reappears. This is something that people are apparently very interested in.

I disagree with your "globalize" tag. That's massive overkill, IMHO.

And there already is a separate article section titled Religion in public life.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I really hate to sound like a broken record and don't want to wear my welcome thin, but I still believe the exact context in which the comments about God, Iraq and Pipeline were made is critical to an exact understanding them. It certainly does for me. Somehow, that this speech was made to ministry students has been lost. Anyone? Fcreid (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not remove it. And I do not object to your putting it back in. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The article now says, "in a speech at Wasilla Assembly of God in June 2008, Governor Palin spoke in religious terms about the Iraq war and the Alaska-Canada oil pipeline." So, it's mentioned that she made the speech at the church, which seems like enough context to me. I don't see why it matters a whole lot that the audience consisted of ministry students.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the context in which she gave the speech. It is not the context in which this fact became ntoable for national news media. This involves a larger context, which is my point. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we're so familiar with this issue now that we don't see the entire perspective others might. Many will infer, due to the venue, that it was an audience of churchgoers. Others may not. Furthermore, knowing they were graduating ministry students versus ordinary church attendees puts the comments in an even greater context for the uninformed, like myself. :) Fcreid (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The clause i added is so short, I see no harm in keeping it unless someone really believes it violates policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"in a speech at Wasilla Assembly of God in June 2008, Governor Palin spoke in religious terms about the Iraq war and the Alaska-Canada oil pipeline." That is not factually accurate and a violation of WP:SYNTH. Why not let the sources speak for themselves? They quote Palin saying certai things and there is no need for interpreting these. Let the readers do that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you please elaborate? Why do you say is it inaccurate, and why do you think it violates WP:Synth? The cited source says: "In the address at the Assembly of God Church here, Ms. Palin’s ease in talking about the intersection of faith and public life was clear. Among other things, she encouraged the group of young church leaders to pray that 'God’s will' be done in bringing about the construction of a big pipeline in the state, and suggested her work as governor would be hampered 'if the people of Alaska’s heart isn’t right with God.' She also told the group that her eldest child, Track, would soon be deployed by the Army to Iraq, and that they should pray 'that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God, that’s what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan, and that plan is God’s plan.'" I think we summarize it pretty well. I might be okay with putting extended Palin quotes in the sub-article or the footnotes of this article, but we don't need to put them in the main text of this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If anyone would prefer "group of young church leaders" versus "graduating class of ministry students" to track exactly to the NPR source, that would be fine too, although it looks fine now. Fcreid (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Haxxored

Her secret Yahoo account was hacked by Anon. Should be put in. Titan50 (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It is in the VP section. --Bobblehead 17:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Should be expanded, feel free. Hobartimus (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually it shouldn't. It's already covered in the weight it is due. --Bobblehead 18:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

God

It seems that Threeafterthree removed stuff about religion and political positions from the "Personal life" section.

Then some of it was reinserted back in, and I think the reinserted material is very problematic and POV. We would have been better off sticking with the original material. For example, this article now says:

Some of Palin’s assertions relate her personal religious beliefs to public policy, e.g., that development of an oil pipeline for Alaska is God’s will, or that the Iraq War is part of God’s plan with the US military on a task from God in Iraq.

First of all, she did not say that the Iraq War is part of God’s plan with the US military on a task from God in Iraq. According to the cited source, she said this: "Pray our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country — that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God....That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan." In other words she wanted people to pray that the Iraq War is part of God’s plan with the US military on a task from God in Iraq. There is a not-so-subtle difference between praying for something and simply asserting that something is true. The setting is also very relevant: she was speaking in a church service, rather than to the legislature or something like that. Palin has explained: "I would never presume to know what God’s will is...that's a repeat in my comments , 'let us not pray that God is on our side, in a war, or any other time. But let us pray that we are on God’s side.'" So, basically, what's in the article now is a complete distortion, and I'm removing it.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, please read the section two above this one. Homunq (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Homunq, I see that you suggested the following: "Palin's use of religious language in relation to non-religious subjects, such as an oil pipeline or the Iraq war, has caused comment." The main objective of my recent edit was to remove blatantly distorted language from the article. If people want to reach consensus about something to replace it with, then I have no problem. As I said, we would have been better off sticking with the original material.

As to your particular suggestion, I'll comment about it above.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, "religious beliefs" doesn't include everything in the universe, but I am pretty sure in includes beliefs about God and prayer, which your qyote illustrates perfectly. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Great! I put back in a sentence thast was removed because it was redundant. Since that time, the sentence that made my edit redundant (which I agree was problematic)has been removed. I have re-added my sentence, which no longer can be faulted for being redundant. It is necessary to explain why, after bringing up her religiosity at the RNC, she later denied being a Pentacostal - she was responding to concerns that had been voiced publicly, including in a report on Americas national public radio station. The sentence I added simply reports - accurately - why people had concerns and is precise about the nature of those concerns. Now the following sentence, in which she denies being a Pentacostalist, makes more sense. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I have again removed it. Please do not add it back until we reach consensus in our discussion above. Fcreid (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You should not have remoced it, since I addressed the objection given when it was removed. That is how consensus works: we discuss and address objections. You can't remove it without explaining exactly what policy it violates and how, and if you really believe in a consensus-building process, suggest ways that you could see it complying with policy. "Consensus" does not describe a situation where one editor has a veto over content; it describes a collaboration between editors trying to work together. The sentence expresses a notable view and has a verifiable source. If you object to the wording, how would you express this notable view that comes from this verifiable source? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Pretty simple. If it omits the venue and the audience, it's wrong and POV. Both of those elements are equally reliably sourced. Discussion continued above. Fcreid (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Deus ex machina edits serve no one well, and serve NPOV quite poorly. Collect (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thatr's it? Really? If you knew that, why did you delete it? Why didn't you simply add the venue and audience? Or don't you care about building consensus? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Part of that was frustration and the other part just me being an idiot on how to make all the links and such work. You're right. I shouldn't have removed it, but I thought I had already conveyed my additional concerns above which were summarily ignored. My apologies. Speaking of which, I'll see you up there, okay? Fcreid (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Youp, I just commented up there - anyway, I am pleased with Ferrylodge's changes and glad to see that it really is possible to use the idea of "consensus" as something that encourages people to collaborate and not just to antagonize. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Education

Maybe it was deleted is because she never really finished any of the schools.

I am puzzled why my addition of an explanation that two of Ms Palin's colleges were two-year schools has been deleted, without adequate explanation. I do not live in the U.S., and didn't understand they were community colleges, and I believe many others wouldn't either. I also added in the nature of her major and a brief summary statement of her diversified career. To my understanding, after 2500 edits on 100s of articles, my edits were terse, informative and NPOV. And deleting them violates NPOV. Bellagio99 (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any big problem mentioning that two of the colleges were community colleges, although I don't really think it's necessary. I don't think we'd mention that a graduate of Harvard had attended an "ivy league" school or a "top-ten" school, and we wouldn't say that a graduate of Rutgers went to a "state school" or a "government-run" school. What I do think was excessive was mentioning that she attended five schools in six years; people can do the math for themselves, and I don't think this needs to be part of our summary of the succeeding sentences.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you're comparing apples to oranges here. Community college is a type of school distinct from a normal college. In particular, community colleges typically offer two year degrees, but do not offer four year degrees. Ivy League, top ten, and state, all refer to the same type of school, a college. Similarly, a university offers graduate degrees, whereas a college offers four year degrees. If the schools in question offer four year degrees (particularly in the field she was studying), I don't think they should labeled community colleges. Aprock (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you're adding (Community) to every mention is POV and not needed. If it was in the college name that's one thing, but there is absolutely no reason to hide North Idaho College as the actual name. Grsz 21:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I certainly think this is the case. There doesn't seem to be any great reason to mention that fact given that it's clear that she transferred more than once. For most people, listing the institution which issued the terminal degree is sufficient. Aprock (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Grsz, I added the word (Community) twice (i.e., "every mention = 2") once to each college where it is pertinent. As a non-resident of the U.S., I found some of the colleges unknown, so went to their website to understand. When I did, I added it to disambiguate. I do not understand, why you have deleted this. It is a pertinent to understanding her post-secondary life. Misplaced Pages must be understandable to those who don't understand American institutions. This is not Ivy League vs Slippery Rock; it is a basically different school. Indeed, I am under 3RR now, but this exchange has suggested that I add a bit more later discussing the various and diverse kinds of schools she attended in an important part of her life. I believe it behooves those who have not allowed this change to explain why they want to obscure this part of her life. Cheers,Bellagio99 (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If someone really wants to know, all they have to do is click on the link. Grsz 22:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Grsz11 here, although I don't feel very strongly about it. Bellagio99, the important factor for me is that the credits from the Community College are accepted at the regular university. That's the way a Community College works. They do a great job at teaching introductory-level stuff, and simply don't teach the advanced stuff. So, really, I think you could spend your first two years at a community college getting just as good an education as at a big university.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I also agree w/ Grz, Aprock, Ferrylodge. Many times attending a Community College is a financial decision. The normal ascent is to then attend a "regular" 4 year institution. And, as Aprock states, the terminal school is considered most important.--Buster7 (talk) 11:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what the hub bub is, but the family section doesn't need to be 80% about religion and politics. Take that material to a sub article and dump it there. The section as is, is already pretty silly looking with the amount of space weight given to her religion. Anyways, --Tom 15:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You're a bigger optimist than I if you think the "Iraq Crusaders" story will stay out of there for very long! Fcreid (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

'Political positions' section - request comments

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

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

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

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

discuss here if you insist a June 2008 article is present tense for a position

Someone keeps insisting Palin "continues" to support the Knik bridge even thought the feasibility reports etc. are in. The article cited is from June, when she ordered the study. Later articles still refer to her position as of June. There is no reason to insinst on the present tense when no cite is used to support the present tense in the article. This has, in fact, been rehashed here in the past. If you want to revert it again, then at least post here first. Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect, unless you have evidence that suggests she stopped supporting the bridge at some point after June, then the default is that she continues to support the bridge. That is how it works with all politicians political opinions. --Bobblehead 02:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead, I agree with your statement of the general principle. We should not, however, give the reader a misleading picture of the chronology. The language with "until" was wrong because it implied that she'd changed her position based on the study, and we have no source for that assertion. On the other hand, we shouldn't say something like the phrasing at the beginning of Collect's comment, because we shouldn't imply that she has expressed support for the bridge after commissioning the study (or after seeing its results) . Your latest version is "As of June 2008, Palin continued to support the Knik Arm Bridge idea but she has ordered a funding and feasibility review." That seems correct to me in terms of the chronology -- no false implications -- but I think "idea" is a little vague and I'll change it to "proposal". JamesMLane t c 07:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for noting my osition that an article which is dated in the past, and which states that something was ordered which would affect the "present tense" at the start of the article has been undertaken, should have the initial statement placed in the past tense. My mom taught Latin, and using the correct tense is important. I sought to make the precise correct phrasing, as I understand it to be. Thanks. Collect (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Changed "as of" to "in" as "as of" has a specific meaning of "starting at" and "in" is precisely correct. "Until" is still more accurate than "as of" due to the idiomatic meaning. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The AP article cited in the article (http://community.adn.com/node/131399) notes her continued support. It's dated September 16, 2008. GreekParadise (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Read the dates in the article before upsetting an agreed-upon compromise. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect has reverted the time from September to June on the grounds, as he wrote in the history that "neither cite remotely supports September -- the date was June". Here's what the article, dated September 16, 2008, says (emphasis added by me):

"A $600 million bridge and highway project to link Alaska's largest city to Palin's town of 7,000 residents is moving full speed ahead"

"A Democratic council member in Anchorage will try Tuesday to spike the city's sponsorship of the project, which Palin supports with some reservations."

"Palin still supports the second bridge, officially named Don Young's Way in honor of the congressman"

"She called for a review of the bridge's financing plans and raised concerns about its financial risks for the state. Still, the planning process is marching forward."

"The bridge is popular with property developers - including a group comprised of Young's son-in-law, the former legislative director for indicted Republican Sen. Ted Stevens and three others - who own land across from Anchorage on the inlet's western side."

Collect contends that even though the September article says twice "Palin supports the bridge" and describes the process as "marching forward" "full speed ahead" that actually the article doesn't "remotely" suggest that as of September (two weeks ago), she supports the bridge. I contend that the aricle, which says "Palin supports the bridge" actually means "Palin supports the bridge" and request permission to revert back.GreekParadise (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(On a separate issue, "less frequently" is better than "rarely" for use of both bridges as "bridge to nowhere", because the mention of both bridges has 50,000 hits on Google. While this is less frequent than the 400,000 hits the Gravina Bridge has, I don't know that 50,000 is rare. It is just "less frequent.")GreekParadise (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"Bridges to nowhere" has 233 News mentions today. "Bridge to nowhere" has over ten thousand. I consider a ration of over forty to one to justify "rarely." Your search includes tons of non-news relatred blogs etc. Collect (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The NYT article says she supports, and does it more than once. Now you're trying to censor that... Grsz 15:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Of the two cites given (currently 101 and 114) NEITHER is reasonably citable as stating a current position. And one of them still claims the purpose of the Knik brdge was to serve Wasilla! Clims by opponents as to one's opinions are not valid -- find any statement by Palin after June that she specifically supports the Knik Arm Bridge as proposed, and then change the tense. Absent that, stick with the agreement reached here. Thanks! Collect (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I have to find a statement by Palin, three months after her statement in June 2008, to note that she continues to support the bridge when a September article states her continued support twice and shows the process moving forward. Would it be wrong to say Bush supports social security private accounts, even though he hasn't give a speech on it for more than three months? If she didn't support the bridge, would it continue to be moving full speed ahead? If she didn't support the bridge, wouldn't someone issue a correction to a widely reported Associated Press which stated her support twice? If she didn't support the bridge, why would some council member have to move to "spike" the project?

In sum, we can reasonably assume that when a politician says she/he supports something and moves "full speed ahead" with it, that that support continues unless and until that politician says she/he no longer supports it, right?GreekParadise (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Precisely and 180 degrees from what is right. Palin asked for a review. That means that she wanted further information. That is what "review" means. Collect (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree that the June review should be in the section and am not seeking to remove it. Maybe I'm missing your point here. We have a verified source, Associate Press, that says she supports it. Do you have some contrary source that says she does not?GreekParadise (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Journalists don't always include a verbatim quotation when reporting a politician's position on an issue. If we accept the publication as a reliable source, then that means that we trust the reporter and the publication to be giving us an accurate statement as to a matter of fact. We can report it as a fact unless there's some evidence to create a good-faith doubt on the point. Here, it's not just an AP story, it's an AP story datelined in Anchorage, so the reporter was on the scene; it was published in the Anchorage Daily News , the newspaper most likely to have some editor who'd say, "Wait, Palin changed her position on that in a speech last month"; and it was picked up by Fox News , which is totally in the tank for the Republican Party and would have had every incentive to ferret out any inaccuracy in this report. Under these circumstances, there's absolutely no basis for dismissing this information just because the reporter didn't choose to include a verbatim quotation. Furthermore, Collect, there is no basis for your insistence on sticking to an alleged prior agreement. When I agreed with using the past tense, I had not read this AP story. It's a reliable source, it says "supports", so our article should say "supports".

After "supports", though, the source says "with some reservations". That qualifier apparently refers to this passage: "She called for a review of the bridge's financing plans and raised concerns about its financial risks for the state." That should be reflected in our article so as not to oversimplify her position. I suggest the following wording:

In June 2008, she ordered a funding and feasibility review concerning the Knik Arm Bridge, because of concerns about its financial impact, but as of September 2008 she continues to support it.

We could just say "with some reservations" but I think the fuller exposition of her view is worth including. JamesMLane t c 17:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect, the burden of proof is upon you to provide us with reliable sources that says Palin no longer approves of the bridge. Just because she has requested that a review be run on the project does not mean she no longer approves of the project, particularly when the sources that say she is ordering the review also say that she still supports the project. Considering how the bridge is behind schedule, over budget, and the top two people heading the project of resigned, I'd be seriously worried if she hadn't ordered a review of the project. That being said, I approve JamesMLane's wording. --Bobblehead 18:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Unless, of course, you want me to take Dunninger pills, there is no way to say that a claim must be shown to be false. Rather WP requires the positive of a claim to be shown. And the date of the claim was, and remains, June 2008. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you not see the September 16, AP article that has "Palin supports $600 million 'other' bridge project" as the summary and "which Palin supports with some reservations" and "Palin still supports the second bridge, officially named Don Young's Way in honor of the congressman." in the body. Hate to break it to you, but unless you have a reliable source, that counters the AP article, sounds like it is a current position to me.. --Bobblehead 20:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I also support JamesMLanes' sentence. As he states, the sources are right on the scene and, I'm sure, they are well aware of the National interest the bridge(s) have created. If Gov. Palin had changed her stance, even the slightest, they would be on it like flies on _____!--Buster7 (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I will put JamesMLane's sentence in the article with one (hopefully non-controversial) addition, the quote from the article that the project is "moving full speed ahead."GreekParadise (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your repeated denial of an agreed upon version. Your unilateral changes are contrary to all accepted WP practices. You have repeatedly reverted a consensus version to your own version. Your past reversion violations seem to be ignored. Will someone kindly change the wording back to what everyone else accepted as a compromise? Thanks! Collect (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect, on this segment, I count Bobblehead, JamesMLane, Grsz, Buster7, and GreekParadise (five of us) as in agreement. And you alone -- with no allies -- in disagreement. I realize we shouldn't do wikivoting, but I fervently submit that "support" really does mean "support" and thus far, you have found no sources or allies who believe to the contrary. Right now, you are the only person outside the consensus. But show me a single article from a neutral source saying she has abandoned her support and I promise I will change my mind. Indeed, find me such an article and I will revert it myself.GreekParadise (talk) 00:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh? James: "we shouldn't imply that she has expressed support for the bridge after commissioning the study (or after seeing its results)" Bobble: "Collect, the burden of proof is upon you to provide us with reliable sources that says Palin no longer approves of the bridge" which is an absurd position. It is the requirement to show something is true that is the burden, not a requirement to prove a negative. GP, your September cite names Democratic opponents as saying she still supports the bridge. I don't care if you have a thousand allies --- saying something that ain't so does not belong in WP. In short -- all you are doing is fomenting still more unproven political claims into a page which I have done my damndest to make NPOV and actually a legitimate article. Care to explain that to the world when you also explain why you stove mightily to have the AIP in the article, strove to claim Palin was a Buchanan supporter, that Palin "flew annually to Washington to get earmrks", that Palin supports secession, that she has extreme religious beliefs and so on ad nauseam? At some point, I trust you have realized all those were wrong to push for. Collect (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

College

Hawaii Pacific University was actually "Hawaii Pacific College" until 1990, so I'll adjust article accordinglyFerrylodge (talk) 03:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like North Idaho and the college in Alaska both awarded nothing higher than an associates, but I think "colleges and universities" is ok. "Undergraduate institutions" is really used for places that award BAs or BSs, so that wouldn't have cut it. Jd2718 (talk) 04:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

American usage allowes "college" for two-year institutions. "Undergraduate" refers to any program before a person receives a degree. Thus "community colleges" are "undergraduate (that is, before the students get a first level degree in a subject) institutions." It is not restricted to four-year programs. Collect (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yankee Division Highway

An "official name" for the Connecticut Turnpike is "Yankee Division Highway." It has the same relevance as insisting on adding "Don Young's Way" to every mention of the Knik bridge. Collect (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC) NY Thruway: "Thomas E. Dewey." Triborough Bridge "Robert F. Kennedy." What would you suppose the average New Yorker would tell you if you asked directions to the "Robert F. Kennedy Bridge"? Finger counts do not apply! Collect (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't insist on adding Don Young's Way to every mention of the bridge, but I do insist on at least a single mention. Don Young's Way matters because it is a symbol of pork barrel spending and because Young's family has property interests in the bridge. While we include benefits of both bridges in the article, we also should say why both are considered pork barrel.

I should also note that I had heard of "Don Young's Way" years ago and only recently heard of Knik Arm. While my own experience is certainly no grounds for a wikipedia entry, Google gives "Don Young's Way" about 4,000 hits and "Knik Arm Bridge" about 16,000. For NEWS entries, "Knik Arm Bridge" has 33 cites and "Don Young's Way" has 76 cites, or more than twice as much.

I suspect that's because Don Young's Way is a symbol of the pork barrel spending, and his name on the bridge is one of the things that made the bridge famous. The other roads mentioned by Collect have not been widely criticized as pork barrel, so perhaps that's why we don't know their name, but I do know there are a huge number of roads named for Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, even though I have no idea what their "local names" are. And, in fact, the wikipedia entry on Robert Byrd mentions the "Robert C. Byrd Biotechnology Science Center" without mentioning the science center's original or local name at all.GreekParadise (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Alas -- phobes tous etc. Bridges generally do not get referred to as their "official name" by anyone who is not into bronze plaques. I can furnish you several HUNDRED more cites that calling it "Don Young's Way" is not typical of anyone other than those involved in politics. As such, it does not belong in a BLP. Unless, of course, her name were Don Young. Is it? Collect (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with BLP. It simply explains why a bridge has been considered pork barrel. That's why we included the Gravina population of 50, along with the benefits of that bridge. On each bridge, we should give both pork barrel negatives and development positives.GreekParadise (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm from Alaska. I've been hearing about the Knik Arm Bridge all of my life. Never once, until reading these talk pages, have I heard anyone call it Don Young's Way. Anyone who lives here knows that the largest city in Alaska has only two roads leading in and out, and the huge amount of traffic pouring down these freeways everyday on snowy, icy roads is a major source of accidents. Attaching a senator's name to a project for the sole purposes of labling it Pork-Barrel seems a bit one sided. I say use the name that everybody will call it if it ever gets made. Don Young's Way, sounds like it's Don Young's Philosophy or something like that.Zaereth (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The proper discussion of "Don Young's Way" under Don Young is fine. Under Palin, the title should be "Knik Arm" as that is its descriptive name. Personally, I think the Gravina population is "excess trivia" somewhat akin to listing maternal grandmothers. I would not delete it on other than trivia grounds. In the case of using a name which is not one in genuine use ("Dewey Thruway"?), I would regard the local name as attested above by a "local" to be far superior in any article. Good luck on the cabbie taking you to the Robert F. Kennedy Bridge, by the way! Collect (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that in Alaska, where the bridge is known by its location, the bridge is primarily known as "Knik Arm Bridge" while in the Lower 48, where the bridge is primarily known as a symbol of pork barrel spending, the bridge is primarily known as "Don Young's Way." I think we should include both names in the article, and I'm willing to limit "Don Young's Way" to a single mention.GreekParadise (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Finally, I think we should look both at full Google and Google News for cites, but in section on the "bridge" v. "bridges", Collect felt that Google News was far more justified than Google proper. Given that Google News mentions "Don Young's Way" more than twice as often as "Knik Arm Bridge", Collect's preference for the News would suggest that Don Young's Way should be the primary title with Knik Arm Bridge secondary. But I'm not arguing for that. I'm merely arguing that Don Young's Way should be mentioned in the article. And by Collect's own criteria -- how well it's known based on Google News -- Don Young's Way is more well known than "Knik Arm Bridge."

So Collect, which Google source do you trust? I say trust both and use both. But I don't think you can't argue to use "news" for one and "general" for the other. Or I could make the exact same arguments in reverse.GreekParadise (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think what we need to ask ourselves is this: If the election were over, would the name Don Young's Way being in this article matter to you? Ten years from now, let's say the bridge gets built, would we still be calling it that, or would we by then change the article to reflect common usage. I think any decision should be made with these thoughts in mind. I would like to hear from some other editors on this matter Zaereth (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

GP, you are confusing epithets ("Bridge to nowhere") with the names used by local people with regard to a bridge. I demonstrated that of the two epithets you used with regard to the projects, that "bridges to nowhere" is much more rarely used than "bridge to nowhere." I did not remove the plural, just noted that "less frequently" is used to mean "less, but reasonably often." On the other hand when one usage is only 2% as often, I consider that usage "rare." Note than I did not remove your rare usage. On the other hand, the local usage of DYW is probably well under 2% of the rational usage. Just as your cabbie probably gave you a salute for asking for the "Robert F. Kennedy Bridge"! Collect (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I'd rather leave "Don Young's Bridge" out of this. That name is much less common for the Knik Arm Bridge, and can be mentioned in the subarticle. I mean, do we also want to mention in this article that Alaska is known as "Seward's Folly" or "Seward's Ice Box" or "Last Frontier" or "Land of the Midnight Sun" or "Icebergia" or "Polaria" or "Walrussia"?

This bridge material is going to be confusing enough already without introducing another synonym. We're already using two names for the Gravina bridge, and we say that the Knik Arm Bridge is rarely known as a bridge to nowhere, so Don Young would be the third name for this bridge, and the fifth bridge name overall in this section. Enough already. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"CITIZEN"..."Step away from the Bridge!!!"....--Buster7 (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It's precisely because there are multiple terms floating around that we should clarify the situation for the reader. Some readers will come to this article having heard of Don Young's Way as a controversial bridge. If that term is omitted from the article, they'll say, "OK, now I've read about the Gravina Island Bridge and the Knik Arm Bridge, but what's Palin's stance and record on Don Young's Way?" Tossing in one parenthetical reference, and thereafter using only the "Knik Arm" name, is completely appropriate. (In a Yahoo! search for "Don Young's Way" without "Knik", there were 19,600 hits, from the 2005 debate on the bill and from this year . Let's throw a lifeline to the people who read those articles, or who saw the two terms explained somewhere but who aren't so completely immersed in Palin-tology as we sad cases are, and so have forgotten the linkage.)

The analogies don't hold water (or bear traffic). No one will come to this article who's heard of "Seward's Folly" but hasn't heard of "Alaska". As for the bridge here in NYC, the bill to rename it for Robert F. Kennedy was passed less than four months ago , and our article on the Triborough Bridge says the Governor didn't even sign the bill until less than two months ago. Furthermore, renaming a bridge for someone who died forty years ago raises different issues from using the name of a living person who's still a powerful legislator. The latter scenario will generate more criticism and is therefore more noteworthy. JamesMLane t c 17:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

First, we should use whichever - or however many - names people who read Misplaced Pages (which means, mostly people who are not from Alaska) will have heard, simply for the sake of clarity (although once given, we do not have to keep repeating every name). Second, if there is any controversy over the name that is related to Palin's political career, we should summarize it, as concisely as possible, while providing all notable views from verifiable sources. This can't be too hard to do. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There are 40,000 Google hits for "Bridge" and “Knik Arm." In contrast, there are only 1500 Google hits for "Bridge" and “Don Young’s Way” without “Knik Arm”. That's less than 4% so I don't think we should use the suggested third name for this particular bridge in this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of this ratio. If we were somehow constrained to use only one name, then, yes, we'd look at the ratio and decide to use "Knik Arm". For the current purpose, though, the issue isn't how much more often that name is used. The issue is whether the "Don Young's Way" name is used often enough that a significant number of readers will be familiar with it. What's the problem with inserting one little parenthetical to explain the nomenclature the first time it occurs? I agree with not using both names throughout. JamesMLane t c 18:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"One little parenthetical" is not the issue if you have been following the revision history of this section for the past three weeks. This has been an ongoing issue, with excessive reversions causing editors to be blocked, etc. It is cleaner to simply keep the rare usage of DYW out, than to open the floodgates to the prior arguments. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with one reference to DYW in parenthesis, except that it seems like extra clutter. I'm sure a reader that comes here looking for DYW but finds the unknown, (to them), KAB will have no problem clicking on the link to find out more about it. It seems to me that we should stick to one common name in this article, and leave alternate names in the main KAB article.Zaereth (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And since the title of that article is Knik Arm Bridge, I especially think that's the name we should use here.Zaereth (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on the discussion here, I will add the brief parenthetical reference. I note that "Don Young's Way" is used twice as often as "Knik Arm Bridge" in Google News, which Collect believes, on another point, is more relevant than Google general.GreekParadise (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Kindly do not misstate what I said. I did not state that "Google news ... is more relevant than Google general". It makes for ill feelings. The prior choice was between two almost identical epithets primarily of interest only to political junkies -- and I said BOTH epithets would be ok, but that where one was used less than 2% as often as the other, that the usage should be described as "rare" and not just "less frequent." Thus the issues at hand are vastly different. But then again -- feel free to ask a cabbie to drive you to the Robert F. Kennedy Bridge. Collect (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's 2% on Google News but more than 10% on Google general (50,000+ vs. less than 500,000). I don't think 50,000 mentions is "rare", do you? I would agree with "more rare" if you prefer that term instead of "less frequently." But "rare" is subjective whereas "more rare" is objective. I don't think we can say 50,000 hits is rare. I do think it's unequivocally true that 50,000 is more rare than 500,000 and that 2% is more rare than 100%. Are you OK with changing the subjective "rarely" to the objective "more rarely"?GreekParadise (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In the fervent hope that Collect and I can agree on at least one thing ( :-) ), I've added the word "more" before "rarely" on the two bridges.GreekParadise (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You are pushing AGF. I would like to point out that "Don Young's Way" applies only to the original earmark legislation. I can find no sign that it would be the name for any Knik Arm Bridge in the future. Sorry to burst that bubble! Do "DYW" applies only to the earmark, not to any future bridge! Isn;t that neat? All of a sudden, the name is joyfully irrelevant! BTW, "rarely" is quite objective -- and applies to the choice between two virtually identical epithets at a ratio of fifty to one -- how you can continue to distinguish between commonness of two nearly identical terms and the difference between a local name for a bridge and a name which may never be actually attached to the bridge is amazing! Collect (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The current Google (general) references to "bridge to nowhere"+Alaska and "bridges to nowhere"+Alaska have increased since I last checked. They are 926,000 to 53,000 or about 17 to 1. It is my position that 53,000 references is not "rare". That is subjective. But it clearly is "more rare" than 926,000.GreekParadise (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)GreekParadise (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please give your source for your claim that Don Young's Way would NOT be the name of the Knik Arm Bridge if it is ever built. This source (http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/ap_alaska/v-printer/story/527524.html) doesn't mention that the DYW name is restricted to the earmark legislation, but it does mention the name Don Young's Way as the "official name" of the proposed bridge.GreekParadise (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

From your own cite:

"Anchorage Assembly members Patrick Flynn and Matt Claman, both Democrats, plan to introduce a proposal to kill the bridge on Tuesday. They argue the money would be better used to set up commuter van pools and fix Alaska's existing highways, some of which are so rutted that cars go skidding off the road.

"She clearly hasn't said 'no thanks' to this particular bridge," Claman said. "If money were not an issue and we had no limits, maybe we'd build a bridge. But this is not a pragmatic or efficient way to spend scarce resources."

Thus all you have is what two Democrats have said. Not her words. As for DYW, the ONLY place I have found designating it as the name is in the original federal legislation. Alaska is under zero obligation to ever use that name. Congrats on proving yourself wrong again! Collect (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"Someone" has gone into the "multiple reversion game" again. The fact is the statement about Palin "continuing" support is from two Democrats, not from Palin. I added that uncontrovertible fact found in the cite given, and had it reverted without any notice or comment. OK -- GP revert a thousand times to play games. You win -- the article is, in my point of view, now trashed by those who play revert wars rather than compromise. Collect (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Altering sources

I've never looked at this article before, but I was curious about it's history once I did. I'm comparing versions between the current one and from early Sep. '08, and found that between then and now someone has been tampering with the citations. It seems that access dates have been stripped, as well as some alterations to the URLs linking to articles so they point nowhere in the domain. Clearly someone is either trying to hide these from being viewed by the uninformed public, or is an asshole. So which is it and what do we do about it? I'm willing to fix all the links...

If you're right, that's a pretty serious problem. Could you provide some examples of citations which have been changed, and where they are in the article? Do the links still function, or are they dead? »S0CO 21:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was mistakenly comparing to old articles. It seems those issues were already resolved. Sorry to have caused any confusion. DKqwerty (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you were referring to this edit, which messed up a lot of references. I reverted it a bit later. -- Zsero (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

article

How do you edit this article? I want to add information about her. I want to edit this article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.233.200 (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Create a user account, wait four days, and you will be able to edit the article. In the meantime, if you have suggestions for improving it that can't wait, please post them here on talk, and they'll be considered and implemented if they are neutral, well-sourced, notable and appropriate. Thanks for your interest. Tvoz/talk 00:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Palin begins three-day cramming course for crucial TV showdown Source:The Guardian Author:Suzanne Goldenberg Date:September 30 2008 retrieved: September 30 2008
2. Conservatives to McCain camp: Let Palin be Palin Source:CNN Author:Carol Costello, Dana Bash and Scott J. Anderson Date:September 30 2008 retrieved: September 30 2008
3. Palin: McCain campaign's end-run around media Source: San Francisco Chornicle Author:Joe Garofoli, Chronicle Staff Writer Date:September 30 2008 retrieved: September 30 2008
4. The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama (Hardcover), amazon.com
5. PBS Debate Moderator Writes 'Breakthrough' Book About 'Upstanding' Obama, Black Democrats, newsbusters.com, October 1, 2008
6. VP Debate Moderator Pens Pro-Obama Book, Fox News, October 1, 2008
7. Hagerty , Barbara Bradley (September 5, 2008). "Examining Palin's Pentecostal Background". NPR.
8. Kaye, Randi (2008-09-12). "Pastor: GOP may be downplaying Palin's religious beliefs". CNN. Retrieved 2008-09-16.
9. Hagerty , Barbara Bradley (September 5, 2008). "Examining Palin's Pentecostal Background". NPR.

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