Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KCinDC (talk | contribs) at 23:27, 1 September 2008 (→Fishy Business). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

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.

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

Second major female VP candidate? discussion (consolidated

campaign or family edits ???

Just wondering. The User Young Trigg has been a user just since yesterday and has only contributed by editing this article. On top of that, one edit is headlined in a rather familiar tone, quoting: - Sarah returned to office three days after giving birth -.

The edits are rather positive in tone, as well.

Someone who knew the pick was coming, prepping the article??? Or am I just too suspicious?

Isn't Trigg the name of one of her sons? The edits certainly seem politically motivated. I noticed that her quote mentioning that she has gay friends has been removed just before the big announcement.Kevin mckague (talk)

] (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably nothing. There are plenty of Palin fans who have been advocating this pick for months. Kelly 16:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither is it relevant. Talkpages are for improvements in the article, not for general forum-like discussion. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems relevant to me. Just don't think it's worthy of alteration. MonkeyPillow 16:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

How about running or requesting a wikipedia:checkuser on user:youngtrigg. The edit history seems to indicate some proficiency with wikipedia. The information edited gives a POV spin or slant that is partisan. There are many questions raised here. Given we are talking about edits to our information about someone who might end up VP or President I don't think it would be unreasonable to know the facts of the matter. Rktect (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Plenty of Palin fans have been advocating this pick for months? Yeah. Fucking. Right. Outside of Alaska, she's a political nobody. Her nomination was a complete surprise. You sound like you're covering for the astroturfers. 76.254.35.154 (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Look guys, I realize that this is a hot-topic thing right now, but try to remember that this talk page is for discussion on how to improve the article on her, it's not for discussion about her.--danielfolsom 20:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It would appear that the edits are also consistent with general scrubbing of other sites that mention Palin's previous relationship with indicted Sen. Stevens. In view of this, it appears the edits are entirely partisan in nature, an intended to harm truth to favor the GOP. Could a Misplaced Pages Editor restore this article to its original tone and content 48 hours prior to the announcement, leaving the relevant factual evidence of her nomination intact? Erichd (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Per NPR the page was locked because of campaign/family edits. Were the suspiciously favorable edits left in or removed, or ??? Girlgeek z (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, learn the nomenclature of Misplaced Pages. The page was semi-protected due to a large number of non-productive edits by IP or newly registered accounts. Not due to "family" or "campaign" edits, despite the suggestion of foul play by NPR. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the entire family section needs a rewrite. Do we need to know how many miles (and kilometers) north they live from Anchorage? Can't it just be stated they live north of there? The way the entire thing is written just seems odd overall, way to conversational, as stated above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.32.200 (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Inside VP Knowledge

I do not understand Elliskev's comment. I can put a link to the actual history page where lobbynoise identified McCain's running mate before McCain announced it. I feel it is important that this information made it out in Misplaced Pages, because it seems that no media outlet was able to uncover it. --Bertrc (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Original research aside, we have no way of knowing whether lobbynoise had special knowledge or was just trying to prank people. cf. Chris Benoit; cf. also the pranksters who sent false VP reports to the press ahead of Obama's announcement of Joe Biden. - Jredmond (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It is original research and unverifiable claims. It does not belong. Happyme22 (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wasted Time R's Tim Pawlenty links convinced me that many wikipedians had been posting guesses of the VP nomination as fact, but (for future reference) how was my addition original research? I was referencing something that is clearly documented in the Misplaced Pages History pages: posting . . . Or were you complaining that Lobbynoise had posted was original research? --Bertrc (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Besides which, I read the time/date incorrectly. It wasn't Lobbynoise that spilled the beans Thursday night. It was from an IP address. --Bertrc (talk) 03:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages editors had even more inside knowledge about McCain picking Tim Pawlenty for veep: this edit and this edit and this edit and this edit and this edit and this edit and this edit and so on. And also this edit told us that McCain had picked Mitt Romney for veep. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The Mitt Romney link doesn't quite equate, (it states that rumors had been floating around, not that Mitt had been chosen) but the Tim Pawlenty links make your case. --Bertrc (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for future reference, a note on my talk might have helped. I just kind of stumbled across this. Anyway, I can't add anything to what's in the answers above. --Elliskev 00:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Can ask a really stupid question? Is anybody really surprised that the article was edited? I would be probably be more surprised if it was not modified. If anybody is truly interested in what the article said 2 days before the announcement they always have the option to look at the history of the article. Do not think for one second that Obama's team is not constantly watching the Obama pages for changes, good or bad. Think about it this way. When you apply for a job, don't you read over your resume before sending to your potential boss? The American people are the President's boss. Any wikipedia article is part of their resume. 01:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.135.108 (talk)

Yes, I did edit the Wiki to put in the information that Sarah Palin was the selection. I did have inside information. I had the information from someone I trusted and I corroborated it against the private charter flight records. You can see where I digged a blog post of mine ( http://digg.com/politics/Sarah_Palin_Picked_For_VP ) as well. Notice the time stamp on it. Don't blame me and others for coming here and editing the Misplaced Pages with information we already knew when it was the media that was fast asleep and not doing their job. I posted nothing that the media shouldn't have already known and confirmed at the time. If a lowly person like me can do it, why can't the media? --Lobbynoise (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Busted

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/29/AR2008082902691.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

This is just dumb. Here name was already ~ #2-3 most speculated about by last night. This speculation is likely what led to the edits, not McCain/Palin aides updating in advance of the announcement.--ThaddeusB (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

They don't know what they're talking about, at least relative to the McCain page. The spike at 5 pm yesterday was due to me and Ferrylodge going around on the Naval Academy record and Ferrylodge and someone else going around on which way an image should point, neither of which had anything to do with veep. The only veep edit was this one accouncing that Hillary was the pick. I did do a bunch of editing to the Biden article a few days before he was named, on a guess that it would be him, no inside knowledge whatsoever. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history from the day before she was announced, a massive overhaul was done on the article in the morning and afternoon, by one account, Young Trigg, which was apparently created just to edit this article. I think it's pretty clear that this was done by Palin's or McCain's staff -- if it was a Wikipedian who just wanted to improve the article, why would they create a sock puppet for it? I don't think there's actually anything wrong with this, since the edits appear to be of an acceptable standard of quality, but far from being dumb, it's fairly clear that this is what happened. Politicians do know about Misplaced Pages. 201.236.144.99 (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Miss Marple. --Elliskev 01:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, what about me? Don't I get any credit for the massive overhaul?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, of course you do. 201.236.144.99 (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, just for the record, I had no idea Palin would be the pick. I assumed that the recent controversy over the firing of Walt Monegan would make her radioactive, either fairly or unfairly. That's why I started overhauling and expanding that section of this article a couple days ago, before Young_Trigg ever showed up. I wanted to figure out if this was a real scandal, or just an insignificant tempest, that was shaping the course of history. Then Young-Trigg showed up just as I was getting ready to hit the sack. Bleary-eyed, I worked with Young-Trigg to substantially upgrade several sections of the article. I have no connection to any political campaign. I did donate to McCain, and will very probably vote for him, but I never met him (saw him in person once in Connecticut but didn't shake hands or get autograph). His staff has never contacted me, nor has Palin's nor the RNC, except to the extent that they contact everyone who they think they can squueze for money. I hope that addresses the matter. I'm just a hopeless Misplaced Pages addict and political junkie, and none too proud of it. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you get no attention for being a normal editor. :( I'm just piqued because of how much expertise Young Trigg had on a new account. --\/\/slack (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

NPR reports on the gush of flattering edits by User:Young_Trigg

Trigg is a variant spelling of the name of her four month old son. National Public Radio report (link to audio). Hurmata (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This should be listed under controversies, once the controversies section is restored and the offending editors are dealt with. Get on it, Misplaced Pages, this is a developing story, and people are turning to the site for an encyclopedic bio, not a public relations piece. 72.244.207.149 (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't do "controversies" sections. I saw a lot of Young Trigg's edits gogin up, and they looked ok to me, and sourced to boot. Coemgenus 17:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a list of thousands of Misplaced Pages articles with Controversies sections. Is there a policy against Controversies sections? They're quite useful. 72.244.207.149 (talk) 07:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no policy against controversies sections. Yes we do "do" controversies sections, if they are warranted. I would say making the New York Times makes this warranted.Wjhonson (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This page is filled with falsehoods attempting to cover-up the cover-up on Trig: it needs to be re-opened and edited. Trigg was born twenty two (22) hours after Palin alleges her water broke while on the podium in Texas. She then finished her speech (according to her, another 30 minutes) then travelled to the aiport and boarded a 9 hour flight to Alaska. Once there, she drove another 45 minutes to an hour to Wasilla. This is so wrong in so many ways. But it only gets completely nutty when you realize that she was 36 weeks into the pregnancy. Trigg was due in May, not April. A four-week-early baby and his mother must be seen immediately: when the water breaks the situation is urgent. The article seriously misinforms people by stating the baby was born "seven hours" after the speech. In fact it was at least 22 hours and after a long commercial flight with a stopover in Phoenix. When you are four weeks early and your water breaks, it is an emergency. You would never travel, and it would be illegal to do so, for at least 16 hours before being seen by a single medical professional.

NPR story

There is an NPR story (Flash audio, about 5 minutes) about possible COI edits to this Misplaced Pages article.

Yes. We are definitely in NPOV region. Witness User: Young Trigg, a single-purpose user, whose only contributions have been to make this article more favourable to the subject. Seriously, keep your politics out of my encyclopedia, thanks. EvilStorm (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Scrubbing of Sarah Palin's Misplaced Pages Entry

Well, let's be honest. It's no mystery. There's almost no doubt that either the McCain campaign or somebody close to Palin is responsible for the unethical whitewashing of history just hours before her candidacy was revealed.

This is of course a major no-no for Misplaced Pages. And their source is unimpeachable: a pro-Palin Misplaced Pages editor.

See http://www.jedreport.com/2008/08/the-mysterious-scrubbing-of-sa.html

NPR also ran a story on the topic in their All things Considered segment on friday the 29th. . I believe that there has been sufficient media coverage and controversy related to the topic that it warrants a mention on the article.O76923 (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree it warrants mention and also justifies close monitoring of the entry to ensure further manipulation doesn't take place. Benzocane (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I second Benzocane's opinion. Cyrusc (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I third. Movingboxes (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, there was a scrub effort but not by McCain or Palin campaign officials directly as far as I know. It was organized by one or more commenters early Friday morning to the Draft Sarah Palin for Vice President blog. EvWill (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, true or not, it *is* a news item. NPR and others are reporting it, so it deserves a mention in the article. Something like "On August 30th, 2008, NPR and other news sources reported that thirty mostly favorable changes were made to Palin's Misplaced Pages biography, one day before her official nomination." This doesn't say that Palin or her supporters made the changes, but does (accurately) state that the changes were mentioned in the news. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 21:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ugh... I love how it now says that "either her or her supporters" scrubbed the entry. Seems that she might have been too busy to do so herself :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.104.140 (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Don’t Like Palin’s Misplaced Pages Story? Change It", The New York Times, August 31, 2008, Accessed 31 August 2008. This is a news story. Should mention of that fact be witheld from the article?--Wetman (talk) 05:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there should be at least a mention of this somewhere in the article. It's reached a national level — I discovered all of this controversy via the front page of Google News. The story has now been reported on by legitimate new organizations like The New York Times, NPR and The Washington Post. Shamrox (talk) 06:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What Wikipedians do to a Misplaced Pages article has everything to do with Misplaced Pages and not the particular article they are editing. If it belongs anywhere, it would be in an article about editing Misplaced Pages. Switzpaw (talk) 06:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

We have a standard way of dealing with this - it's to mention it here on the talk page. That's already done here. See the template box above, "This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations...". That documents the issue without adding irrelevant WP:NAVEL stuff to the main page. Wikidemon (talk) 06:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not the standard. If the articles had been about general editing procuedures, or conflicts between multiple standards of editing I could see it. These articles are directly about Sarah Palin and the editing of her own article, and so they belong as mentions within that article. Talk page references vanish quickly in a highly edited article, so they don't only belong here. Wjhonson (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what? You're actually saying that Sarah Palin was editing her own Misplaced Pages article? LOL. Do any of the sources say that, or is there any evidence of editing by her campaign aside from some idle speculation in some opinion pieces? Kelly 16:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Consolidate the "omg conspiracy" posts?

Anyone mind if I start consolidating the posts related to the NPR or Blogosphere suggesting bias in our coverage of Sarah? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I beat you too it! not quite finished though. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Brilliant minds think alike. :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I was considering archiving, but all this 270kb is since yesterday! This talk page is insane. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Mention in article

The article currently read "On August 30th, 2008, NPR and other news sources reported that thirty mostly favorable changes were made to Palin's Misplaced Pages biography, one day before her official nomination, leading to suggestions that either her or her supporters had 'scrubbed' her entry." The statement is neutral enough, but is it really relevant? Is this sort of speculation featured in any other article? Also, is anyone disputing that the changes made were relevant and NPOV? --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Also it is currently sourced to dailyKOS, which is clearly not a reliable source. If the comment is to stay, it must at least be properly sourced. I'll resource it to NPR now, but the relevance question remains.--ThaddeusB (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe this should be mentioned in the article. Of all the things that could and should be said about Sarah Palin, wiki editing? This is a minor to-do with brief media coverage, nothing more. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What scrubbing?

Has anyone actually looked at the edits I made, which included negative and positive information about Palin using biographical sources that were absent from the article before I added them? The article was filled with "cite needed" tags and I provided cites. I received a barnstar for my hard work. The claim I "scrubbed" the article is not true. NPR had its facts wrong, and Daily Kos doesn't know how to read an edit history, attributing dozens of edits from other people to me, and both jump to silly conclusions, even though I made my edits before McCain had even decided on a pick. Vandals make thousands of speculative edits that are wrong, but when one accidentally gets something right, the Washington Post thinks it's a conspiracy. I hope the New York Times fact-checks before its story. But I'm going to stick to the Whiskey Rebellion and other articles about sutff at least a century old from now on. This has been a scary experience. Young Trigg (talk) 09:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a conspiracy for edits to be inappropriate and a conflict of interest. Frankly, I would have chosen a different nome de plume than an obvious variation on her youngest son's name. Care to disclose if you've edited on wikipedia under any other names? Your obvious familiarity with wikipedia, in conjunction with using a brand new user account used exclusively to edit the Sarah Palin article (and your own talk page) is prima facie evidence of shenanigans and a suspect agenda. Frankly, I have massive biases regarding the individuals involved in this election That is why I choose to NOT edit any of those articles. You will find a handful of various edits of mine in the past, but I have learned that it is not productive, nor honest, to edit articles on people with whom I have strong, personal, biases. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Please.. if you had not interest you wouldn't edit in the first place. That's how I look at it anyway. So trig and a handful of others got an inside scoop. Good for them to edit it ahead of the wave instead of us all playing catch up. And good for trig if she's (or he's) a more professional editor than I. I've gone through several names (not at the same time) but instead of trying to keep up with the names I just stay anon now. :D Anyway, I'm glad those few or howevermany editors hit this page the night before. It helped us as a wiki community get ready for all the lameness that folks like NPR and washington post would fling at us. They are so far out in left field everything looks like a foul ball. I hope everyone one from all sides continues to edit in good faith as long as they are doing it in the spirit of a BLP article. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Man you are going to have to tough it out. I have read one bomb drop after another on here and I think this page needs to be locked down and ALL of us taken out of the loop. The News is going to demonize this woman at all costs and whats going on here is the "reference" for national scandal. Want to see wiki's creditablity go to crap keep letting the Move On's edit this page.PRNN (talk) 09:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure Trigg or should I say SPA. Creating an account for the *sole* purpose of editing this article, redirecting your User page to your talk page, and then citing a biography with no page numbers and claiming you no longer have the page numbers? So the book appeared and then vanished off your desk in one day? Very bizarre if you ask me, which you didn't. Frankly I think we should remove all the refs to this biography until it can be verified by another party. I'm considering it.Wjhonson (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Young Trigg, Sarah Palin's nomination and this election are matters of huge global importance. The edits you made were clearly partisan, and read not like an encyclopedia entry but like a Hallmark Channel biopic, viz: "She played the championship game despite a stress fracture in her ankle, hitting a critical free throw in the last seconds." That you made these edits temporally so close to the VP announcement under a single-purpose username suggests inside knowledge and a clear conflict of interest. Perhaps you should identify yourself.

Is there a WP precent requiring that Young Trig identify himself/herself? Shouldn't our concern be whether the information is factual and supportable? We should be thankful that someone with encyclopedic knowledge took the time to contribute, should we not? Fcreid (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Gay friends

Constitutional scholars "stunned"

I'm removing the comment about constitutional scholars being "stunned" by her selection, sourced to this Politico article. The scholar who stated that, Joel Goldstein, is an Obama supporter and has contributed to his campaign. Kelly 23:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with removal. Also she has more actual experience in an executive position a decision making type position than her rivals. If talking about experience at all this must be noted. Hobartimus (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Truth be told, under the Constitution both Obama and Palin are qualified for the Presidency, in addition to McCain & Biden. GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Both McCain and Obama have been running national presidential campaigns involving many thousands of volunteers and hundreds of millions of dollars for longer than she's been governor. I think they've been making plenty of decisions, even if you somehow think people don't make decisions in legislatures. Singling out executive experience as the most important qualification is POV (besides the fact that it implies McCain himself isn't qualified). —KCinDC (talk) 23:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't seriously suggest that running a campaign courting donors ,thinking about ads is somehow good training for the presidency itself? McCain was also a high ranking military commander but you are right that he has the same type of legistlative background as a politican. I never implied that being a senator is not enough qualification just that governorship (which let's admit it is a bit more similar to the presidency than voting on laws) should not be discounted at all. Hobartimus (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point, which strikes at what is to me the most obvious, and the only nonconstitutional requirement for someone to be president, which is that they simply win the presidential campaign. the vp choice is one more weapon in the candidate's arsenal. Governor Palin doesn't need any particular experience, she only needs to provide what Senator McCain feels is needed from her as vp pick for him to win the campaign. Any references to candidates' experience must be put in context of who is stating it, and not assumed as a requirement, to maintain NPOV. If I can find a quote from a public commentator that reflects this idea, I will suggest it as content. (this is my first post to a talk page, and i welcome comments about its relevancy)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL was just about to post about that quote, good catch Kelly. Politico articles mix opinion pieces with straight political reporting, so it's important to verify that a given article is journalism and not opinion pieces. Like I said, agree totally with cutting it. Wellspring (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the other "shocked" historian who says she is unqualified, Matthew Dallek, is a former Dick Gephardt speechwriter. Surprise, surprise. Kelly 23:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting this article from hawks that want to slant it with biased sources....you will need to be diligent about it because the "NPOV" facade (insert biased controversy in the name of NPOV) will be relentless. a lot of wikipedians want nothing more than to slant this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Those people like Dallek, need to read the Constitution (above). The not qualified stuff in this election, gets flung around too easily. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I just searched the Barack Obama article and it doesn't contain the word experience in any shape or form there is no section or even a sentence dedicated to discussing if Obama is experienced enough or not. So it seems the question is whether to discuss this at all in this article? Hobartimus (talk) 23:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course you wont find that word in there...and it will never get in there...the guardians of the Obama article are absolutely relentless. But the wiki hawks will try to stuff that word in this article...they will persist without rest to slant this article as much as they can in the name of "NPOV". They will come up with all kinds of logical ploys why this article needs to be stuffed with their 'controversey', but call it for what it is- spin and slant. HEre is a good rule of thumb to be fair and neutral: if in principle Obama's article would forbid such comments that would otherwise equally apply to him, then it has no place here as well. Wiki, as a whole, should not show any bias towards any candidate.

Agreed - McCain, Palin, Obama & Biden are all qualified. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that anyone isn't constitutionally qualified, but if that's the only criterion then we might as well flip a coin to decide which candidate to vote for, since all natural-born Americans who are over 35 and have lived in the US the last 14 years are equally qualified. "Qualified" has meanings other than "constitutionally qualified". —KCinDC (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, KC is correct about what is meant by qualified in this context. And we should certainly think about including well-sourced, critical commentary by non-partisan sources if there are some. Tvoz/talk 00:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It is irresponsible to decide what we should be saying, especially based on the politics of the commentators. Where are we going to find commentary on Palin which has no alignment at all? and including only Republicans is a recipe for POV, even if we limit ourselves to responsible Republicans. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The real problem is that this article is being presented as a consensus among academics, and that is not true. Criticism and praise are both welcome in a biography, but this is the only source that claims that "scholars are stunned" and it is already being called out for being false. Sleeping frog (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

KCinDC's points are definitive. Tvoz makes a good point in principle, but finding citable reliable sources that are completely untainted by any political affiliation or opinion is going to be next to impossible. There is nothing at all wrong with the original "stunned" quotation; it does not violate any Misplaced Pages policy other than - perhaps - WP:NPOV. On the other hand, it's a bit early to suggest that a consensus has been established as to her qualifications (non-constitutional sense), although things are quickly moving in a certain direction. Here's what's going to happen. A mainstream media consensus will likely emerge as to her qualifications/merits; if and when it does, is it legitimate to put this in the article, and other dissenting opinions need to go in but not with equal weight. Until then, I suggest leaving this material out of the article. In short: patience, Grasshoppers. Arjuna (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"Stunned" may be a loaded term, but there's no controversy over their collective opinion that Palin is the "least experienced, least credentialed" candidate on a major party ticket since 1908. That claim is based on objective measuring criteria mentioned in the article. Nor are these fringe historians; say whatever you want about their personal political affiliations, but they are well-known, mainstream, and respected in their field. The people here objecting to the inclusion of the Politico article are doing so on the basis of ad hominem attacks against the scholars themselves and do not address the substance of their relatively uncontroversial conclusion that she is the least experienced candidate in modern history. That's not a compelling reason to exclude this material from the article. Right now, the "Reaction" section reads like a total whitewash of the significant debate/controversy over Palin's experience and fitness.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What was the same analysis about Barack Obama? Who has more executive experience, running things Obama or Palin? I tried to look up the Obama article but it doesn't contain the word experience in any shape or form there is no section or even a sentence dedicated to discussing if Obama is experienced enough or not. It seems there is no discussion in the Obama article whatsoever about the experience or credentials of Obama. You say that there was less of a debate/controversy about Obama's experience? How about Hillary stating that "Obama has a speech he gave in 2002" as all of his experience? Yet there is no mention of any controversy in the Obama article. This strongly suggest that having some sources and alleged "controversy" is hardly enough for inclusion. Hobartimus (talk) 03:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Without addressing the merits of your perspective or lack thereof, I only profer as evidence that you are unable to see what constitutes a POV violation your question that "How about Hillary stating..." Ms. Clinton's statement was obviously not a scholarly statement but made in the heat of a partisan campaign. It is unfortunate that you are unable to recognize this, but it does speak in some way to the general quality of your line of reasoning. Arjuna (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from further personal attacks and instead try to make constructive contributions that relate to the betterment of this article. Hobartimus (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticising your line of reasoning is not a personal attack, and incorrectly asserting that it is is considered disruptive editing. Arjuna (talk) 11:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop, comment on content not contributors. If you continue I will be forced to report you. Hobartimus (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You seem not to have read the policies carefully: commenting on an editor's argument is not a form of personal attack. I ask you to please refrain from unfounded accusations, which is itself a violation. Arjuna (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"It is unfortunate that you are unable to recognize this, but it does speak in some way to the general quality of your line of reasoning. Arjuna (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)" I agree with Hobartimus; I really don't see how a comment such as the one I've quoted serves any purpose other than being a personal attack on a contributor. Please stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.143.191 (talk)

• UPDATE to the article "After reading this article, the McCain campaign issued the following statement: "The authors quote four scholars attacking Gov. Palin's fitness for the office of vice president. Among them, David Kennedy is a maxed-out Obama donor, Joel Goldstein is also an Obama donor, and Doris Kearns Goodwin has donated exclusively to Democrats this cycle. Finally, Matthew Dallek is a former speech writer for Dick Gephardt. This is not a story about scholars questioning Gov. Palin's credentials so much as partisan Democrats who would find a reason to disqualify or discount any nominee put forward by Sen. McCain."

That sounds like the Soviet-style attempt to delegitimize well-credentialed scholars. That a scholar has a personal political opinion or has made donations to a candidate does not in any way undermine the credibility of their professional assessment; any attempt to suggest that it does is an anti-intellectual argument that has no place on Misplaced Pages. Arjuna (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Except it isn't a "professional assessment" at all. It's a political assessment, the kind of sleight-of-hand thing academics do all the time when they stick their nose into electoral politics. Their professional expertise in the Constitution is pretty much meaningless when it comes to something like this. It's the kind of political attack a campaign does with academics who don't mind overstating what their credentials should mean. Soviet-style? any attempt to suggest that it does is an anti-intellectual argument that has no place on Misplaced Pages? I don't think skepticism is anti-intellectual or Soviet-like. -- Noroton (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, I don't think they were professing to say anything at all about constitutional issues, since no one at all is questioning anything about Palin's legal qualifications. What those scholars are addressing are questions of comparative history regarding presidential candidates, and for which scholars are uniquely qualified over, say, the average Joe standing in the street. You are certainly entitled to your POV, but it has no place in the article (nor does mine). Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 11:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: Here's a beaut from a scholar Sarah Palin named two of her children after witches. So glad we could fact check the director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College with People magazine: Willow is a community there in Alaska. And then Piper, you know, there's just not too many Pipers out there and it's a cool name. And Trig is a Norse name for "strength." -- Noroton (talk) 05:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

And this is relevant to any thing at all because.....? Arjuna (talk) 11:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Maureen Dowd, Aug 31 '08 re Palin kids' names: "Track (named after high school track meets), Bristol (after Bristol Bay where they did commercial fishing), Willow (after a community in Alaska), Piper (just a cool name) and Trig (Norse for “strength.”)"  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 16:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Because your idolizing of scholars could use a reality check. Those scholars are actually no more qualified than an average Joe on the street to check back through history to see what experience past vice presidential candidates have had. It ain't rocket science. Nor does it take scholarship to weigh the differences between someone with executive experience (more than the three men on the major-party tickets combined) and the experience of legislators. The word "shocked" is telling as to their credibility as disinterested observers, coming from supporters of Mr. Nevermind-Experience-I-Have-Judgment. Doesn't one of these eggheads sit in the Claude Raines Chair of "Shocked, Shocked" Political Pontificating? Please refrain from unenlightening, emotionally charged statements like: the merits of your perspective or lack thereof, you are unable to see what constitutes a POV violation, and it does speak in some way to the general quality of your line of reasoning (from your 04:55 post). I wouldn't mind a range of opinion about her experience represented in the article, but no leg-up for slumming scholars trying to convince us that the Latin framed on their walls means they have more common sense than the rest of us. Ask Archimedes (μή μου τούς κύκλους τάραττε for the erudite). Let's just say that scholars have no particular standing in political circles outside questions that really call for their expertise. -- Noroton (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, Misplaced Pages does not use "scholars", it uses WP:RS. Victor Davis Hanson and Paul Krugman are both scholars also, but you can't cite their opinion articles as fact any more than you could cite Ann Coulter or Michael Moore. Having read the article, they came up with arbitrary criteria. She has more raw years in public service, and more executive experience than Senator Obama. Their argument is that small city / state experience doesn't count (or counts less). They're certainly entitled to their opinion, and you to yours, but they don't belong in an encyclopedia article.

As I said earlier, Politico is a special case. They do real journalism with real editorial oversight, but they also do opinion and blog pieces that can't be cited. We have to scrutinize their content carefully to make sure that we aren't using someone's campaign mouthpiece.

Wellspring (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Wellspring gets it right. But when an argument has no credibility whatsoever, attempts to cite spurious sources are all that remains. Arjuna (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin and Abortion in Rape/Incest cases?

"... She opposes the use of abortion even in cases of rape or incest"

The citation provided comes up dead. I've heard from various news outlets that she SUPPORTS abortion in rape/incest cases, and have found no references that this is not the case. I suggest this be deleted or modified.

The only source I see is under the Political positions of Sarah Palin in which she states that she would choose life if she were raped and became pregnant - This is a personal view, and not a political view.

this info was added as spin. You wont see mention of Obama's vote against the born alive act on his article....this quote needs to be removed. Simply saying she is "pro life" is enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone actually used a NARAL press release for the source on that. It's been removed pending a more reliable source. Kelly 01:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe she does support abortion when there is a threat to the mothers life. Sleeping frog (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That may be true, Sleeping frog - That needs to be clarified with sources, also, if needed.

http://www.naral.org/elections/election-pr/pr08292008_palin.html may be the source you were referring to, Kelly? Coming from a deathly pro-choice site, I think it's accuracy is questionable... Political stances should have multiple solid sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VaughanTheSpawn (talk • contribs) 02:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's this from the Anchorage Daily News coverage of the gubernatorial debate: http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/2006/governor/story/8372383p-8266781c.html

The candidates were pressed on their stances on abortion and were even asked what they would do if their own daughters were raped and became pregnant. Palin said she would support abortion only if the mother's life was in danger. When it came to her daughter, she said, "I would choose life."

Her spokesman confirms the view here. I didn't put that link in because it's just the spokesman but someone can if they think that's a good idea. http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/101906/sta_20061019031.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neiladri (talk • contribs) 03:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess that since the reference to rape and incest has just been taken out, we might as well link the spokesman piece and put it in.

Thanks for the reference, Neiladri. Whether to put that citation and comment back in? If her views have changed since then, it would be a good idea to leave the current statement. I think for now, it should be re-instated with the reference noted above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VaughanTheSpawn (talk • contribs) 04:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way. I am really sick of the expression "rape or incest." If by incest they mean the rape of a young girl by a close relative (and I do think this is what is meant) then they should call it "rape." Steve Dufour (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place for discussion of what people are or aren't sick of. Please stick to the purpose of this page. -- Jibal (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the old pro-choice/anti-choice section that was in here a couple of days ago? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.249.0.66 (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The section on abortion that takes it's information fromthe Juneau Empire should be summarized in a more accurate manner. Palin was never quoted directly, but her positions were given by her spokesperson - Curtis Smith. Also, it should include this context from the article - "Smith said the important thing about Palin's abortion views is that she wouldn't be proposing new anti-abortion legislation, and that while her views on the subject are firm, she's not running for office to advocate for them." Theosis4u (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Start throwing some blocks, please

Could an admin watching this page start blocking folks for libelous speculation like this edit? I'm getting sick of removing this Daily Kos garbage. Kelly 01:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. As much as I love Misplaced Pages, I'm not going to stay up all night to enforce WP:BLP. --Coemgenus 01:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the article needs more admin attention. A LOT more, we have BLP for a reason. Hobartimus (talk) 01:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

4th'd. I imagine this page is getting a hundred hits a minute. That's 100 people who read speculation and violations of BLP as something noteworthy. That is not acceptable. I authorize the use of the ban hammar. --mboverload@ 02:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The first half of the referenced edit, about her pregnancy coming as a surprise to many and the flight from Texas to Alaska, is sourced from legitimate, established media, however. I'm all for removing the Daily Kos speculaation, but I think care should be taken to ensure legitimate information isn't removed in the process. Llanwar (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The Kos stuff was meant to only be mentioned, in the same way that pro-life groups' enthusiasm for Palin's willingness to carry Trig to term, was mentioned by another Wikipedian. But in hindsight, I do agree that, given the conservatism directed by BLP, the Daily Kos stuff doesn't deserve mention until / if it has some more established basis. But in the meantime, Kelly, will you please restore the uncontroversial, properly sourced material (the vast majority of the edit) that you reverted? I do understand your frustration, but think that in this instance, you might have been overly hasty. With thanks and all best wishes, Catuskoti (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your well articulated post Catuskoti. To be more clear could you give us the diff that you wish reverted/modified? If you don't know how please leave a note on my talk page and I'll help ya out. --mboverload@ 02:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The "uncontroversial bits" seem irrelevant by themselves and serve only as a lead-in to the speculation. (Think: why would it be noteworthy to say Palin's pregnancy was a surprise? Most pregnancy announcements surprise those who hear them and it also a trivial bit of info.) I suppose the flight might fit in somewhere, but I don't really see where.--ThaddeusB (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly noteworthy. A person who may need to be counted on to make good decisions for the country makes the decision to keep her pregnancy secret until very late, and then makes the extremely questionable decision to take a cross-country flight while nearly in labor with a baby she knew had Down Syndrome. I think every instance of decision-making that any of the candidates in the election make is noteworthy and should be included in their wiki bio simply as insight into their personality and decision-making style/ability. Llanwar (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't Election 08 coverage on a major news network. It is an encyclopedia, and it has no obligation to provide anything like what you are describing. If someone comes here looking for her political positions, we have those, but we cannot provide a deep political analysis; that is for each person who reads this article to make.jstupple7 (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Daily Kos is a blog, not a credible source. I haven't heard any medical professionals write or talk about this through a credible source. Besides, everything must be verifiable, that's wikipedia policy. Sleeping frog (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The above comments were regarding facts from sources other than Daily Kos. In the case of those edits, it's an issue of WP:WEIGHT. Switzpaw (talk) 03:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure how you see the flight and pregnancy announcement as a matter of WP:Weight when it's not a viewpoint, but purely factual information, verified by reporting from legitimate, established news sources including quotes from Palin herself: http://www.adn.com/626/story/382864.html You could certainly argue that it's not worthy of inclusion under WP:Notability, but that's a different argument.Llanwar (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

From WP:WEIGHT, The principle of undue weight applies to more than just the way descriptions of viewpoints are worded in the article; undue weight can be given in various ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. Switzpaw (talk) 03:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, so you know, from WP:NNC: Undue weight, which is formulated in the neutral point of view policy, applies to factual content and not just viewpoints. Switzpaw (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to be more specific about the material I'd like to revert in a little bit. But in the meantime, the weight concern is, I think, inapplicable. While pregnancy announcements are often surprising, announcements in the third trimester rarely (though sometimes) are. Plus, traveling from one end of the country to another and delivering a big speech while knowing that labor is imminent IS unusual, as is being fit enough to return to work just three days after delivery. These events could indicate that Gov. Palin is unusually strong, cool-headed, and committed and don't necessarily imply the Daily Kos-sourced speculations. Given how unusual the circumstances are, the events seem to me to meet the Weight wiki-editing guidelines. Catuskoti (talk) 03:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree -- I think the facts do show an unusual circumstance that are telling about her character which would justify the weight of reporting on that incident, and it is supported by a reliable source. Though I'd be careful about how you write it. Switzpaw (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay -- thanks to all of you for your diligence and patience. I've revised the edit. Please re-edit as you all see fit. With best wishes.

(outdent) PLEASE NOTE that the link to DailyKos is an independent diary entry is and NOT AN OFFICIAL POST. It is at the same level as a post on blogger.com. Please do not cite DailyKos as being the author. This is the author --mboverload@ 03:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Goodness. There's absolutely no way on Earth that a blog, diary entry, or Daily Kos is a suitable source for this kind of claim to make its way into Misplaced Pages. I have a feeling this issue will be investigated further. If it makes its way into reliable sources, then there could at least be a discussion, a la John Edwards, but at this point it's just an egregious WP:BLP violation. If someone inserts the claim with Daily Kos or equivalent sourcing, revert them (3RR does not apply) and leave them a note clearly indicating the inappropriateness of the edit and referencing WP:BLP. If they do it again, then please notify an admin (you can leave a note on my talk page or go elsewhere) and they will be blocked. MastCell  03:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

re: the "rumor"/noise

For anyone who feels duty bound to put this noise in an encyclopedia ...

• (1) The rumor is false. See 3/6/08 photo: http://alaskareport.com/images31/palin_pregnant.jpg
• (2) (Even if true, "white lie" positives would cancel negatives = 0 effect)
• (3) "Only" newsworthy angle: if "story" was planted by e.g. Turd Blossom
• (4) Hi, Turd Blossom :) (Kidding, but you never know, these days) Proofreader77 (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

While I don't think Misplaced Pages is the right place to include (most) of this discussion, the photograph you posted is from a story on April 18th, taken at a press-conference where she announces that she had the baby - http://alaskareport.com/news48/x61145_trig.htm - and I don't think it can be presented as conclusive either way. V krishna (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for correction of the date (and link to article). Yes, elsewhere is where "this" should resolve. Proofreader77 (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

DATE CORRECTION: (follow-up) Since photos are not always directly associated articles (i.e., stock photos), I contacted the photographer to verify when the photo was taken. The date/location: "3/14/08 at the Republican convention in Anchorage, Alaska at 9:16 am" Proofreader77 (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Some more information: In this article the writer clearly states that Palin was pregnant when she met her in April 2008. "...Of course I had to check out the “Hottest Governor in the US” and quickly turned to see her pregnant (she has since had her baby) with bags and daughter in tote."

Any woman can appear pregnant in bulky sweaters (like the one worn by Ms. Palin in that picture). This doesn't disprove the rumors. That said, rumors have no place on Misplaced Pages.--Thalia42 (talk) 07:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

clarification

When informing me of date, time, and location of the photo, the (newspaper) photographer was clear on the matter: the rumor is false. (NOTE: Below, Kelly has provided ) Proofreader77 (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wording in the Intro

"after Geraldine Ferraro." Are these three words really important for this article? I mean there's allot of important things to mention, especially in her intro, but does this little bit of trivia really fit there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.129.181 (talk) 04:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Whenever you say someone or something is "the second", people's immediate thought is going to be wondering who or what the first is, so I'd say it's worth three words. —KCinDC (talk) 04:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

By that logic it would say who came before her in the Miss Alaska thing.. but that would be too much so it says simply that she was runner up.. the end. But this is the intro, limited space available. People reading wiki can just click the link if they really want more in depth info on another topic. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 04:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Would someone remove the phrase, please? It doesn't need to be there. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure it belongs, for the reason already stated above. What is wrong with it? It takes up 3 words and provides useful, relevant information to the interested reader. Rlendog (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place for making a trivia sheet of historical facts. The wiki link is clearly activated so that the discerning reader wishing to know more about which parties nominated which women can easily click and read. On the other hand, if we want full historical context don't just take the two parties, lets give it a REAL historical context and include the first women who recieved electoral votes. As it is it looks like a piss fight between reps and dems over who was first when really neither were..--Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

POV bias in enviro section

It kinda goes without saying that environmentalists oppose oil development near natural settings. The phrase "despite concerns from environmentalists." adds nothing to the article but POV. Could someone pease remove the POV? Thanks. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 04:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not POV to report facts about notable opinions. It may go without saying to you, but people learn such things somewhere, and a Misplaced Pages article is as good a place as any. JamesMLane t c 05:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, facts are good. But this: "Palin has strongly promoted oil and natural gas resource development in Alaska, despite concerns from environmentalists." is just a weak POV sentence. It's a fact that environmentalists hav concerns about oil promotion. We agree on that fact, but that fact is misplaced. Inserting a reminder to the reader that environmentalists usually oppose oil is inserting POV. Would you mind moving that fact to the article on environmentalists? Thanks. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are sources that specifically say her policies were opposed by Alasakan environmentalists. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

yeah someone somewhere else used a point of view once so its ok to slip them in to sway opinion here... May want to rethink that reasoning. Its bias it needs to go.PRNN (talk) 09:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Not including notable opposing views is unfair, all articles do this. I say keep it. Sleeping frog (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sleepingfrog, this is a BLP. You can't just throw up everyone's opinion of her no matter how well sourced. Go look at the article on AL GORE for a good example. There are no "opposing viewpoints" like that up there and it's rated as a good article. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I was the person who added the "despite" text. I agree, it is somewhat awkward as I had it, but strongly disagree that it is POV. I think that a reasonable reader could read the sentence without that phrase and not understand that it had anything at all to do with the environment. It is clear that the whole debate about ANWR drilling is generally considered to be environment-versus-resources, and it seems incumbent upon us to somehow get that point across to the uninformed reader. Anything which refers directly to the environment, and not to environmentalists (by some name) is going to be even more POV.

It's not a matter of presenting opposing viewpoints, just a matter of conveying to the reader why there is even a debate. If there were no reason for opposition, the information that she favors something would be useless. Homunq (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding reference 29 and her having helped pass a tax increase on oil companies (I think I have that right), I looked up the reference, and while it does support the statement, the source itself is not well sourced publically. I am sure there is a better source available, but I canot find it. Pig Dog (talk) 11:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of Trig's name

Here (the source used in the current version of the article) Todd Palin says "Trig is a Norse name for 'strength.'" Here Palin's spokeperson says "The name Trig is a Norse word meaning 'true' and 'brave victory.'" I guess we go with Todd, especially since it doesn't make much sense for one syllable to simultaneously mean both "true" and "brave victory". But I'm not sure we need the explanations for the children's names anyway, or how reliable what we have is. —KCinDC (talk) 05:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, so my name has old Irish roots her boy's name has old Germanic roots. Whats the point?--98.243.129.181 (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. The name info seems inappropriate. Catuskoti (talk) 05:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The children have unusual names, and because they're unusual (how many "Trigs" have you ever heard of? How many "Tracks"?), readers are likely curious about that. This is how they named their kids. It seems a lot more revealing than eating mooseburgers, for instance. There's already been some misinformation out there that she named two kids after witches. -- Noroton (talk) 05:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Noroton. I agree that the mooseburgers reference is trivial. But it is at least brief. Personally, I don't feel that the space you've given to the kids' names is proportional to the degree that readers might be curious about them. The witch-talk you mentioned doesn't appear to have gained traction among established sources (you've linked to a New Republic blog). With all best wishes, Catuskoti (talk) 06:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Lots of one-syllable words can mean multiple things. In Chinese, "ma" has five meanings, depending on the tone. The English word "love" can mean respect because of good properties seen in someone, romantic attraction, self-sacrifice for someone without romantic overtones or respect for their characteristics, affection for a family member, and so on.

Consensus seems to be against me here, but let's give it a decent interval. Can we wait, say, another eight hours from this timestamp (then it'll be a bit under 24 hours), and then remove it unless consensus changes? Let's just give editors a chance to see what they think. It's not important, either way, although I still think what parents name their children tells you something about the parents (at least what things they consider important symbols). -- Noroton (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, Noroton. With all best wishes, Catuskoti (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Name meanings are not important, these are not significant facts or well known facts, about Sarah Palin. Adding them fills the article with fluff. Sleeping frog (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe this discussion is even occurring. It is utter fluff and unworthy of an encyclopedia. Delete. Arjuna (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

DELETE this is a BLP. We don't throw crap at the wall and see what sticks. Delete everything that is slanderous, non-neutral, not well cited or unreliable. Peace. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

A different source says the name Trig was chosen to honor the baby's great-uncle. Dragons flight (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Biased writing

This article is extremely biased. It needs to be thoroughly edited by someone with real editorial experience. VP nominee Biden's article is completely different than Palin's: it contains no discussion about why he chose his children's names, the length of time between marriage and birth of a first child, etc. This type of information is irrelevant to this article and serves only as a distraction.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.72.101.91 (talk • contribs)

The Truth is... SHE SMOKED WEED!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few things. First, I think we generally don't compare what goes on at other articles to the content in this one. We can refer to Misplaced Pages policies as precedent, but each talk page has its own stuff going on, and they might be doing things that are just as incorrect as any other page. Second, I think Palin's alleged drug use has satisfied WP:RS, but whether or not it is noteworthy for inclusion is debatable. I personally think it should be included somewhere, but we have to be careful as to how it is included and not giving it anything more than just a passing mention. --kizzle (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm somewhat skeptical of these sources for these suddenly uncovered stories. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are you skeptical? Palin's nod is very recent, and of course people are going to go back and dig stuff up. Are you alleging the article located on cbsnews.com doesn't meet WP:RS?--kizzle (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's just say I'm skeptical. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This dates back to 2006, as the article from the Anchorage Daily News shows, there is nothing new about it. This is a notable fact. - Epousesquecido (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)GoodDay, Palin has admitted she used marijuana back when it was legal in Alaska (well, at a state level, it was illegal at a national level). This has been known since at least 2006 when she mentioned it in response to her views on legalizing marijuana. --Bobblehead 19:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This also sounds like a plausible thing she would say. Alaska is a pretty libertarian state, and saying you've smoked marijuana wouldn't be too terribly controversial. A 2004 ballot proposition legalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana failed only by a margin of 44% to 56% (and largely because might have resulted in reparations for past convictions) - see Decriminalization of non-medical marijuana in the United States. 20:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Palin smoked weed when it was legal in Alaska and has said that she didn't like it. If you're going to mention it, mention what's true and known, and backed up by sources. Sleeping frog (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't really give a damn what she smoked, but it was not legal. Marijuana has been illegal nationwide since before Palin was born. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why we are saying "She has said that she has smoked marijuana in the past, when possession was legal under Alaska state law; but did not like it." but neglecting to mention it was illegal under US law. As stated in the source article: "Palin said she has smoked marijuana -- remember, it was legal under state law, she said, even if illegal under U.S. law -- but says she didn't like it and doesn't smoke it now." Switzpaw (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Moved to political positions section, and since now it's being presented in the context of why she doesnt support re-legalization in Alaska, I don't think it's necessary to bring up the U.S. law point. Switzpaw (talk) 03:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Self described "hockey mom"

She descrives herself as a "hockey mom" politician. Why is this not mentioned somewhere ? 72.91.214.42 (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin + Hockey Mom = 41,000 results 72.91.214.42 (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Mention it then. You have to register as a WP editor first, but that's easy. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW from her speech it sounded like she said that she was a "hockey mom" before she got into politics, not that she is a "hockey mom politician." Steve Dufour (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Registering as an editor still means having to wait for four days (and do at least 10 edits) before being able to edit semi-protected articles. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You are right. I forgot about that. Still the election is not till November so there is plenty of time. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this might be relevant to add, but the question is where would it fit in? --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin#Personal life and family seems like as good of a place as any. –Juliancolton 19:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

While Mayor "she even pushed for a sales tax increase to build a pet project, a new sports complex for ice hockey." this might be added as part of that statement. Info found here . - Epousesquecido (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I worked the "hockey mom" description into the person info section. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Catholic?

The articles cited did not say anything about her being baptized as a Roman Catholic as an infant, nor that her parents were Catholic. They seemed to say that the family belonged to the Assembly of God and that she was raised in that church. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

On a maybe related issue someone keeps adding the uncited "information" that she supports contraception. Hardly a hot political topic these days in the US. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added that back with a citation. Sorry to say, but it IS once again a serious political issue. Despite very wide and strong acceptance by the mainstream populace, it's never disappeared as an issue for the Christian Right, many of whom make no distinction between abortion and contraception. And the Bush Admin. has taken steps in the last couple of weeks to undermine the right of access to contraception. So it most certainly is of significance that Palin "supports contraception". Of course, it would be nice to have more detail on that -- for instance, where does she stand on emergency contraception (aka the "day after pill")? Cgingold (talk) 01:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It has been properly sourced again. It was originally, but someone removed the citation at some point. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It still seems a little odd that the LA Times said she was born Catholic but the National Catholic Reporter didn't mention it. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Not odd at all. And no reason for removal. Str1977 15:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

See above religious section. She WAS baptised catholic as a babe and later when her family moved to AoG was re-baptised as lots of charasmatics are. Hope this clears it up. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Pro-Life

Is it accurate to describe Ms Palin as "pro-life" when she supports the death penalty? She is in effect pro-death. Incidentally, I understand that the RC church opposes the death penalty. Millbanks (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:No original research. Poppy (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

She's no longer a practicing catholic anyways. A lot of Christians, and catholics for that matter, hold views that aren't precisely what their denomination says, look at all the divorced Christians for example. And saying she's "pro-death" is quite a stretch. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Just fixed yet another whitewash

I can't go through the history right now, but the PSC dismissal section was a total joke when I just checked. Just 2 paragraphs, and Paragraph 2 was a discussion of Wooten's misdeeds (immaterial - the question is not whether he should have been fired, but whether Palin should have had any say in whether he was fired), not of the inappropriate contacts from Palins office. There was NO mention of any ongoing investigation. I put a band-aid fix, but this is totally inappropriate, and if it continues it could be grounds for investigating the offending accounts. Homunq (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You need to give sources when you say things about individuals which could be harmful to them. And just about anything could be harmful to someone running for public office. Please see WP:BLP. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Homung, I thought Mrs Palin's authority to fire him was undisputed? Surely her reasons for firing him are part and parcel of the whole issue. Str1977 14:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded the section slightly, with a well-sourced, neutral sentence about the legislature hiring an investigator. That's absolutely critical information; otherwise, readers will think this is simply a "he said, she said" argument. But as for "Just 2 paragraphs", that is appropriate, I think - per the summary style approach, the details belong in the daughter article. If you contribute there, please avoid POV language, and keep in mind that every single sentence must be sourced. There is no reason to add unsourced information (to the main article or daughter article), given the widespread coverage by mainstream media. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong. It's a question of how she handles personnel issues, and there's a difference between picking on someone for purely personal reasons and coming down heavily on someone with genuine disciplinary problems who also happens to have personal problems with your sister. You might not see it that way, but by removing the information altogether you're making that choice for the reader, which is the definition of POV. A.J.A. (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "removing the information altogether". It's standard at Misplaced Pages to "spin off" a subtopic as a separate article - with all the relevant details in that "daughter" article -- because otherwise the subtopic takes up a disproportionate amount of space - see the guideline on summary style. The place to argue over what details should be in Misplaced Pages is the article Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal, not the Sarah Palin article; you're simply not going to convince editors that more than two paragraphs is needed at the moment in the latter article. If there are further developments, then sure, the section might be expanded, but I don't see anything that has happened to date that needs to be used to expand that section. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What I put back was two sentences, not a whole paragraph. It is written in summary style, because that's what summary style is: it summarizes, not omits. A.J.A. (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Would it makes sense to base the summary info here on the introductory section of the daughter article? I agree that the material currently included here seems disorganized and biased. Catuskoti (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The lead section of the daughter article is even shorter (when you adjust it by removing duplicate information in the first sentence, and omit the last sentence ("Troopergate"), which is there primarily for disambiguation purposes.

Perhaps the most constructive thing at this point would be to suggest alternative wording. Saying something is "disorganized and biased", without providing any specifics, makes it tough to respond either by fixing the wording or by defending it. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm new here so I'm not sure how this works but I think its important to note that http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/08/mccains_vp_pick_palin_facing_e.html

states "The investigation is expected to cost about $100,000 and last at least three months, according to The Associated Press." Also http://www.bnd.com/508/story/454849.html states "The investigation is supposed to wrap up by Oct. 31, just days before the Nov. 4 general election." and "Sen. Hollis French, a Democrat and former state prosecutor from Anchorage who is serving as the project director for the investigation. The special counsel just this week was trying to arrange Palin's deposition, French said.

French said Palin's new role as vice-presidential candidate won't change the investigation." I apologize if this is not in the proper format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterOfSparks (talk • contribs) 05:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Very brief Sprotection

I have semi protected this page while I ask this question; given the level of "doubtful" contributions by ip's, should this page also be semi-protected for a few day? LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the libel is really getting out of hand. Kelly 16:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolute support for locking it down for at least a few days--48 to 72 hours, and we can review again after another day. rootology (C)(T) 16:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds like an eminently sensible idea. Kelly 16:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Str1977 16:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. The sheer weight of BLP violations is getting unmanageable. Wellspring (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Do not protected this talk page. Some of us actually would like to help. Please see and fix the article. 72.147.76.31 (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotection sounds good to me. —KCinDC (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have been the target of IP vandalism since doing the 15 minute sprotect, which means it was obviously the right thing to do; I have therefore extended the protection to 72 hours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the semiprotection of the talk page for at least a week. Hobartimus (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with the semi-protection. It is highly unfortunate, but necessary due to the constant slander posted here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Regrettable, but necessary under WP:BLP. --Coemgenus 17:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

In agreement with semi-protection. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with semi-protecting the talk page. If the tradeoff is that responsible editors have to do a little more work, to remove blatant trash, versus excluding newcomers from being able to contribute anything at all toward improving the article, I think the latter is far worse. JamesMLane t c 17:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a legitimate point, but right now, concerns about libel against a family that's just been thrust onto the national (international?) stage should weigh more heavily. I support the semiprotect for a few days, then we can see what happens. -- Noroton (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The protection expires in a couple of days; what is so important that it needs to be edited in now and couldn't wait for either the lifting of protection or having an account autoconfirmed? LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's the principle of the matter. Semi-protection is not something used lightly against sporadic inclusions of passages deemed violations of NPOV or WP:RS. If there's a GWB-worthy (or even half of it back in its prime) slew of vandalism, by all means bring it on, but lets use semi-protection as it's meant to be and not a pre-emptive measure of relief. --kizzle (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Look at the history of this talk page. There's been a truly hideous amount of gutter-slander thrown around. It's sickening. Kelly 19:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

So we have our jobs cut out for us :) --kizzle (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

JamesMLane, I'd normally agree with you, but in this case we were getting hammered. I think we had a couple spammers buried in there hitting us with post after post. This was necessary, but temporary. Wellspring (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I fear that a 'It's blogging/it's not blogging' argument has erupted. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that I don't normally frequent hot political articles, but I happened across this one, and it sickens me. Blocking for BLP violations has little or no effect for people who commit drive-by libel. This talk page should indeed be semi'd for a little while. Also, if another admin decides to remove semiprotection from the main page again, they're getting hit with the trout. Cool Hand Luke 19:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop tempting us, man. Anyway, the ideal and largely even the practice is that protection is against our basic value of openness and should be used as little as possible. In this particular case, however, we have (a) an important subject that will draw a lot people here to learn about it, whether we like it or not, and (b) a WP:BLP matter. BLP for all you reporters out there stands for Biographies of Living Persons and is the fairly iron-clad rule that we have to be strict and authoritarian when dealing with such articles because all the alternatives are worse. I support extended semi-protection of the article but semi-protection of the talk page only for very short periods when we're not just getting a whole lot of drivel but cannot deal with it. Otherwise, the low ratio of babies to bathwater does not make up for the loss of the former. --Kizor 22:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Radio show appearance

Does anyone think this information is even remotely relevant? I think it should be removed wholesale, or at least edited down to one or two sentences and merged into the body. It is definitely given undue weight in its current form. Other opinions? --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree, I also had to remove the word controversy as well, it's not up to us to the reader something is controversial, they can make up their own mind. — Realist 17:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem for me is that it's sourced by a blog and an opinion piece in the Anchorage Daily News. I haven't been able to find a news story on it yet. --Coemgenus 17:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had to remove a link to youtube too. — Realist 17:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I really don't get the relevance of this. A.J.A. (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a severe question of undue weight here, which is a violation of POV policies. It's a fairly common smear tactic to plant reliably sourced stories about minor incidents which go into excessive detail in biographies. We have to ask ourselves: is this incident more or less notable than any other slip-up in public? Did it have any continuing political repercussions? Or did it more or less die right there? Are we giving more weight to, say, a particular press appearance of no subsequent news value than to, say, 4-5 years of the subject's life? In this case, if you can't demonstrate that this incident was significant and had continuing consequences, I think the whole section should be removed. RayAYang (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It's pretty insignificant in the large scheme of things. Kelly 22:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think would be appropriate to at least mention this in the article as it is being touched upon in the MSM and is 100% sourced and valid. Zredsox (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly think it's notable in the scheme of a biography page, but if it's going to be included it needs to be shortened to a line or two. As has previously been mentioned, it certainly doesn't deserve the same space as other facts which are actually biographical. GatorOne (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

From new section added below:

Last January, Sarah Palin appeared on "The Bob and Mark Show" where host Bob Lester despises Lyda Green, and her reaction is childish and unacceptable.

Source:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/31/palin-laughs-as-opponent_n_122776.html

Already been discussed a few sections up titled "Radio Show Appearance" GatorOne (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Moved to existing section. --Coemgenus 00:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Faye Palin might not vote for Sarah Palin

• Sarah Palin's mother-in-law uncertain about how she'll vote --FuturePil()t (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

So, what's your point? GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not so sure this is noteworthy enough of inclusion, but that's just my opinion. --kizzle (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• And Cindy McCain's half sister says she won't vote for McCain. So what? Corvus cornix_talk 22:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree, this is not pertinent. A majority of people are not voting for McCain. It would be a chore to mention all of them.Zredsox (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Time to split out a Reaction article?

If not now, very soon the "Reaction" subsection will become unwieldy. Any takers? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Do we have similar sub-articles for the other candidates? Kelly 21:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to include the reactions of every Tom, Dick, and Harry that makes a comment on her selection? Supporters of McCain were generally positive, supporters of Obama were generally negative, everyone else shocked. --Bobblehead 21:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The "reaction" section is currently unwieldy at best, heavily weighted and teetering on straying from a NPOV.Zredsox (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I don't know. It just seems to me that piling on every comment by every politician, pundit and poll will overwhelm the article. A summary could be made; her selection was a surprise, some Repubs and Dems have said she lacks experience, other Repubs and Dems have praised the pick as bold, some have said it is an attempt to get Hillary voters. The split out article could have all the quotes and detailed analysis. The reaction to her pick is not really her, right? I figure users want facts, and if they want more on the reaction they can click. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2) No reason to split anything. This won't continue to grow and so a "reaction" article will be more or less static and quickly outdated. Oren0 (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The section should go. It is getting more and more whitewashed by the minute.Zredsox (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not news, and most of these reactions are of passing, minimal importance. Let's face it -- if she gets elected as Vice President, reactions to her initial selection will merit at most a passing mention in the context of a much bigger career as VP. If she doesn't get elected, the entire vice presidential selection will be a paragraph on top of her career as governor. Rather than letting every sourceable media reaction get included, I favor slimming the section down to a summarizing sentence or two, and kindly but sternly redirecting people looking to add every tidbit of recent political news to Wikinews. RayAYang (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason for a split. What would be the title anyway? Any precedent for anything like this? Hobartimus (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What value would a separate article would be? Yes, it's about as long as it ever needs to be. -- Noroton (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I realize this is heresy, but it's perfectly okay to weigh the article toward the things that are most notable about her right now, and reweigh later as her biography changes. I would bet that even by the end of the campaign the initial reaction will merit perhaps a paragraph, and afterward a single sentence. But right now it's a big deal. A.J.A. (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is people are removing the counter points from the article so that it is now weighted heavily in favor of positive reaction to her selection when in truth that is not the general consensus. For instance, the negative assessment from the National Review was inexplicably removed while in turn 3 more reactions praising her pick have been added in the last hour.Zredsox (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm the one who did it and I explained it pretty clearly in the edit summary: the quote in question called her a "small-town mayor", present tense, which is factually wrong. Go find someone saying "governor for only two years", then at least we'll be citing critics who aren't lying. A.J.A. (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "small town mayor" was used as a slight to clearly define where the majority of her experience was based, by a conservative pundit from the National Review. It was not meant to be a factual declaration, but rather an opinion (as are all the reactions.) -- Zredsox (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

So if you're insulting someone based on opinion it's okay to say things that aren't true. A.J.A. (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone's "reaction" by definition has nothing to do with fact.Zredsox (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Almost every story and commentary that gets published is a reaction to something. Are you telling me the entire media is a fact-free zone? A.J.A. (talk) 04:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think current efforts should focus on improving the "Reaction" section of the main article and worry about a possible split later. The current version is an utter travesty, consisting almost entirely of Republican reaction (both favorable and unfavorable). It is OK to include those (with citation), but the current version violates WP:WEIGHT policies and more critical perspectives must be included as well. Arjuna (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Please explain why you think it's necessary to include quotations which make untrue characterizations. A.J.A. (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

A.J.A. makes a classic straw man argument, and s/he needs to come up with something far better than that. That the section as currently written is a violation of WP:POV and WP:UNDUE seems unassailable. Arjuna (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to call it a straw man, demonstrate how it doesn't make an untrue characterization. A.J.A. (talk) 04:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's unclear what you are referring to. What "untrue characterizations"? If something is demonstrably untrue, no responsible editor is going to support its inclusion. You're spouting gibberish as far as I can tell, but please enlighten me if I have missed something. Arjuna (talk) 05:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the section is long removed by now, but I'll type this slowly: Frum characterized her as a small town mayor. She is in fact a governor. If you still find that gibberish, try taking some ESL courses. A.J.A. (talk) 22:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If some people want to split out a daughter article so that they can amuse themselves by quoting every published reaction to this pick, I suppose it will keep them from doing harm elsewhere, but such an article isn't needed. Whether or not there's a separate article, the real issue is to keep the summary in this one balanced and concise. We do not need to quote every politician who's expressed an opinion, and we should not quote more Republicans than Democrats. Furthermore, I suggested above (in #Biased Media Opinions) that non-politician reactions should be included, such as evangelicals and environmentalists. JamesMLane t c 00:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE -->> Pregnancy Talk <<-->_Pregnancy_Talk_<<---2008-08-31T19:39:00.000Z">

NOTE TO NEW EDITORS: This section is not regarding the 9/1/08 fact of Bristol Palin's pregnancy, but an (earlier) unfounded internet rumor Proofreader77 (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)>_Pregnancy_Talk_<<--"> >_Pregnancy_Talk_<<--">

For those wanting to add anything about Sarah Palin being pregnant, unless you can provide reliable, verifiable sources via WP:RS, they will be deleted per WP:BLP. --kizzle (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)>_Pregnancy_Talk_<<--"> >_Pregnancy_Talk_<<--">

The Times Online mentioned it but also called it "totally unfounded". So unless they want to write that she's the victim of a totally unfounded rumor spread by them (which she is), they're still out of luck. A.J.A. (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:WELLKNOWN: In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Misplaced Pages biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

I think this means we wait for at least one more reliable source, then we go with it. Palin will either admit it or come out with a statement denying it. She'll be forced to do one or the other. If it gathers enough steam (publicity), we won't be doing any good at that point by keeping it out. Much as it disgusts me, at that point I'd have to support inclusion. -- Noroton (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)minor wording change -- Noroton (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we do go with it, but what we go with is what reliable sources are saying. If the reliable sources say the rumor is baseless, then we say it's baseless and nothing more. And maybe not even that, depending on how big a factor it actually is. A.J.A. (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with all that. -- Noroton (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Presently, the reliable sources are saying that there is an internet rumour regarding the last pregnancy - there is no mention of what that rumour entails. Placing a note that there is a rumour, per source, in the article does not bring any edification for the reader - and might persuade them to go looking for it. It would be easiest to wait for an official response if any, or a very reliable source discussing the content. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, her daughter is not a public figure. Her daughter is also a minor. Due to these two aspects we should respect her privacy, and edit with conservatism in mind. Unless this becomes a major news story we shouldn't mention it. Sleeping frog (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC) For now, I won't add anything, but the Daily Kos article compiled on the subject gives plenty of solid evidence worth looking into, and I'm sure someone in the MSM will pick up on this soon enough.--MegaKN (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)>_Pregnancy_Talk_<<--"> >_Pregnancy_Talk_<<--">

Yeah, Daily Kos is a paragon of neutral independent journalism. Kelly 03:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If anyone would like to see an extensive similar history, also involving an internet rumor not yet reported in the sourceable media, look at the talk page at Troy King, about the Alabama attorney general. There's some excellent discussion there of the applicable Wiki standards - even if some of it is mine. There's also some discussion of the contrary view that widely circulated internet material should be included, as long as it's so identified. For now, this item doesn't appear to belong. FWIW, I happen to have a friend in the MSM who tells me they are looking into it, but will not run it until someone says something on the record. Stay tuned. When that happens, my vote goes for inclusion. And on a semi-related topic, I did see one blog comment saying, in essence, that (assuming the rumor proves untrue) she showed poor judgment by taking an 8 hour plane trip after her water broke. If this story causes that issue to emerge, I think that's includable, too.Audemus Defendere (talk) 05:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)>_Pregnancy_Talk_<<--"> >_Pregnancy_Talk_<<--">

Please stop removing this section>_Pregnancy_Talk_<<---2008-08-31T21:39:00.000Z">

The only thing that is being accomplished by removing this section is to make people think we havent heard of it before. Then they go back and add it in. Please keep this thread so they understand WHY it is removed. --mboverload@ 21:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Kizzle also did a good job of pointing out the BLP problem from the get-go. Cool Hand Luke 21:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. -- Noroton (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

LET IT BE NOTED: Misplaced Pages is not a forum for discussion of (in the words of the article above) "utterly unfounded internet rumours." The details of "totally unfounded internet rumors" will not be enumerated here. Debate about why a particular fact is a "totally unfounded internet rumor" shall not be examined here. All such comments shall be deleted. (That is my understanding.) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well-said. Cool Hand Luke 21:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. But if it's being discussed in WP:RS, we CAN and will be allowed to discuss it here. rootology (C)(T) 21:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, RS is the threshold question. Speculating about how some hypothetical claim would be an abuse of public funds if true, for example, is the kind of chat that will be removed with prejudice under WP:FORUM and WP:BLP. We must follow reliable sources, but we must not report allegations they do not stand by. Cool Hand Luke 22:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

We can, however, mention that a reliable published source has found something worth mentioning. The question is is it notable. The Times Online did find this internet rumor to be notable and chose to publish about it. We can also choose to publish about it, since we have a reliable published source that mentions it. Digitalmandolin (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence --mboverload@ 22:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I wish somebody would decide on whether or not this can be mentioned on the Discussion page. Each time I do so, another Wikipedian, J, deletes it and tells me that it must be deleted from Discussion because it is in violation of BLP. His arguments seem reasonable. However this section remains, untouched. My head spins.Kitchawan (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence if you want to prove something. Here we work in verifiability. The matters wishing to be added to the article can be verified, even if they are extraordinary in light of a vice-presidential running mate pick appearing not to have been vetted. Digitalmandolin (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP concerns cover talk pages as well, but if something starts getting mentions in reliable sources then the question isn't so much about the unfounded rumors but inclusion. 141.161.133.1 (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, inclusion is a pure editorial choice if RS cover it, subject to BLP. rootology (C)(T) 22:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a place to discuss admittedly "unfounded rumors." Mentioning it in the article would place undue weight on it, and merely fuel the "Internet rumors." Our goal is to be an encyclopedia, not a part of the tabloid media.   user:j    (aka justen)   22:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

As soon as 1-2 RS mention this, we can discuss it here. Once that happens, people will need to stop removing talk OF it. rootology (C)(T) 22:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

At this time, I see no need to discuss this, it's not going in the article until it's no longer a rumor. If that happens, I welcome a renewed discussion, but until then I think it would be best to cease discussion and let this section stand so no one try to start a new one. John Reaves 22:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Once a couple RS cover it, the BLP shackles for discussion come off automatically. rootology (C)(T) 22:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

J, I didn't mention it in the article. I mentioned it on the talk page. Yet you still deleted that, yet are discussing it here. Yet again, my head spins.Kitchawan (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article. If it belongs in the article, discussion belongs here. But we'd need more sourcing, first. Without more sourcing, what's there to discuss? Even coverage of a rumor ("allegation") counts. -- Noroton (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. RS lets us discuss freely, subject to BLP, but removal then would be vandalism and not subject to BLP exemption for simple talk. rootology (C)(T) 22:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Presently, the reliable sources are saying that there is an internet rumour regarding the last pregnancy - there is no mention of what that rumour entails. Placing a note that there is a rumour, per source, in the article does not bring any edification for the reader - and might persuade them to go looking for it. It would be easiest to wait for an official response if any, or a very reliable source discussing the content. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(←) Noroton, when the allegations have been "well-documented by reliable published sources," we can have a discussion. That simply hasn't happened yet. Instead, what's happening here is that Misplaced Pages is becoming part of the "Internet rumors." Which is a sad situation in and of itself.   user:j    (aka justen)   22:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No one is going to say that because something controversial was discussed on a talk page it must be true. If someone was making up rumors for the first time here, then it could be immediately deleted. But a discussion of RS is fine. Joshdboz (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Google News is currently showing nothing relevant from a reliable source; here's the search link. I'd say this is the end of this discussion until something changes. --A. B. 22:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for getting rid of the garbage rumors about Palin's son Trig. Sarah Palin's pregnancy and giving birth to him were publicized months ago, and Misplaced Pages has put the correct information in.--31 August 2008, Susan Nunes

I thought there were reliable sources saying that she didn't announce her pregnancy until 7 months in, with co-workers being surprised about it. Also, I thought there were reliable sources that her water broke in Texas, then she flew back to Alaska to have the baby. Beyond that, it's speculation, but I thought these were legitimate facts. Stevie is the man! 02:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and Dick Cheney ordered Halliburton to manufacture a fake pregnancy suit, which was delivered to Alaska by Blackwater mercenaries, and personally strapped on the Governor by Karl Rove. Anyway, see this photo. Kelly 06:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the pic link Kelly. One wonders why the campaign is so clueless as to not have required you to respond for them. =P --mboverload@ 06:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Despite Kelly's sarcasm, Stevie is correct about the reporting concerning her decision to make a lengthy trip from Texas to Alaska after her waters burst. Based on the timeline in this story in the Anchorage Daily News, she got to her hometown hospital about 19.5 hours after she discovered she was leaking amniotic fluid. The article also reports that a California ob/gyn "said when a pregnant woman's water breaks, she should go right to the hospital because of the risk of infection." That she did not announce her pregnancy until fairly late has also been reported elsewhere, but I'm too lazy to unearth a link. JamesMLane t c 07:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I second what Kizzle said. I will delete any edit I see that does not come from WP:RS (DailyKos is not a reliable source!) under WP:BLP. Cornince (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the rumor is pretty much dead - some at Daily Kos are running from this story, though others won't give up on it and say either that's a pillow stuffed in her blouse, or alternatively that Karl Rove pwned them on their own blog and tricked them into running a fake story. In any case, Daily Kos will now be known as the site that thinks Desperate Housewives is real. Kelly 15:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the rumor seems, mercifully, to be dying, but the way you talk about Daily Kos (as if it's a hive mind rather than a collection of people constantly arguing with each other) shows a misunderstanding of what it is nearly as great as speaking of what "Misplaced Pages believes", or talking about changes to an article as "Misplaced Pages reversing itself". —KCinDC (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Associated Press has released a stub saying that Sarah and Todd Palin have announced that their daughter, Bristol, is pregnant. This is from a reliable source, and deserves inclusion in the "family" section. Markegge (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: for discussion of editing the article re the Bristol Palin pregnancy, see another section Proofreader77 (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocks

If a discussion doesn't manifest soon, people are going to start getting blocked, please stop edit warring. John Reaves 21:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"Edit-warring" doesn't apply to WP:BLP violations. Kelly 21:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What you've been removing isn't a BLP violation. John Reaves 21:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh rly? (Just three examples, many more available.) Where were you when this crap was going on? Go ahead and block me, oh powerful admin. Kelly 21:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, although you have been a great help to the article your removal of talk page sections about legitimate discussion was not ok in my opinion. --mboverload@ 21:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, I'm referring to one specific section, thank you your previous and future removals, but that one section was restored several times and was not a BLP problem, simply put is was disruptive. John Reaves 21:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Please provide diffs both sides plz. --mboverload@ 21:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's blocking Kelly at this time. This page is being edited very fast, and much of it is garbage. He's erring on the side of strong BLP enforcement, which I think is laudable. Now that several editors have made clear that the section above is not a BLP violation, I expect that section to remain, but I don't want to tie anyone's hand from removing garbage on this page. Cool Hand Luke 21:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. This is being alluded to in mainstream media, so the potential for inclusion is a valid concern, and NOT a BLP violation in and of itself. rootology (C)(T) 21:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Any potential slander of a 16 year old girl OR any material that makes speculation without facts (ie, guessing that a baby wasn't born early but was actually born from a different mother) Would violate BLP guidelines and need to be removed before discussion per BLP guidelines. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

There has been a discussion going on here, but the discussion was removed due to BLP concerns, so John, please pay attention to what's going on. Corvus cornix_talk 21:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It would seem I'm far more aware than you. John Reaves 22:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Not if you're planning on blocking people for removing BLP violations. Corvus cornix_talk 22:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The block threat for removing a section that wasn't a BLP violation, i.e. the section that is still here. Is this really that hard to understand? John Reaves 22:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, since you did not say and still have yet to explain what section you're talking about. Corvus cornix_talk 22:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I assumed you knew since you told me to "pay attention", I assumed you had been keeping up and "paying attention", obviously not though. Perhaps the history tab holds your answers? John Reaves 22:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

If I may, it is #PLEASE NOTE -->> Pregnancy Talk <<-- directly above. Removed several times by Kelly and J. Cool Hand Luke 22:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The "BLP violation" is the section above. It's not a BLP violation. That said, Kelly should not be blocked for this, but I think we're all in agreement here. I think we're done, so accusing editors of not paying attention is unhelpful. Cool Hand Luke 22:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It should have be blanked with a reason why it was blanked, not removed wholesale. --mboverload@ 22:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying. What's the difference between blanking and removing? Do you want a big blank space in the middle of the article and the Talk page? Corvus cornix_talk 22:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently. But the policy is clear: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted." Removal of a discussion of a WP:BLP non-article space violation needs no further discussion. WP:DFTT.   user:j    (aka justen)   22:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

But it does need explanation or reference, according to WP:BLP. Unless I am misreading the relevant passage re deletion.Kitchawan (talk) 22:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we're all in agreement that there's no source satisfying WP:RS, the question is whether we can actually talk about whether or not there's a source on this page without J reverting it. --kizzle (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm - if I put a section on your talk page saying "Let's discuss whether Kizzle is a liar", with some flimsy speculation from some blogger, would you support that? That stuff gets burned out with flamethrowers immediately (or it ideally should). Kelly 22:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Your example: "Let's discuss whether Kizzle is a liar"
• My example: "For those wanting to add anything about Sarah Palin being pregnant, unless you can provide reliable, verifiable sources via WP:RS, they will be deleted per WP:BLP"

--kizzle (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Residence Question

The article states that the governor's family lives in Wasilla, 45 miles from Anchorage. Yet the Governor presumably lives in Juneau, which is the state capital, during the week. Is this worthy of clarification?Kitchawan (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Time for a trim (Undue weight comes under the NPOV criteria)

The "reaction" section needs a serious trim, undue weight and recentism. — Realist 22:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree - in addition to what Realist2 said above, the fact that a weasel word pretty much starts off the section is definitely a bad sign. There's a lot of well cited info in there, but a reword and a trim would make the section a lot better--danielfolsom 22:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel the same. I also don't think we should have this statement Obama gave, it doesn't seem to add much. Besides, originally his campaign wrote a harsh statement about her that was later revoked and replaced with Obama welcoming her and saying that his campaign had a "hair trigger" reaction, that all seems more notable than the statement we currently have. Sleeping frog (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"Reaction" needs to be gutted and evenly weighted or removed. Currently it reads like a McCain political advertisement with a smattering a static. It should more realistically crafted to show the reality of the situation from both sides.Zredsox (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this really needs to be cut down to basic reactions by major political figures and the national polls (once enough time has passed for the polls to be multiple and reliable). However, impacts on fundraising (for both parties!) should be considered a legitimate "reaction" by the public. Kelly 22:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it needs trimmed. Problem is every time something goes, two things replace it. Argh. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to trim anything yet we have enough space. Also where did the poll numbers go that showed the reaction of voters? Now the reaction of voters is missing from a section titled "reaction". This should be put back. Hobartimus (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

OMG, it grows every time I come back, people, please read WP:UNDUE WEIGHT and WP:RECENTISM. They are great policies. — Realist 22:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Because of the Undue weight given to the section I have tagged it for NPOV. This might sound odd, but according to official policy undue weight is part of the NPOV criteria. — Realist 01:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Visits to other countries

Should this really be its own section? I feel like this being its own section possibly violates the Misplaced Pages policy that dictates that articles must not have a point of view (specifically I believe it violates the section on undue weight). Perhaps the info in it is noteworthy and should be mentioned - I'm not arguing that – but I think we need to tread carefully given the newfound notoriety of this person, and giving this sentence its own section isn't really treading carefully. thoughts?--danielfolsom 22:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we break down her "Political Positions" section into three subsections: 'Social', 'Economic', and 'Foreign Affairs'. We could add this info to the foreign affairs subsection where it would be appropriate. Sleeping frog (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I like that idea :) --kizzle (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ditto - good plan--danielfolsom 23:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but add "Environment" and/or "Energy and Environment". Arjuna (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

More Photos

There are only a few photos on this article. After looking at the pages for John McCain, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden I noticed that Sarah has very few photos in comparison. Those three articles all have several photos in some of the sections. We shouldn't be so afraid to add more photos. The article could use some style, color, and graphics to improve it like the other articles. Sleeping frog (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The photos have been repeatedly removed because they have military people in them. See Commons:Category:Sarah Palin. Kelly 22:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the addition of more photos as per the other articles. Hobartimus (talk) 22:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Then please find some. Corvus cornix_talk 22:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

At the time we didn't know that the military photos were her visiting her own Alaskan national guard, now that we do I feel they are acceptable along with a proper description. Sleeping frog(talk) 22:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to rehash here, but I can't find the diff (I even tried WikiBlame); could someone tell me why Image:Sarah Palin.jpg was removed?--danielfolsom 23:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that it's low-quality and ugly? Kelly 23:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Except that it is neither low-quality or ugly. It is merely not her in Kuwait with American troops, so apparently it doesn't satisfy someone's standards. --Evb-wiki (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL. Corvus cornix_talk 23:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh my, people are getting a little touchy around here. That photo is "low quality and ugly" in my opinion. Now please don't tell me I am at odds with WP:AGF. That is an opinion about the image, not about the intent of the photographer/uploader/editor who placed it in the article.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

My comment was directed at Evb-wiki , which is why it's under his/her rather incivil comments. Corvus cornix_talk 05:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, per Misplaced Pages:IMAGE#Image_choice_and_placement "Gloria Steinem looks best as a portrait photograph of herself alone, and not with other individuals." - so why don't we make an effort o find all the singular images of Palin, and that way we can add more pics to the article, as seemingly everyone wants. In fact: here are the pics I found on commons:

• Image:Sarah Palin Kuwait 22a.jpg
• Image:Sarahpalincrop2.jpg
• Image:Sarah Palin.jpg

Why don't we try and agree on using one of those, that way we'll have more pictures, and we'll have ideal pictures.--danielfolsom 23:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason we can't use all three. They are diverse enough and generic (NPOV) enough. And, there is room in the article. --Evb-wiki (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Silly question - are the Alaska National Guard photos PD (as works of the US federal government) or copyrighted (as works of the state of Alaska)? For example, the source for Image:Sarah Palin Aviation Day.jpg - - says "Copyright© 2002 Alaska Department of Military and Veterans Affairs". I clicked on several of them at random and found several photos from this site. Some of them gave the author as a member of the US Air Force - those are PD, regardless of what the copyright notice says so we are fine there. But ones like Image:Sarah Palin Flight Simulator.jpg and the above-mentioned Image:Sarah Palin Aviation Day.jpg give the author as "Photo: Capt. Guy Hayes, Alaska National Guard Public Affairs". Do we know for a fact that this person is an employee of the US federal government and not of the government of Alaska? --B (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a really complicated kettle of worms (mixing metaphors). :) I thought about this when I found and uploaded the photos. National Guard troops work for their state when called to duty by their state. They work for the federal government when called to duty by the Federal Government. But they are really in a gray area. In the modern American military, they are completely mixed with active duty and Reserve elements. Some are weekend warriors (except when deployed), some are full-time. Some are in Guard formations, some are in active-duty formations. However, from a copyright standpoint, I think we can take the photos as PD, considering most were taken by Federally-activated Guard formations. I'm sure if any challenge arises the photos can be deleted. Kelly 23:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken (and, of course, I could be) Uncle Sam signs the Guards' paychecks.--Evb-wiki (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct there. Kelly 23:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"prominent member of Feminists for Life." (AND) "However"

There is an "However" appearing and disappearing.

ARTICLE READS (for the moment): "Palin is a prominent member of Feminists for Life. However, Palin has said she is in favor of the death penalty."

• THIS CONSTRUCTION ARISES (I suspect) because Feminists for Life has "historically" been against capital punishment. HOWEVER: The organization has deemphasized that issue. (NOTE: It is reasonable for organizations to focus their attention and resources.)
• RHETORICAL QUESTION: Does the wording prominent member of imply complete agreement with agenda?
• DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PALIN AND FFL POSITION: Feminists for Life has no exceptions in its pro-life stance. Palin has an exception for life/health of mother.
• BOTTOM LINE: prominent member of in this instance does perhaps require qualification. The current phrasing seems to be trying to address this point. However ... (Suggestions?) Proofreader77 (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the word "prominent" is justified unless she can be proven to be seen as important within the organization. I don't think the word "however" is necessary, as I doubt many would automatically think "pro-life"/"Feminists for Life" = "against death penalty". Right or right, the "life" in these contexts is normally seen as applying primarily, or even exclusively, to one's abortion views. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows "however" is on Misplaced Pages's words to avoid-danielfolsom 00:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

re: "'however'" is on Misplaced Pages's words to avoid" -- Good to know. I didn't (nor the page). Thanks. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

FOLLOW-UP: Let us note that however is not to be avoided in all cases. Proofreader77 (talk) 09:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

re: ThaddeusB ("prominent" - NO / "however" - NO): I tend to agree. (he said weasel-wordily:) NOTE: No, this not a huge deal. Just an issue at my pay-grade. Other comments? Proofreader77 (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the "However". It may need further improvement though. 2nd Piston Honda (talk) 02:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

separating (spatially) pro life and capital punishment

Noting that the "however" issue has been "solved" (for the moment) by moving capital punishment to a different paragraph. SOME COMMENTS:

• Some believe you can separate the two issues. Some disagree. (The cause of the edit flux.)
• The above difference is somewhat complicated by the reference to Feminists for Life which for many years was (may still be, but not highlighted) an organizational member of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. Since 2005, the organization has de-emphasized that element of policy, but many associate the association with a unified opposition to sanctioned violence. (For example, Patricia Heaton, the current Honorary Chairperson of Feminists for Life, is on public record as being pro-life and against capital punishment.)
• All of the above, together, may tend to inspire editing.
• ASIDE: prominent -- Given the small set of "prominent" people, we may be thinking too hard about that word, except that word's (perhaps implied) emphasis on the implications of her membership in Feminists for Life.
• None of these comments are meant to imply that people or organizations cannot self-identify as they choose.
• The Misplaced Pages page for Feminists for Life clearly states its potentially controversial positions (but may need updating), and so the reference here does not stand alone. (obviously) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

the set of ALL people who have been described as a "prominent member of "

• Sarah Palin (395 Google hits) presumptive Republican nominee for Vice President of the United States
• Patricia Heaton (1 G hit as Patty) Actress/Current Honorary Chair of Feminists for Life
• Jane Sullivan Roberts (1 G hit) Head of in-house practice group for leading legal-search firm Major, Lindsey & Africa, and wife of the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (NOTE: there was much "interest" in implications of her FFL membership during confirmation of her husband)
• Connie Purdue (1 G hit) (1912-2000) Trade unionist (Established FFL in New Zealand) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofreader77 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Feminists for Life (and the parenthetical)

NOTE: The sentence containing reference to Feminists for Life now reads:

"Palin does support contraception, and is a prominent member of Feminists for Life (which takes no position on that issue but a more restrictive one on exceptions)."

• I added the parentheses, and the "but" clause (with wikipedia link to the clarifying section of the Feminists for Life page).
• While a parenthetical of this kind can often be avoided, the case of Feminists for Life is a bit more complex. (TO WIT: Gov. Palin's positions and those of FFL have some differences. I believe the wikipedia article for FFL along with the link to the specific section highlighting the organization's positions is an acceptable way to handle this.
• Regarding the word prominent -- Its presence drew my attention to the organization (and hence this section of discussion). Of itself, I do not think the word has any great import, other than that highlighting -- and the editing attention it has drawn. (he said semi-redundantly/circularly)
• BOTTOM LINE (my current position): prominent is OK, with the context of the parenthetical (or however that information is best conveyed). Proofreader77 (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Noting that the word "prominent" AND the parenthetical are now gone. That may be the right way to go. So it is, for now. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresenting what the source said

This edit was made to sourced text and it changed it's meaning that it no longer reflects the source accurately. The original source was this article titled "Giuliani: Palin More Qualified Than Obama" the whole statement was a comparsion between Obama and Palin, the edit should be reverted. And if you really want to get rid of the Obama material in a non-partisan way how about that massive qoute from Obama? Do we need all parts of that qoute? Hobartimus (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

A (different) comparison

Kelly - why do you keep taking out this? Statistics aren't typically POV-plagued. I mean, I'm not the one adding it back in - but this is the second time you've removed it, and I've wondered both times.--danielfolsom 00:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind straight statistics, but the Dan Quayle comparison is obviously unnecessary POV. Kelly 00:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So would it be more appropriate to say she had the second lowest Gallup poll ranking (kind of like what we do for "second female on a major political party ticket" (that's not an exact quote))--danielfolsom 00:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just found this poll and will quote it in the article. Kelly 00:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok - but leave the other one in too; we aren't going to selectively use polls--danielfolsom 00:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is an anti-Palin poll POV, but somehow a pro-Palin all of a sudden is meritable for inclusion? Nevermind, not productive. --kizzle (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) (first involvement on this page) I agree that the Quayle comparison is POV, and is best left out. Simply stating the "40 percent" can suffice. Given the new poll data, you could include both polls, indicating the rise after extensive media coverage. Antandrus (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say keep in the Quayle remark - because saying it's the second lowest is just like saying she's the second woman (although we should possibly remove Quayles name - just say it was the second lowest), but also say that there's a contradicting poll - obviously we should use both sources--danielfolsom 00:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok Kelly - you have to back up a bit - first you say that saying she had the second lowest poll numbers and making a comparison to Quayle's numbers is violating NPOV, then you make a comparison to Biden and remove the other poll? i'll leave Biden's comparison in - but I'm going to readd the Quayle one--danielfolsom 00:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Haha, I was beaten to it - thanks User:Evb-wiki--danielfolsom 00:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is at all fair (NPOV) to say 'second lowest approval rating', as it is quite deceptive. I don't doubt that it is technically true, but it is due almost entirely to her being unknown by a much larger percentage of the population than is typical. The material *might* be worth including, but it needs to be adequately explained. I would be willing to bet that her disapprove number is also way below normal, for example. (Of course I don't have all these polls in front of me to compare to be sure so I am not adding such info at this time.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That is the point of the poll. She is unknown and I am sure that contributes to the reaction (which we are capturing here) just like it did when another unknown (Dan Quayle) was chosen to run as Vice President. I think it helps balance out the section which is heavily Pro-Palin in reaction, when in reality the majority of people do not think she is ready to lead (as indicated by the poll.) This has nothing to do with favorability ratings....Zredsox (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, your comment perfectly illustrated the problem with this citation. It is factually false to say that "the majority of people do not think she is ready to lead" - only 33% said that. 33% < 50.1% last I checked. The low number of people saying yes (39%) is directly related to the percent of the population who expressed an opinion, not the % who said "no, not qualified". However, the poll (or at least the way it is being presented) makes it sound like most don't think she is qualified, which is not the case. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I was offering an opinion here, but that did not translate to my editing of the article as I took the material directly from the source and stated it as such......but it could be said that, "The majority of Americans either held no opinion or did not think Palin was ready to lead."Zredsox (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And the opposite, "The majority of Americans either held no opinion or thought Palin was ready to lead" would also be true and would be a slightly larger majority than the first option. See how the language chosen clearly makes it POV?

Yes, which is why none of that language was included in the article. Instead just facts were stated. The numbers and the historical perspective (the Quayle numbers being a valid context.) No opinion is being offered. That is just the reality of the situation. Zredsox (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

True, but if we're going to take one reliable source and assume its comparison is accurate, then we must do the same for the other reliable source.--danielfolsom 00:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that it is not at all clear what "lower ratings" mean in context, either here or in the original source. If someone could find the raw poll data, rather than the media article it would be a big help. Thanks --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL - I just noticed that 51% had "never heard of her", yet only 29% had "no opinion" on her qualifications which means at least 22% of the population based their opinion on her being qualified or not on no information whatsoever. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't America great? World domination by the clueless! :) Kelly 01:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the Gallup writeup of the poll: . It seems much less POV driven than the USA Today article to me (for example, they don't lead with the deceptive not ready to lead question.) I will attempt to rewrite the WP article to more NPOV in a sec. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, rewrite complete. I used the same emphasis and ordering as Gallup. I think that is fair. Comments are welcome, however. :)--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think the poll as written does a good job of helping to balance what is a generally pro-Palin "reaction" section. By re-writing it you would just be further contributing to the partisan bias of the article as a whole. It should remain as is unless we want to remove the entire section (which I think we should.)Zredsox (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd support removing the entire section. It is very news-like and blog-like. It certainly is encyclopedic.--Paul (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• There are multiple polling organizations and every day at least one of them releases poll results. Do we really want a section of the article to be tracking public and editorial opinion? Isn't that the job of the Internet bloggers, TV networks, the newspapers and the magazines? It certainly doesn't seem to be the job of an encyclopedia. I think these battling poll results should be removed from the article as Recentism. (In this case EXTREME Recentism).--Paul (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this section on immediate reaction is a reasonable entry in an encylopedia, and immediate poll numbers are reasonable to include as well. The usa today/gallup poll was done on friday, the day of the announcement. Perhaps one more poll that captures reaction a day or to later. Beyond that, it does get silly. I think the original wording Over the past two decades, only Dan Quayle received lower ratings after being picked for a ticket captures the USA today and Gallup articles, which are both reliable sources for a USA today/Gallup Poll.--Work permit (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the Dan Quayle thing is an unsupported POV. Kelly 01:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

How is it unsupported? Kelly, I'm sorry, but you can't selectively pick which reliable source you want to use. They are both reliable, and they are both statistics. Now I'm not saying we should mention Quayle - but don't call the poll "unsupported POV"; I mean, it's a poll--danielfolsom 03:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

My goodness, that snowballed fast

After I rewrote the poll to NPOV, the first edit removed most of what I wrote. The second, the rest of it, and a a third the entire reaction section. I agree the section was way too big, but WTF that was serious overkill? --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The section is inappropriate. This is a biography about Sarah Palin. The entire reaction section was about the 2008 presidential campaign. 1) It is not biographical info about Sarah Palin, and 2) leaving it here is like piling up a lot of brush and wood, putting a can of gasoline down on the ground next to it, and erecting a sign that says: "Burn Me" --Paul (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But a summary should remain, with a link to John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 to discourage the reanimation of the section. I assume you are pasting the deleted section into that article like your edit summary said. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I just added the "Reaction" material to the John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 article. It will need trimming down there, too.--Paul (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is perfect over there. No need to link it from here or have a divisive summary. Just glad it is gone and we can get back to the task at hand.Zredsox (talk) 02:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I added a see also link directly to the reactions section from the VP section here; this should be sufficient. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Summary style

The content of the removed material must be summarized back otherwise it would be mass blanking type stuff that is not allowed. Hobartimus (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin's Audio Scandal - STOP REMOVING THIS, WP is democracy!

It's not getting removed. Scroll up to that section of the talk page. GatorOne (talk) 00:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually wikipedia is not a democracy, see the official policy: WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Sleeping frog (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol.. I was just going to say that. :) --98.243.129.181 (talk) 01:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This material lacks notability, and should be removed asap. We aren't here to spread sensationalism. Read the policy on dealing with biographies before editing please: WP:BLP Sleeping frog (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In other words your objection related to Misplaced Pages policy about it not being included is notability purposes? I think the source meets verifiability unless people think the audio was faked? --kizzle (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts are that it isn't entirely notable to a biography, and if it is to be included it needs to be shorter. The space which was being given implied that it is of equal importance to her biography as her background or her policy views which is absurd IMO. GatorOne (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not notable, true. But it's also POV because only the clip was included. This wasn't: "Daily News op-ed notes, Palin later released a statement reading, 'The Governor called Senator Green to explain that she does not condone name-calling in any way and apologized if there was a perception that the comment was attributed to the Governor.'" Sleeping frog (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, notability is definitely a factor, I was just confused as to the reason "sensationalism".--kizzle (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"Notability" does not apply to the issue of whether a particular bit of text or information should be included in an article, only to whether a particular subject should have its own article. The questions applicable to a particular factoid or text are: is it reliably sourced and verifiable, and does it give undue weight to a particular position, or does it make the article more encyclopedic. Also does it comply with the policy on biographies of living persons. There are of course many more policies and guidelines on the best editing practices. Edison2 (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Dates should not be wikilinked

WP:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Date_autoformatting Ferrylodge (talk) 00:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought they were suppose to, but now I know better. Feel free to unwikilink them. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Done.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Slanting of article

This article is becoming very slanted. The fact she once smoked marijuana is now mentioned in two separate sections of the article. This despite the fact that the Obama article doesn't even mention that he once used cocaine. And speaking of Obama, now there's a huge blockquote here in this article quoting his assessment of Palin, unlike anything in any other politician article at Misplaced Pages. This stuff is all hugely inappropriate and unprecented for a BLP at Misplaced Pages. I hope that the political hacks and propaganda experts would please take a much-needed rest. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that 'slanted' is the appropriate description, but it certainly is not encyclopedic. I agree about the Obama quote. I think it should removed. If someone wants to add it to the Obama article, I'm fine with that.--Paul (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is slanted. It almost reads like a McCain/Palin Campaign ad! I am sure that there are some campaign workers "helping us." It needs a more neutral point of view from top to bottom.Zredsox (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think the marijuana issue needs correcting I think you could combine the sentence in "Personal Life" to merge it into the statement in "Political Positions". It seems much more relevant as a political issue than past drug use does as part of a section otherwise primarily about her family. GatorOne (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know Obama's page does mention that he used drugs - it used to say cocaine but someone changed it (from the edit summary I saw it was because the source didn't specify). We could change marajuana to drugs here - although I think that would produce an even more negative light on Palin - since we say she used marajuana when it was legal under state law.--danielfolsom 01:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal marijuana use belongs in the section on personal life. Personal use does not belong in the section on political positions. Instead, personal use is now in both sections. This is not complicated.

Additionally, the whole "Reactions" section is absurd. People want to find out about her, not what other people think of her, or what other people think about those other people. Does the Joe Biden article have a "Reactions" section? Come on.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

We're discussing the reaction section above - right now I think people seem to be gravitating to its removal, and that's the point of Misplaced Pages - you bring up what you think is wrong in the article, it's discussed, and consensus is established. You can't expect the article to be perfect the first time you look at it! And hey, if you think something's wrong with it - be bold and make the edit.--danielfolsom 01:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What's the title of the talk page section where you're discussing that?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This is just wrong. She spoke about her drug use in a political context. It was mentioned that it was legal under state law and there was a comparison to Bill Clinton. She wasn't just talking about getting high in her personal life in general, it was being framed politically. Switzpaw (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The marijuana thing has been corrected now. Her use is no longer mentioned in the positions section; thanks for pointing this out everyone.--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned in Obama's sub-page Early life and career of Barack Obama. Palin should have a sub like this. I think we should work out a comprehensive "early life" sub and move it there where it belongs. --Floridianed (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like "cocaine" is now back in the Obama article. I don't mind mentioning pot use once in this article, but twice was overkill.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakerking04 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of Power investigation

Sarah Palin is currently under investigation for possible abuse of power in the controversial firing of an Alaskan state trooper. This information is very important and should be in the beginning paragraphs because it carries the possibility that she may be impeached. This is found in Sen Steven's article, and I know she hasn't yet been indicted, but this information was already found in Senator Steven's article even before he was indicted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.19.245 (talk) 01:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you please link to the news article about possible impeachment? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link I found regarding the investigation: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/CNBC_McCain_picks_Alaska_governor_as_0829.html

W@ntonsoup (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

They won't. Kelly 01:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It was discussed yesterday (see Archive 1) and people seemed to come to the conclusion that the impeachment thing was just political talk by an opposition state senator and hasn't been brought up anywhere as a real possibility. GatorOne (talk) 02:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well no matter how political and un-political it might appear, they is a chance she may be impeached if found of any wrong doing, and it's likely considering the personal nature of the entire dismissal affair. If's it possible that she may be indicted and impeached, i think it's serious enough to put into the beginning paragraphs. That's what I think. Lakerking04 (talk) 02:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks GatorOne. W@ntonsoup, the best news link for this is a Wall Street Journal article: "'This is a governor who was almost impervious to error,' says Hollis French, a Democratic state senator. 'Now she could face impeachment, in a worst-case scenario.' The allegations against Ms. Palin are less serious than -- and entirely separate from -- those that have been leveled against a number of Alaska's most prominent politicians since 2006, when a Federal Bureau of Investigation probe into influence peddling by oil-field contractor VECO Corp. came to light."

So, I agree with the consensus yesterday that the impeachment thing was just political talk by an opposition state senator. Even if he had been a GOP state senator, still it violates WP:Crystal ball because the quote is merely referring to one of many future scenarios. And the WSJ article goes on to explain that the controversy is less serious than other controversies.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. A kidnapping is less serious than a murder, but that doesn't mean a kidnapping isn't serious. The fact still remains that she may be indicted and impeached for possible abuse of power in the controversial firing of her brother in law, who also happened to be divorcing her sister when he was fired.Lakerking04 (talk) 02:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"May be" is not encyclopedic. It is editorializing. This is inappropriate anywhere in this article and especially in the lead.--Paul (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Any politician "may be" impeached. IMO, until there is anything suggesting that it's a serious possibility it would be very irresponsible and misleading to mention it - let alone lead with it. GatorOne (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the conversation at this talk page from yesterday on this subject. Lakerking04, also please see WP:Crystal ball. You're correct that Palin may be impeached, but she may also go on a shooting rampage, in a worst case scenario.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, it's again one of those "guilty till proven not-guilty". We *#%$* have to wait before blowing this up to a bigger issue than it already is. It's just the same smear (by the media) that's going on at Obama articles (and in part at John McCain's articles, where I give (user) Wasted Time R and some others credit preventing this as much as they can). --Floridianed (talk) 02:20, 1 September 2008(UTC)

I am not suggesting that we put into the paragraph that she "may be" impeached. I made that point to shine light on the serious nature of the matter, now known as "troopergate". The Controversy even has its own article.Lakerking04 (talk) 02:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it might or possibly is serious but that's not for us to decide. --Floridianed (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's serious enough to get to impeached, then I believe it's deserving of being mentioned in the opening paragraphs. This was the same procedure followed in the Stevens, and Mike Vick articles.Lakerking04 (talk) 02:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The nature of the matter is about as "serious" as the common cold. If firing bad cops, or bureaucrats who protect bad cops, is a scandal, then we should have more scandals. Please show some sources that state impeachment is any kind of a possibility. Kelly 02:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The whole thing is ridiculous. Everyone agrees that Wooten is a bad cop, who should have been fired. Had Palin actually pressured her commissioner to fire him, she'd have been 100% justified. Had I been her, I would have insisted that Wooten be fired, and if necessary I'd have done it myself. So if she didn't do so then she was bending over backwards to be super-honest, and the inquiry is just a witch-hunt. -- Zsero (talk) 02:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly not "everyone" agrees that "Wooten was a bad cop who should have been fired." Palin reportedly claims that she was unaware that her staff made over 24 phone calls, some invoking her and her husband's names, to try and get her ex-brother in law fired. That is what has been judged newsworthy. Like the attempts to establish deniability in the Nixon and Bush administrations. Edison2 (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, everyone does agree he's a bad cop. Does anyone dispute that he tased his stepson, or that he made death threats against the governor and her father? How is that not a bad cop? If his sister-in-law hadn't been the governor, would he still be wearing a badge? -- Zsero (talk) 09:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You are not "everyone." Some people disagree with you. Please read about what Misplaced Pages considers original research, such as your opinion of who is a "bad cop" and who is a "good cop." Edison2 (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The answer to your last question is absolutely clear. Wooten was charged with certain infractions, there was an investigation, a punishment was imposed, and the matter was closed. All that had happened by the end of 2006. Then his sister-in-law became Governor. Soon after her inauguration, Todd Palin called Monegan into the Governor's office and pressed him to look into the matter. Thereafter Palin also raised it with him (according to Monegan, although I think Palin may be denying this point). So, yes, if his sister-in-law hadn't been Governor, he would still be on the force. JamesMLane t c 10:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I said this before at an Obama related page: If they find a "smoking gun" that proofs the allegation we can include this. W/o proof we would violate WP:BLP guidelines and others. That means, we can't Include possible consequences at least for now. FACT! --Floridianed (talk) 02:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What should the PSC-dismissal-controversy section say?

(note: just moved this subsection down from above, it is relevant here.)

I think that it is a good idea to talk here about what are the basic facts that need summarizing. In my opinion, the following are the facts of the case, and we should not be spending more than about 10-15 words on any of them, and generally less. (Go ahead and add comments in between the following, but please use a colon to indent your comments so my original list is visible). Note that the emphasis in the following is on events and actions that are tied to, or close to, Palin. Homunq (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

1. She fired Monegan. Her right to do so is not in dispute.

2. Monegan alleges that it may have had to do with him not firing Wooten.

3. Wooten is her estranged ex-brother in law.

4. Wooten had a history of disciplinary problems.

5. She or her staff had contacted Monegan or his staff >24 times re: Wooten.

6. In one of those calls, her staff (Bailey? Paley?) mentioned the family connection. She claims no prior knowledge and disciplined him later.

7. I think that the issue of the alleged sexual harassment by Kopp, Monegan's replacement (which she at the time thought was "cleared" by investigation) is borderline for inclusion. If included, it should be just one short sentence, which mentions the fact that she thought he was cleared.

8. There is an ongoing investigation. (This was the info whose removal I called a "whitewash". I have left a note on the offending user's page, they have a history of removing information on pages which carry an ideological charge in American politics.)

(I think that the possibility of impeachment clearly does NOT belong in this section, under WP:CB, and even less so elsewhere in the article)

If anybody has an argument for why any of that does NOT belong, or why we should spend more than one sentence on any one item, please make it. Homunq (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

These are my sources: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26458400/ http://www.newsone.com/elections/article/sarah-palins-troopergate http://www.adn.com/monegan/story/492077.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakerking04 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that Palin herself released the tape of her aide making the phone call, without a subpoena, and that she placed him on administrative leave after she found out what he did. Kelly 02:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I did mention that she disciplined him. Fair point about releasing it voluntarily, and that can definitely go in. But it takes 2 words: "Palin released...", stuff like "without a subpoena" is POV. Homunq (talk) 02:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all your points above, user:Homunq. It might take more than one sentence and it has to be written in a NPOV that avoids any guilt on either side. --Floridianed (talk) 02:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it should say what is says now and no more. We have a link to the full article with details and that should suffice. Should new evidence come to light, maybe it can be weighted more in the future. Zredsox (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Zredsox. Homunq, would you please identify the one single thing that is most lacking in the section. That way we could focus on your main concern. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the section as it currently stands (or at least, stood when I started typing this text - it is almost surely different as you read me) is good. I started this talk page subtopic not because I think it is bad, but because I have seen this section with both too much and too little info, and at the rate this page is being edited just trusting the current state of things is like writing on water. That's why I think it helps to work out a consensus, and all necessary compromises, here, rather than just edit warring on the page itself. Homunq (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It is appropriate to include her initial false statement that no one from her administration had contacted Monegan on firing Wooten (), although it is of course also proper to include her explanation that her statement resulted from ignorance rather than mendacity. In addition, if we are including her charge against Monegan about filling vacancies, then we must include his refutation of that charge. JamesMLane t c 07:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Article needs to mention that Wooten used a police issued taser on his his 10 year old step son. It is relevant. That section right now spins it to the left. This is relevant since a taser killed a 40 year old man 3 times the size of the child in Vancouver just this year. It demonstrates the serious of the Policmans violations, and demonstrates the total inappropriateness of the light discipline he received... the policeman was protected by the commissioner.

That's point 3. I think everyone agrees that Wooten is a shady character. The point is, even if he were an axe murderer, is it appropriate for the governor to be exerting pressure?

If you mention the taser, you have to mention the fact that the son asked for it (doesn't let him off the hook, but it does change things.) If you mention both of those, you are close to giving undue weight to Wooten - this article is not about Wooten. How about something like "who, among other disciplinary problems, had endangered his son using police resources", and let people get details from the sub-article if they're curious. 216.106.170.103 (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

NY Times article

The NYT has an article about us, dated September 1, titled "Don’t Like Palin’s Misplaced Pages Story? Change It". I'm sure this will help reduce the number of people flocking here to make edits!Ferrylodge (talk) 02:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Lool, heard that! :) Maybe we should semi-protect this page.Testmasterflex (talk) 02:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh - New York Times - more like "yesterday's Democratic talking points today". But Ferrylodge, you're a celebrity! Kelly 02:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Deja vu, eh? The silliest thing about the New York Times article is that they actually believe that a "Retired" template means someone will stop editing. MastCell  03:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

My buddy!  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that from the point of view of some editors, Fox News or The Weekly Standard are "fair and Balanced" non-point of view sources, but the New York Times just prints whatever the Democratic National Committee tells them to. Pretty amazing. Edison2 (talk) 04:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't someone saying WP:NOTFORUM just recently? —KCinDC (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Activity from 2004 to 2006

The article doesn't address Palin's activity from 2004 to 2006. I tried to include (it got deleted) a sentence and reference to ABC News source which had FEC records that she referred to herself as "homemaker" and "housewife" in June and July of 2004. Also, this article does not clearly say WHEN she resigned from the Commission in 2004. 68.238.17.164 (talk) 03:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it because it seemed pointless to say she didn't hold public office (this is clearly implied) and irrelevant to say she listed her profession as "homemaker" on FEC paperwork. I have no problem with it ebing introduced if others feel it is relevant, however. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems pointless to me also. It's not important.--Paul (talk) 03:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Understand. Consensus can decide if it should it should come back. My vote is to be explicit with information (when sources are clear) rather than implicit. What she called herself is less important (but still relevant in my opinion). But would it hurt to have a sentence that said she didn't hold office from 2004 to December 2006? Seems relevant to the current political discourse that compares her recent history to Obama's.68.238.17.164 (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"she didn't hold office from 2004 to December 2006". Tell me/us more about it (and if possible with some sources), please. I'm not in the mood to go to the history of this fast changing article, (as mentioned before) to get this information and am neither willing to google at this time since it's getting late in my time zone. Thanks, --Floridianed (talk) 04:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Here:

• Archive of Fairbanks Daily News-Miner (Associated Press) says "Palin steps down from commission. January 20, 2004"
• ABC News says Palin called herself "Housewife" and "Homemaker" in June and July 2004 (in FEC records of small contributions to Republican candidates).
• Los Angeles Times reports that in 2005 and 2006 Palin was raising funds for gubernatorial campaign. She entered office December 2006.

68.238.17.164 (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Bringing back a summary of the reaction section

Readers are looking for information on this so a summary of the information must be incorporated into the article. Hobartimus (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to write one :-p Seriously though, no more than 2-3 sentences would be justified, in my opinion. (Several people above felt there should be any) --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Readers should look on their favorite blogs or CNN, or some other news or opinion source, OR the campaign article. Why should they expect to find op ed material in a biography article??--Paul (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would we write an op ed piece there are polls qoutes attributable to people etc. For fear of being biased we can't deny information to the readers and also this is hardly the only section of the article that can have problems. Just think about the family section... Hobartimus (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What people thought of the pick, positive or negative, simply isn't biographical in nature. I think it belongs on the campaign website where it is now. GatorOne (talk) 03:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article is full of non-encyclopedic material. Why don't spend our time weeding it out instead of using those problems as a reason to introduce more problems? --Paul (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So wholesale deletion of sections would be the answer? Which section should go next? Early life? Governorship? Hobartimus (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Other than the Sarah Palin#2008 vice-presidential campaign section, I don't think there is a need for any other wholesale deletions, but in the Family section, I'd take out this:

"Though she announced that she was pregnant only during the start of her third trimester and one month before Trig was born, her pregnancy is reported to have surprised Alaskans, including her staff. After her water broke, on the day of Trig's delivery, Palin delivered a keynote address in Texas and then flew 8 hours to Alaska. She and her husband drove a further 50 minutes to Mat-Su Valley Regional Medical Center, where she gave birth seven hours later. Palin returned to office quickly, just three days after giving birth to Trig. Palin's decision to have the baby has been applauded by the pro-life community."

It's too much detail and the "applauded by the pro-life community" is unnecessary editorializing.--Paul (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO at least the reaction section was the main one which was not biographical. To me everything else is just stating facts about her and her political career, where as the reaction information was about the campaign. There appeared to be a consensus to move it out earlier, and with all due respect that still seems to be the overwhelming opinion. GatorOne (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Article

This article from the New York Times is very good and I think could help improve the Sarah Palin page: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/851orcjq.asp?pg=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pissed off starfishh (talk • contribs) 03:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Duh, the "Weekly Standard" is very far from the "New York Times." Edison2 (talk) 04:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Supports Contraception?

The references for the quote:

"Palin does support contraception, and is a prominent member of Feminists for Life, which takes no position on that issue."

do not support either statement. This statement should be removed, especially in light of evidence that is contrary to this statement.

~~dexteroo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dexteroo11 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

From Reference 83: "Palin said last month that no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child. She is pro-contraception and said she's a member of a pro-woman but anti-abortion group called Feminists for Life." Reference 84 on the other hand does seem to be somewhat useless and from a POV source though if someone wants to look at that. GatorOne (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Pilot?

I removed the information in the personal section that she is a pilot. There is not reliable sourcing, and the Landings Aviation Database does not include her, thought it does have her husband. Please feel free to re-add if reliable sourcing is found. — ERcheck (talk) 04:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the FAA directory, Todd Palin was issued a Private Pilot Certificate (single engine land) on 4/12/2004 and currently holds a third class medical certificate issued 7/2006. There is no record of a Sarah Palin or Sarah Heath. - auburnpilot talk 05:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Voting4Life

Hi Kelly,

The endorsement from Voting4Life.org would be an appropriate and helpful link. I don’t think prominent Pro-Life sites are overly concerned with Misplaced Pages effects on page ranking, notwithstanding that external links not altering search engine rankings in Misplaced Pages has been a given for a long time.

“Unfortunately some of the pages you edited have collected a bunch of inappropriate links” – You are referring to links substantiating that the 1962 Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani document was drafted to cover-up pedophile Priests and excommunicate child victims, most people would not consider that inappropriate.

History2008 (talk) 04:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like self-promotion to me. "Voting4Life" gets only 10 Google hits, most of which seem to be in long lists of links, and no Google News hits. Does the organization even actually exist? An endorsement of a known politician by an unknown organization helps the organization a lot more than the politician. Is there any reason not to delete the link? —KCinDC (talk) 04:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it should be removed per WP:EL. I've done so a couple of times previously. Kelly 04:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Voting4Life is a link site, dedicated to providing information to Pro-Life Voters. It’s affiliated with the NRLC, Pro-Life Action and ThereOughtToBeALaw.net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by History2008 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Voting4Life is also endorsed by AdvancedChristianity.com History2008 (talk) 05:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Voting4Life also has incoming links from Catholic-Voter.com, MariaValtortaWebRing.com and the ProLifeWebring. History2008 (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In other words it's part of a group of sites that link to each other in order to increase their traffic and page rank (and apparently try to get links on to Misplaced Pages). It's not clear why Sarah Palin would want an endorsement from your group, and somehow I doubt she's even aware of your existence. Also, make sure you read 3RR if you want to avoid being blocked. —KCinDC (talk) 05:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Consider archiving

This talk page is 195 kb. That is all. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we need some bot archiving here, but I don't know how to set it up. Kelly 04:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This should have the bot come by and automatically archive discussions that go 3 days without comment. If you think it should be longer/shorter, just change the (3d) to however many days you think are appropriate to wait. - auburnpilot talk 05:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I changed it to "2d" for the time being.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

marijuana usage

Why is this section repeated twice verbatim in the article? Once is enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.165.124.110 (talk) 04:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I see only one line under "Political positions". Refresh the page; you may have an old version. Antandrus (talk) 04:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This page gets so many edits per half-a-second, it's hard to keep up. It's beginning to make my head hurt...→ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.189.35.93 (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Editing Patterns of this article in NY Times Today

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/technology/01link.html?ref=politics

So what?

To the extent that the article was made better, we should be glad. The puffery got edited out and Misplaced Pages didn't get caught linking a stub about a now-important public figure from the front page. A.J.A. (talk) 05:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's already linked in a box at the top of this page. - auburnpilot talk 05:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

STOP deleting other people's comments on the talk page

Both of my posts were deleted and one is unresolved, while the other is for reference. Please stop. Lajolla2009 (talk) 05:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Traffic offenses?

Why on earth do we have traffic offenses for the Palins in this article, with primary sources? Kelly 06:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed it. Good eye. --mboverload@ 06:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I was about to do the same, so far as I could tell, the cited sources didn't have anything about traffic infractions by Sarah Palin, only Todd. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, definitely delete. Some politically motivated people online behave so stupidly that I sometimes wonder if they're actually working for the other side to make "their" side look bad. —KCinDC (talk) 07:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, I think there should be a clarification on what policy this user is violating. I've seen a claim of WP:BLP and the use of primary sources. I'm not sure how WP:BLP is being violated. I can see the problem with using a primary source, though policy seems to indicate that if it doesn't take an expert to interpret the findings from the primary source (here it would be reading a docket), then it's okay to include it. Discussion on this page seems to indicate the problem would be with WP:NPOV -- undue weight maybe? Switzpaw (talk) 07:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have also removed a reference about Todd getting a 200 dollar fine for using an ATV offroad. --mboverload@ 07:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed it too per BLP. It's not even about her, and it's a primary source. It shouldn't be in his article, let alone hers. Cool Hand Luke 07:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Although primary sources are ok if little or no interpretation is needed to cite them, I would agree that her husband being fined for minor traffic infractions is not notable. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't lay down an absolute rule that traffic offenses are nonnotable. In a particular case they could be worth reporting (e.g. if there were an allegation that Palin had tried to use her office to "fix" her husband's tickets). In this instance, however, I see no reason for their inclusion, either here or in the Todd Palin artice. JamesMLane t c 07:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In themselves, minor traffic infractions are non-notable. If reliable sources say a politician has tried to "fix" such things, that's another thing altogether, a notable crime, likewise with a long history of say, many speeding tickets or a major traffic crime like drunk driving. Not a hint of that here so far. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and such allegations would be in secondary sources. There are none here, so it doesn't belong. Cool Hand Luke 08:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Things like "so far" and these hypothetical issues suggesting "fixing tickets" or crimes are innuendo that add nothing to the discussion, but rather interject ideas that can only be harmful. "So far" allows readers to infer that this is something that is likely or just hasn't been discovered. Please choose your wording carefully to avoid this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.212.27.134 (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Die4Dixie (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The off roading was a CRIMINAL CHARGE, not a traffic ticket. The case number ends in "CR", a moving violation ends in "MO". It is relevant for her family section that her husband has a criminal record, however "minor" people think it may be. Michaelh2001 (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) This article is about Sarah Palin, not her husband, therefore irrelevant. —Travis 15:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That's absurd! The woman's husband has a criminal record, it should definately be in the section about her personal life, maybe not in the beginning paragraphs but it should definately be mentioned.Lakerking04 (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

A large number of people have a criminal record, especially when they were young. --mboverload@ 21:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly photos revisited

In reference to discussions in Archive 2, again, the user Kelly continues to be hell bent on including their military photos of Palin. While it is deemed appropriate to include these photos per usage of the media, they have since varied from previous photos used and even more irrelevant ones have been chosen. And even so, the photo quality has diminished (while Kelly had touted photo quality as a reasoning for including them). For example both the flight simulator and "visiting soldiers" photos have over-flash. The flight simulator photo over emphasizes the flight simulator and not the subject of the biography, that is Palin. The "visiting soliders" photo is misleading because its merely a closeup of her at a table and we are not sure who she is talking to. The previous photos of her over a soldier's bed and others were of far better quality even if I feel they are still irrelevant to her article. Why the change? Again I would like to ensure the photo of her and Don Young is included if you were to say "quality" well there is no difference there AND it is a relevant photo to the text. Am I crazy? .:davumaya:. 06:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not put the current photos in the article - other editors did. (Sorry for the bolding, I have been repeatedly accused of this.) Kelly 06:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, except that I don't think Kelly is to blame. And my objection is not "because they have military people in them" or because I "didn't know that the military photos were her visiting her own Alaskan national guard" (see previous discussions). It's simply that more than one military photo in the article is disproportionate (unless maybe there are 20 photos total in the article). I'm not asking for military personnel to be cropped out of photos. I'm suggesting that the proportion of photos that are military-related should have some resemblance to the proportion of the article devoted to Palin's military-related duties, and that photos should be relevant to the article topics. I'm not sure why they keep proliferating. And the photo of her with Don Young surely wouldn't have been removed if Young weren't having legal problems. —KCinDC (talk) 06:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If you do a Google search for "pictures", Google will recommend "Palin pictures". Try it. A.J.A. (talk) 07:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

thumb|left|Sarah Palin and family.

The image above is almost certainly a copyvio at the Flickr source. I've nominated it for deletion at Commons. Kelly 07:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The images downloaded from Don Young's website are not Public Domain images. The webmaster was asked about them and his response indicates that they are not PD. Misplaced Pages editors need to take copyright issues seriously.--Appraiser (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Process takes time, it will be deleted in due time. BJ 15:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually the article needs a couple more photos to be half-decent. Hobartimus (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Fabulous, at least I know what is happening. Sorry Kelly for the accusation, although we did feud a few days ago over the photos which is what I was referring to. After reading posts about how difficult it is to manage the text itself, I can see where the photos are just as chaotic. I'm not going to be worried about this until we have the text under control. .:davumaya:. 17:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all here

It's been a really crazy weekend with this article, but I think it's shaping up really nicely - neutral, concise, and well-sourced. The images for the article still need some work but I'm sure more free photos will turn up as she makes more campaign appearances. I think everyone who participated here deserves a pat on the back. Kelly 08:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I also wanted to extend my thanks to you and everyone else who worked so hard this article during the weekend, Kelly. Like a good part of the world, I followed the developing Palin article closely to learn more about this surprising VP nominee. The performance of this entire team clearly illustrates that which makes WP one of the Internet's most valuable resources. Fcreid (talk) 10:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

1988 - 1992?

The article at current seems to have only two sentences dealing with her life between when she got married and when she ran for City Council. (And that's counting the sentence implying she must have had 3 children during that period.) Was she working? Was she a homemaker? Either way that's fine by me, but I'd like it to be clearer about it one way or another. Has anyone encountered material discussing her pre-city council days? Dragons flight (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• New mom, forget about it. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Pledge of Allegience

In 2006, Sarah Palin commented that the Pledge of Allegience was created by the Founding Fathers (in fact it was created a century later.) Do you think that this is worth listing on her article, or if it isn't newsworthy enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seleucus (talk • contribs) 13:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I vote no. Trivial. 216.106.170.103 (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Trivial indeed. If we put every mistake a candidate ever made in public on their article pages, they'd be too big to load. --Coemgenus 13:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This is very minor as far as gaffes by politicians go, and it's not even funny. (I seem to recall something about a "potatoe".) It might be relevant if she was applying for a job as a history teacher, but she isn't. Pingku (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Just an aside, but the "Potatoe" incident is included on the Dan Quayle page, not that I am advocating that this be included unless it becomes a major talking point in the MSM. Zredsox (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

She might possibly become the next vice president and doesn't even understand the origins of the Pledge of allegiance? Definately notable. We need to either:

1. Create a trivia section for all the gaffes she's made 2. Include it in her personal sectionLakerking04 (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No, don't think so - we don't include every mistake or misstatement that a political candidate makes. If we did, Barack Obama or George W. Bush would be ten times the length they are now. Kelly 17:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Kopp being appointed to replace Monegan

I think these detail is too trivial to include in the summary and is being included only because it potentially embarrasses Palin. I sight as evidence that it is: 1) not related to why the matter is important; 2) It is covered in one short paragragh in the main article; 3) Kopp's name is not mentioned in the vast majority of the MSM articles covering the story. (All of which are longer than our summary); Other opinions? --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that the detail you are speaking of is included to show a chain of events, not a POV. Zredsox (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Good use of evidence. My personal bias is anti-Palin, but I think your point 3 decides the issue.216.106.170.103 (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Suppose there had never been a Troopergate re Monegan -- he uneventfully retired for health reasons, for example. The Governor appointed a new Public Safety Commissioner who, after two weeks, resigned under circumstances like these (i.e., criticism based on prior events that were available on any minimal background check, $10k severance payment). Would such an event be notable in reporting on the administration of a governor? Of course it would be. Your point 3 arises only because the circumstances of Monegan's departure were even more notable, so naturally there were some stories written about Monegan that didn't mention Kopp. There was lots of stuff about Palin's administration that wasn't in those MSM stories, because they were focused on the issue of Palin's dismissal of Monegan. The bigger story (about Monegan) creates a subsection in our article that's the most obvious place for reporting on Kopp, but if there were no Monegan story, we'd still have to find a home for a short (two sentences) description of the high-profile resignation of a cabinet member. JamesMLane t c 19:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Moose

Why all the mentions of moose? Is this some subliminal PETA strategy? I think mention of moose burgers in personal life is undue weight. In fact, we should review this article using the same standards that obstructionist editors on the various Obama pages have used to keep cited material out, spinning out separate articles for everything from personal life to political positions. Enough to say she is pro life here, and the rest can go in a sub-article, just like the Obama ones do.Die4Dixie (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is a good policy to "seek revenge" in the stylings of a given article because of what was said in another. That being said, I think Sarah Palin is very proud of living in Alaska and Moose are a big part of the identity of where she is Governor. I get the impression that if she was reading this right now she would probably be least concerned with that reference.Zredsox (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Should I just give up on this article?

People keep pulling big chunks of information out of this article -- and especially after today's article in the New York Times, we know people will come here to find out as much as they can.

However, I don't want to get into trouble, since I'm not a "regular." Should I just give up and let more important Misplaced Pages editors edit this and just leave it alone?

Thanks, BTR, 14:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding well-sourced information, in an NPOV way, is fine. But it's not a good idea to source information to the Daily Kos, Home of the Wacky Conspiracy Theory. Kelly 14:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

...or the National Review, Redstate.com, Fox News, The Onion et al which are all home to some great laughs but don't make for good references in an encyclopedic article.Zredsox (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This is I believe the most widely read and frequently edited part of Misplaced Pages at the moment. Even completely neutral and harmless edits can get reverted in the fray (I've twice linked Point guard and Anchorage because someone presumed that everyone who read the article would know what they mean in this context). But there are also various rumours on the Internet and people trying to use Misplaced Pages to make them mainstream, and various editors reverting anything that isn't properly sourced in accordance with WP:BLP, so don't give up, but be sure you stick to the policy and use reliable sources. ϢereSpielChequers 14:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to lump Fox News in with that list, Zredsox, you might as well include CNN and MSNBC as well. —Travis 15:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not so much, but this is not the place for that conversation.Zredsox (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I logged on to edit the Palin article, just out of curiosity - to see if I (a totally ignorant, who has nothing to contribute) could do so. It said that the article is now "semi-protected". I did not make any edits; just signed the summary "Just curious". I think the article should be VERY well protected, from now on.Fvlcrvm (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is the online encyclopedia that anybody can edit. I'm surprised that you expected to find something different. Movingboxes (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi -- it's BTR again -- I appreciate all the quick feedback. The thing is, the AIP has the YouTube video of Palin addressing their 2008 convention on their website, so it seemed to me that this was a reasonable source in this case (meaning that it's not just soem random person's blog with a homemade video). Does that make it more reasonable?

Thanks Again, BTR(talk), 16:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think her association with a group that advocates for Alaska's secession from the United States is a notable point indeed. However, there has been no primary reporting from a reliable source as of yet that would allow for inclusion into the article.Zredsox (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And now we have people scrubbing the discussion page. You may be on to something,BTR.Professor Backwards (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"succession from the United States" I assume you mean cessation. Somehow I don't think people can control everything that everyone they "associate" with advocates. Not notable.Fvlcrvm (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you mean "secession" -- "cessation" would be to end the U.S., "secession" would be to leave it. The fact that the vice chair of the party stated publicly that she was a member, and that a prominent member of the AIP (and former governor) campaigned for her gubernatorial campaign, in her own commercials is notable. — Mustang_DVS (talk | contribs) 17:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Updated, thanks. BTW: She was a member which is more then "associating" and when a reliable source picks up the story I am sure it will find a valid home in this biography. Zredsox (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't video of the party's vice-chair stating, in public, that she was a member and part of a campaign intended to infiltrate a major political party be a primary source? — Mustang_DVS (talk | contribs) 17:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew succession was the wrong word, went to Word Thesaurus to find the right word but you're right. I still think the interpretation of the facts is problematic. Fvlcrvm (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Reality has a well-known liberal bias, eh? — Mustang_DVS (talk | contribs) 20:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Badly Cited Biography

Many citations were added or fulfilled by a blank cite by Young Trigg to a several-hundred 159-page biography. Or alleged biography at any rate. The citations are without page number, which is contrary to our standard using ref. These might be fine as sources, but they aren't standard footnotes. I propose removing all these refs, and their underlying statements until such time as page numbers can be supplied.Wjhonson (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but is any of the cited information controversial? Kelly 16:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm - it looks like the book is only being cited for basic biographical info, none of which is controversial. Not sure why you want to delete that just for missing page numbers in the cites. Kelly 16:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Kaylene Johnson book? I stuck a link in the External links section to the first chapter, which is online. That may help with all the early-life footnotes. Do we have any reason to doubt YoungTrigg's good faith? He apparently admitted to some kind of connection with the McCain campaign, but did any of his edits turn out to be factually wrong? What does "alleged biography" mean? -- Noroton (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think volunteering for a campaign is enough of a connection to cause COI. Otherwise we'd have to exclude anyone who volunteers for any campaign, and that's a lot of people. -- Zsero (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I ordered the book. When it gets here, I'll make the citations more specific. --Coemgenus 20:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It gets more bizarre. The name of the book as he cited it, is not even the name of the book. The book is at Amazon and it's true name is "Sarah: How a Small Town Girl Turned Alaska's Political Establishment On Its Ear". I find it very problematic, that an editor is citing a book that he apparently does not even have in front of him. The issue isn't whether the quotes are "contentious" in this case, but rather that the quotes are being made under the color of some authority in-right-of-you, when in-fact this is obviously not the case. As this page is going to be picked up and cited by many other sources, and quickly, nipping that in the bud at the earliest possible opportunity would be very good for no-egg-on-faceiness for us. Once it's mass-cited it will be problematic to put it back in the bottle. Wjhonson (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That is the name of the book he cited. --Coemgenus 21:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Also here: --Coemgenus 21:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have no idea. The publisher's website says "Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down". Amazon's page says "Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment on Its Ear," but the title in the picture at Amazon says "Sarah: How a Small Town Girl Turned Alaska's Political Establishment on Its Ear." Maybe no one knows. --Coemgenus 21:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The picture at Amazon, is an actual photograph of the front of the book. That should take precedence over any other source, until we have a photograph of some other alleged name. Right?Wjhonson (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree that the pic is conclusive, but the pic at the publisher's website shows a different cover than the Amazon pic. I have no idea -- I suppose either way would be accurate, and if the ISBN is included in the cite, people will find their way to the right book. Coemgenus 21:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There is something more here. I'm not sure what it is.... Something very odd. I wonder if this press is a vanity? To find a book which is just released and yet not available directly from Amazon is a bit odd. All the copies are being sold by links to individual sellers. And obviously some of them think they have something very rare. I wonder just how many copies there are of this book.Wjhonson (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not so much a vanity press, I think, but just a very small one. Their website says they specialize in "general nonfiction titles about Alaska, and ... books about sled dog racing and the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race." I would guess they changed the title when it became clear that they would be selling beyond Alaska -- "hockey mom" maybe be less of a well-known phrase outside the regions of the country where hockey is popular. But, I should be receiving a copy soon, so I'll be in a better position to judge then. Coemgenus 22:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Bristol is pregnant

First info and pictures are starting to come out about the baby's father, Levi Johnston. He is the same age as Bristol and in the same class at Wasilla High School.

here is a link to Levi's high school hockey profile (w/ team pic): http://hometeamsonline.com/teams/default.asp?u=WASILLAWARRIORHOCKEY&t=c&s=hockey&p=profile&playerID=62690

He was also arrested for fishing in a river where fishing was forbidden: http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:jEQCHpG0VcsJ:www.dps.state.ak.us/pio/dispatch/Trooper%2520Dispatches%2520of%252007-20-2007.20070720.txt+Levi+Johnston+Wasilla&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&client=safari

Source?--Jdrushton (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

]

I am having trouble including this.

1) At this point it is an unsubstantiated rumor, and 2) It's not relevant to a biography of Sarah Palin. Misplaced Pages is not the National Enquirer.--Paul (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Associated Press is pretty good substantiation. As to whether it is relevant, that's more ambiguous, though I'm sure it will be trumpetted by some people during this campaign. Dragons flight (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The AP is as good as it gets for reliable sources and being the girl is a minor and under the guardianship of Governor Palin, it is wholly relevant. Zredsox (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that Paul was thinking that the initial post was referring to the Internet rumor posted on Daily Kos - and not the announcement today by the Palins about their daughter's pregnancy--Jdrushton (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

AP is highly reliable as a source for something straightforward like this, put it in the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes put it in the article about Bristol, not this article. It's the same type of newspaper chatter like George Hussein Onyango Obama who lives in a hut in Africa on 12 dollars and is the half brother of Obama it's sourced and all but it's not in the main Obama article, the BLP about Obama. Similarly any rumors or such about family members should go into side articles not the main article. Hobartimus (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The pregnancy of Bristol holds weight in this circumstance, specifically because she is a minor and affects Palin politically from a family values standpoint, which is why it is relevant in the context of her biography.Zredsox (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin's disclosure of the pregnancy of her underage child is notable and relevent to the article topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Another user below stated that she is not underage, the age of consent in Alaska being 16 and Bristol being 17, however I have no way to verify this info. Hobartimus (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"Minor" = under the age of 18. She is in her parents guardianship. That is what is being referred to, not the age of consent. Zredsox (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Several news sources have states that Bristol Palin is in fact 17; however, this is irrelevant, as KCinDC points out below. Since the age of consent in Alaska is 16, Bristol is technically able to conceive a child. The concern, which is unreported and thus far speculation, is the age of Levi. If he is 18+ then he is in a position of authority and this becomes a legal matter.

Huh? How would being over 18 put him in a position of authority over her? A 16-year-old can have sex with whomever she likes, even a 76-year-old. -- Zsero (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, it's pretty wild to say that being over 18 is a "position of authority". Hobartimus (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

According to AS 11.41.436 a(3), this is an offense only if the "offender is the victim's natural parent, stepparent, adopted parent, or legal guardian." See: http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title11/Chapter41/Section436.htm JCP (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Bristol is 5 months pregnant

Just saw this story on Yahoo and I don't see it on the discussion page at this point. (Well, I didn't see it at the time I was making my post to the discussion board....)

Bristol is "about five months pregnant and is going to keep the child and marry the father" according to the story Jdrushton (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are there no links to the Trig controversy, it is being covered by major papers now: Beckyvolley (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

i have no problem if it's included in the proper context: as unsubstantiated slander

That Times Online article - which refers to Internet rumors - was discussed above in the "PLEASE NOTE -->> Pregnancy Talk <<--" section. Jdrushton (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The article Beckyvolley cites actually refers to the "utterly unfounded internet rumours that her fifth child, born in April with Down’s syndrome, was actually her 17-year-old daughter’s." Pingku (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

See Gov. Palin's confirmation that her 17 year old daughter is 5 months pregnant, in a Reuters press story as seen in the Washington Post . Bristol does not qualify for a biographical article merely by being related to a notable person or by being pregnant, so a brief mention in this article is all that is appropriate. It is not WP:SYNTHESIS, is it, to state that this refutes any rumor that four month old Trig was also Bristol's child, so that rumor can be removed from the article?(see below: sufficient mainstream coverage of the rumor as the reason for the announcement) Edison2 (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The only reason Sarah Palin announced that her daughter is pregnant is because of rumors going on that she faked her own pregnancy to coverup her daughter's. This should be mentioned in the article Wraith12 (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)wraith12

That is your speculation. Without a reliable source stating that it was the reason, there is no basis for it being in the article or even on this talk page. Find a blog somewhere which welcomes speculation. Edison2 (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Are you claiming that had there been no rumours about Trig, Bristol's pregnancy would have been kept quiet? How would they manage to do that? In any case, I don't see how this news does refute those rumours; why can't she have been pregnant twice? Not that there's the slightest reason to suspect she was, but she could have been, and this news doesn't make it any less likely than it was before. -- Zsero (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"McCain officials said the news of the daughter's pregnancy was being released to rebut what one aide called "mud-slinging and lies" - that is taken straight from the AP article.Zredsox (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering that Bristol is 5 months pregnant - and we are less than 4 1/2 months past Trig's birth - the timing does not work out. Jdrushton (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The timing, yes, but I don't think that the pregnancy could have been concealed for too much longer, anyhow. Why should Misplaced Pages put the now-proven false rumor in the article?Jdrushton (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The original malicious rumor was not published by a reliable source, and therefore WP:BLP forbids it appearing in Misplaced Pages at all. Conjecture and ignorance of the process of human reproduction (she could not be 5 months pregnant 4 1/2 months after giving birth) or failure to comprehend basic arithmetic are not a basis for turning Misplaced Pages into Rumorpedia. Try the supermarket tabloids as a market for that sort of Elvis/Bigfoot nonsense. Edison2 (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Butbutbutbutbut, how do we know that she's 5 months pregnant? Maybe she's only 4 months pregnant, and it happened right after Trig was born? Yes, of course that's completely unfounded, but no more so than the original rumour. Anyone who believed that Bristol was Trig's mother will not be dissuaded by her current pregnancy. -- Zsero (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

One photos wasn't even from the time period they claimed. It was shameful utter bullshit. See this story. I think you're unfortunately right. Cool Hand Luke 18:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Edison2 - I agree with you wholeheartedly. I was merely trying to counter the posters who were saying that the initial rumor should now be included in the Sarah Palin article and as you said, it should not.Jdrushton (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Although it is being including in all mainstream reporting of the story. Zredsox (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Shame on them for repeating it, but there's no reason for WP to follow suit. It's irrelevant to anything that's actually happening. It's not as if they could have kept the pregnancy secret, had the rumours not been circulating. -- Zsero (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant as it is the reason the pregnancy was announced and it was even stated as such by the McCain campaign. Zredsox (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It is simply objectively false that that was the reason for the announcement; even had there been no rumours at all, there was no way they could have kept this secret throughout the campaign. -- 18:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but I think you need to read the McCain press releases that are linked throughout this section. They are the ones saying they announced the pregnancy because of the rumors. It is the McCain Campaign. This is not conjecture.Zredsox (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You are rude. You are ignoring the fact that no matter what anonymous campaign officials are reported as having said, they would have had to announce it even if there had been no rumours. -- Zsero (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What they might or might do in the future has no place in wikipedia. What they did, does and why it deserves mention.Zredsox (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Methinks you're arguing with a ditto head. Save reality for a productive discussion. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that CNN and others are now mentioning the "Internet rumours" about Sarah Palin's youngest child, so these can be mentioned as such in the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Why should they be? Are they relevant to the campaign? How are they notable? I think any mention at all gives them undue weight. -- Zsero (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The McCain campaign gave it the weight, not us. They could have just announced the pregnancy. Instead they announced a pregnancy and said the reason they were announcing it was because of the rumors. That makes it news and notable.Zredsox (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems to have become a notable smear. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The part about Trig is not notable, and the subject of the rumor/smear (Bristol) is a minor entitled to some privacy and not herself a well known person - so we have a BLP problem repeating it as a rumor (not to mention that the purpose of this article is not to be a rumor watch). If there were any truth to it, it would likely be confirmed eventually. If not, it's a trivial claim. So best to sit tight and wait, and not give it a whole lot of thought for now. Wikidemon (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The part about the rumor is notable because the McCain/Palin brought it out as the reason they were announcing Bristol was pregnant. This very important point seems to be lost here and maybe I am just not properly articulating its importance. If privacy was the main issue, her mother would have never announced she was pregnant in the first place, yet she did (because of the rumors.)Zredsox (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

How could they possibly have kept it secret? By November she'll surely be showing, and they certainly wouldn't want the news breaking then! -- Zsero (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What does keeping it a secret have to do with anything? The reason the McCain/Palin campaign said they announced the pregnancy was BECAUSE of the RUMORS. It is in their press release. Zredsox (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And you keep avoiding the objective fact that even without the rumours, they would have had to announce it soon, because they couldn't possibly have kept it secret. -- Zsero (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not avoiding anything. It is not for us to decide if they could keep it a secret or not. Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball. What we do know is what McCain officials stated was the reason for the announcement of the pregnancy.Zredsox (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the press release did not give a reason, nor was there an official reason given by the campaign. Celestra (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

McCain officials said the news of the daughter's pregnancy was being released to rebut what one aide called "mud-slinging and lies" circulating on liberal blog sites. Zredsox (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody please tell me why Paul.h considers it "a backdoor way to insert slander" by stating that a McCain aide who spoke with CNN stated that the reason the pregnancy was announced was to correct slander about the governor's youngest child?Kitchawan (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Because it's still slander. -- Zsero (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This is simply the circumstances of the announcement. Plenty of sources mention it promenantly, and it certainly is notable. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As more mainstream media repeat that the pregnancy of the 17 year old was announced to refute rumors that she was Trig's mother, with the Governor covering for her, I withdraw my objection to a brief mention on this article of the rumor as the reason for the announcement. WP:BLP allows the inclusion of rumors which work their way into mainstream press, especially if they lead to something tangible like today's announcement, and expesially if the McCain campaign says the daughter's pregnancy was announced to refute the rumor of her giving birth 4 1/2 months ago with the Governor covering for her. Edison2 (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I edited this down to 2 sentences. This should be sufficient weight for this material. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This goes against the consensus we seem to be reaching. The reason for the announcement is of import.Zredsox (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is the consensus. It is a slander against a living person. It cannot be brought into the article through the mechanism of someone denying the slander. If we allow such nonsense, anyone can make any slanderous charge they want and when it is denied, it would have to be included in the article. This is a biography, not a tabloid.--Paul (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That the announcement is refuting a smear campaign is not slander. It is fact. See sources provided. The two sentences leave only nonnotable info. Why exactly is it notable that Bristol intends to have the babe or marry the father? I mean why wouldn't she? If it wasn't for the dispelling of the rumor, Bristol being preggers would hardly be notable. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That is an argument for deleting the item about Bristol's pregnancy entirely. It has nothing to do with Sarah Palin (except as slander and its refutation). Discussion about why the announcement was made belong in the Campaign article. Not here. When included here it is a back-door method of adding slander about a living person. I don't know why anyone would ever want to run for public office with the complete lack of decency that is shown.--Paul (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Cleveland Plain Dealer identifies a McCain spokesman , Mark Salter, as saying the daughter's pregnancy was announced to refute the rumor about Trig being Bristol's baby. Palin spokesman Bill McAllister had officially denied the rumor, which also helps to satisfy WP:BLP. In a separate story, Obama denied that his campaign had spread the rumor, also helping to satisfy WP:BLP. Sufficient coverage and confirmation to satisfy WP:BLP so as to include the rumor as a reason for the timing of the pregnancy announcement. Edison2 (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Solution?

How about we just say "The announcement was made in part to counter unsubstantiated internet rumors"? That way, we are explaining the importance without giving the rumor itself the light of day? --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Per the sources (AP, Clevelad Plain Dealer, New York Times, etc) above, the rumor has been stated in the mainstream press numerous times and explicitly, and given by campaign spokesmen as a reason for the announcement, so vagueness is not necessary or appropriate. Edison2 (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This is a major mainstream story that all high level news gathering organizations are covering and is only secondary in this news cycle to the Gulf Hurricane. It is notable as notable comes.Zredsox (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

the linkage of the (weekend) unfounded rumor, and the (Monday morning) fact

We are in an interesting realm (or, the same ol' same ol':). There will (with near certainly) be much analysis of this weekend's rumor and its connection with today's announcement. The statement by the McCain campaign asserting that part of the reason for the announcement was the squelching of the aforementioned rumor must be accepted at face falue (good faith assumption). Yes, the broadbrush labeling of "liberal bloggers" is ... politics. Politics, its seems, is legal in America. (Excuse the humor, it was a long weekend). Let's see how this plays out in the press. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: confirmed-as-FALSE rumor -- Since the weekend rumor could no longer possibly be true and therefore (offically/publicly) confirmed false, it can be mentioned. While there exists the possibility of rumors so vile they cannot be named, this one is easily stated for purposes of confirmation that it is false. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't believe the weekend rumor, but it's invalid to say it can't possibly be true. For those who start from the premise that the Palin camp promoted a deception about Trig, the deception would now continue through the public misstatement of Bristol's expected due date.

I agree with those above who say that the widespread MSM reporting means that it's eligible for inclusion in Misplaced Pages.

Nevertheless, just because it hasn't been conclusively refuted and is eligible for inclusion doesn't mean that it's important enough to include. We wouldn't include everything that the McCain campaign says publicly about their reasons for doing this or that, or their reasons for doing it at a specific time. That fact -- the timing of the announcement to counteract rumors -- is NPOV and based on RS but it's just not important enough to include in the article. I don't see that the rumors about Trig had any significant impact on the campaign so there's just no reason to mention them. JamesMLane t c 20:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

How about this? confirmed-as-false ... beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e, yes, I know what country we live in :) With the hurricane and the convention to deal with, editors of major newspapers will probably find better things to analyze than, e.g., whether Kos was punked or seeking infamy and if anyone played into anyone's strategic plans, etc. If they don't, well, we can always create an article about this topic, can't we? lol Proofreader77 (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Political Positions on Advanced Medical Technology & Healthcare

9/1/08 - It would be helpful if someone could please post Governor Palin's positions on Biotechnologies, Stem Cell Research and other scientific developments in Genomics.

Also, being that Alaska borders Canada, what is Palin's record supporting or opposing the importation of pharmaceutials into her State? 76.206.233.205 (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Potential confirmation on pregnancy of oldest daughter

FYI, see http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/palin-confirms-daughters-pregnancy-915378.html Orchew (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Position on listing polar bear as Endangered Species misconstrued

Upon reading the Anchorage Daily article it appears that Palin has a "fear" that listing the polar bear on the list "will cripple oil and gas development." However, her argument for removing the polar bear from the list says that "there is not enough evidence to support a listing" citing evidence that the "population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation." Hence the article should be changed to reflect that her opposition originates from evidence detailing the polar bear population and not from "interference with oil and gas extraction" (as the article currently reads).

Uhhh, what you're saying makes no sense. You give a cite for what you want removed, but nothing for what you want it changed to. And please sign using four tildes. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

She may hold both positions. She can want to prevent the impact on oil and gas operations, which may be her primary reason to challenge the listing, but also recognize that the only way to prevent a listing is challenge the logic of the listing itself and not the consequences. Dragons flight (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That may be true. However according to the cited article, the only reasons she gives to oppose the listing of the polar bear is her belief that "their is not enough evidence" and then cites evidence that the "population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation." Lenschulwitz (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a bit of a logic problem going on in her thought process, I think. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits to family

I've tried to do a little cleanup of the Family section. Also removed "disputed" from trig on the list of children. I'll note that I'm absolutely convinced by all the rumors, but until something is set out a little more reliably, the article needs to stay NPOV and objective as possible. --nemonoman (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

See above. The rumor of Trig being Sarah Palin's daughter child is refuted by the daughter being five months pregnant. WP:BLP is the policy for biographies of living persons, and no unsubstantiated rumor like that may appear in the article. It may also be removed from talk pages. Edison2 (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't actually refute it - the same sort of paranoid person who spread the original rumour could claim that she's really only four months pregnant, and got that way shortly after giving birth. And the photo of "pregnant Bristol" that was bandied about by the rumour-mongers, but which was from 2006, doesn't refute anything either, because perhaps she's had three pregnancies! There's no end to this sort of thing. -- Zsero (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

We do not allow rumors to appear, per the policy WP:BLP. If the mainstream press or TV news channels start discussing a rumor, and reporters ask the candidate about it and get a response, only then could it start to wedge itself in. Edison2 (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I see enough explicit discussion of the rumor as the reason for the announcement in the mainstream press that the WP:BLP requirements appear to be satisfied. Edison2 (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Which I think might render it not a rumour, yes? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

From the point of view of reliable sources so far, the Bristol pregnancy has put the Trig rumors to bed. No source I've seen has claimed that both babies are Bristol's or anything else of the sort. There's no reason to say "disputed" or anything of the sort. Oren0 (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

her parents' names

FYI: I have read in several places that her mom's name is Sally, not Sarah...and her dad goes by "Chuck". Please verify and update. Thanks. Mrskeith (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sally is short for Sarah. -- Zsero (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Last line/paragraph in 'Daughter's Pregnancy' redundant.

Please view and access. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.87.199 (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Bristol Palin

Can anyone confirm the exact date of birth for Bristol Palin? Articles have stated she is either 16 or 17; however, the recent news release of her pregnancy states she is in fact 17. Given the importance of this information, accurate data on her date of birth and pregnancy should be included. 76.119.96.44 (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless her exact date of birth has been widely publicized, in mainstream media, it should not appear in this article, since she is not independently a notable person, to preserve her privacy and reduce the danger of identity theft. The Reuters story said she is presently 17 and that is enough detail for now. Edison2 (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't make an announcement about your own child and misstate her age. Too many local people would know and you'd instantly be in hot water. I think we can safely assume that she is currently 17. Dragons flight (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that mainstream media has most likely stated her accurate age; however, the point raised is to counter-act potential spin. By not stating Bristol's exact date of birth, the article is left to speculation and may be misleading. Speculation should be put to rest as to whether she became pregnant at age 16, rather than 17. JCP (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the age of consent in Alaska is 16, why is it relevant how old she was when she became pregnant? —KCinDC (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is not to raise legal issues rather than confirm proper dates. Seeing as you are correct in regards to the age of consent in Alaska, the information is not critical. But what about the age of the father, Levi? JCP (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If mainstream media make a point that the age of the father is important, then we might consider adding it. It is not, in and of itself, automatically encyclopedic information. Have we noted the age of the partner of every other political candidate's offspring who have children? I do not think so. It would seem point of view and the giving of undue weight to start here. We follow the mainstream press, rather than trying to lead them. Edison2 (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

On March 11, 2008 the Anchorage Daily News posted the following correction: "A photo caption on Page A-4 Sunday gave incorrect ages for Gov. Sarah Palin's children. The correct ages are: Piper, 6; Willow, 13; Bristol, 17; and Track, 18 years old." Originally this story said she was 16. This error probably occurred since it was an older stock photo taken in 2006 (note that this is one of the photos from the Daily Kos bullshit attack on the girl). At any rate, she's been 17 since at least March 9. Cool Hand Luke 18:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a news report from Feb. 8th giving her age at that time as 17, not that it should really matter. Dragons flight (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is it considered "a back door way to insert slander" bv stating that the McCain campaign, according to an unnamed aide quoted in the CNN report, released the information to correct slander over the governor's youngest child? To disallow this information would seem to be tailoring the news.Kitchawan (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Because it remains slander. Using today's announcement as a way of sneaking the slander into the article is pretty much the definition of a back door. -- Zsero (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

First it would be libel -- if and only if it were maliciously wrong. Second, do tell how it's libel. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not libel. Politics. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Please indent properly. In any case, explain precisely what you mean. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

How can I add this cited detail?

While I don't dispute that YouTube videos are not great for citations, this video is not just someone's hacked together home project. It's a video from the AIP convention, where the Vice Chairman states that Palin is a former member of this secessionist party. I'd rather not include an uncited reference, so suggest an alternative that won't get deleted? (referring to this) --Kickstart70-T-C 17:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That's all very well, but how is the VP of a fringe group a reliable source for the underlying allegation? And if you're only citing it for the fact that the allegation was made, how is it notable? All sorts of people will be making all sorts of claims about Palin, but without evidence it's just claims. Pat Buchanan has been claiming that Palin was involved in his presidential run, which is almost certainly untrue. -- 17:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Youtube videos are tough because the uploads aren't editorially moderated, which means audio and other aspects can be altered, making the videos unreliable. If someone has publicly said Palin is a former member of a secessionist party, there should be a reliable source elsewhere to support it. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I'd look for another citation from a reliable media source. If it's true that she was a member of that party, I'm sure someone will publish it fairly soon, given all the media attention on her and her career. Kelly 17:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is relevant, but it will get reported SOMEWHERE in the coming days. For now, the problem is not just YouTube; it is the fact that the vice chairman himself is not a WP:RS on this matter. Without media reporting on the matter, there is no way that is not WP:OR to decide if he's as wacky as LaRouche or as credible as... whoever you count as credible. 216.106.170.103 (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages: Reliable source examples#Are IRC, MySpace, and YouTube reliable sources?. Oren0 (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

3 women currently running for VP in 2008

Palin is one of three women running for the office of VP. This is also the 77th time a woman has run for that office. Question - Is Palin is set to be the third woman in history to recieve electoral votes? --98.243.129.181 (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What sort of question is that? Unless you're suggesting that Obama will sweep all 50 states plus DC, and that none of his electors will defect, of course Palin will receive electoral votes. The only question is how many, and will she be the first to win. -- Zsero (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If elected she will be the first female Vice President in history ,correct? Hobartimus (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but whether elected or not she will be the third woman to receive votes in the electoral college. But that's too trivial to mention in the article. -- Zsero (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

From earlier comments, the IP is trying to get in a mention of the 1972 Libertarian Party VP candidate, who got 1 electoral vote because of a faithless elector even though the ticket got less than 3,000 popular votes nationwide that year. There's no reason to mention that sort of trivia in this article. —KCinDC (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a faithless elector's single vote for a little noted candidate is not sufficient to claim that Palin is the third rather than second woman to run as Vice President on a major party's ticket. Trivial, misleading, and undue weight. Edison2 (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Newspaper editoral should be removed

The Alaskan newspaper editorial comments should be removed from the "2008 vice-presidential campaign" section. Editorials are simply opinions of the writer. Theosis4u (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Editorial comments have a place in articles about politicians in the sections relating to reactions and opinions. They may be opinions, but they have behind them the editorial board of a newspaper, so they are far more encyclopedic than a similar opinion held by, say, a mere Misplaced Pages editor. Edison2 (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. This is a biography of a living person, not an article about the 2008 Presidential race. Besides that, if we start letting folks add editorial opinion, where will it end? There are always contrary opinions, it could go on forever.--Paul (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think it will end with the earth imploding from furious edit wars. No biggie. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this paragraph "Two major Alaska newspapers have questioned Palin’s competency..." is included. These are op-ed pieces and have no place in a biography. If so, you open the door for any counter-balancing opinions from other "major" newspapers and, thus, the biography becomes a debate by proxy. No place in here IMO. Fcreid (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Precise Birthdays for the Kiddies.

Sarah Louise Heath: February 11, 1964 in Sandpoint, Idaho. Sarah was raised in Alaska.

Todd Palin: Abt. 1965. Dillingham, Alaska.

Todd and Sarah eloped on August 29, 1988,

Todd and Sarah have five children. Track Palin: Born abt. 1989. Track enlisted in the U.S. Army on 9/11/2007. Bristol Palin: Born abt. 1991. Willow Palin: Born abt. 1994. Piper Palin: Born abt. 2001. Trig Paxson Van Palin: Born in 2008. Trig has Down syndrome.

Above copy pasted from about.com

Can we get precise birthdays (dates, not years) for all the kids please.

Why? They are not public figures. Misplaced Pages policy forbids publishing exact DOB info for non-public figures in order to respect privacy and thwart identity theft.--Paul (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is "public figure" defined? It seems to me the family of a major political figure are public figures. Maxbox51 (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Like this article? Tony Blair. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That article reports the birth date of his son Leo, who was born to a nationally known political leader and reported in newspapers around the world: The Observer printed the exact time and date of birth . So did the Boston Globe , the Washington Post , and the Chicago Sun Times among others. You can't really unring a bell, and that child's birth date will be always easily retreivable whether Misplaced Pages prints it or not. Edison2 (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Its unlikely that exact birth dates will surface, because: 1) The MSM doesn't normal cover such info; 2) birth dates are confidential under Alaska law. Even if they came out, they shouldn't be included because they are not noteworthy and as stated above the privacy of non-public figures should be respected . --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The previous discussion of Track Palin's precise DOB was deleted! It has been widely reported that Track Palin was 18 when he enlisted in the Army, and is currently 19. A precise DOB for Track was posted on a political blog, but no suitably definitive reference is currently available. Maxbox51 (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I sense an awful lot of scurrying going on here. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Having just reviewed Misplaced Pages policies on biographies, it's clear that the children's birthdays are not (yet) appropriate content for this article. Track Palin's precise DOB is an appropriate subject for Sarah Palin's bio because it bears on whether she followed her own political position in favor of abstinence before marriage, among other reasons. However, Misplaced Pages is not intended to publish original research. Once the media has widely discussed Track's precise DOB, it will be approprate for inclusion here--but not before. Maxbox51 (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree -- until a reliable source prints Track's birthdate, there is no WP criterion under which it may be included. --Coemgenus 20:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If mainstream media announce, say, that "child x celebrated his 16th birthday today" with pictures in the magazines of the event, then there is presumably a public release of the information by the family. If the birthday is not in mainstream media, then it is private, even if a private investigator could find some database, like birth certificates, which included it, or if the birth (such as Trig's a few months ago) is widely written up. The presumption should be in favor of privacy, but we cannot unring a bell by concealing it if it has been widely published in reliable sources. Edison2 (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No Governor for AK?

There is a real problem developing here, but I'm not sure it's been reported on yet. Palin is a potential Vice President, and her Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell is (possibly they're still counting primary votes) the GOP nominee for Alaska's lone seat in the House. Leaving... who exactly to be the Governor if they should both succeed? I'm going to try to find some sources, it's hard to believe nobody in the press has noticed this yet. HEY NPR ARE YOU READING THIS? Beeblbrox (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Next in line would be AK Attorney General Talis Colberg. Dragons flight (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• The governor may designate an interim Lieutenant Governor, subject to legislative confirmation. She has designated the present Alaska Attorney General. If both offices are held by non-elected individuals, a special election is required. It's in the Alaska newspapers. cite below. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hopkins, Kyle (2008-08-29). "Musical Chairs". Anchorage Daily news. Retrieved 2008-09-01. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Hey, thanks for finding that, I got called away just as I was starting to look into it. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Veto against banning same-sex couple benifits should be added to political postions section (Whitewash)

The topic on same-sex marriages and so forth should also include the reference to her veto that would of banned same-sex couple benefits - the veto upheld public same-sex employees being granted benefits as established by the Alaskan courts. Not sure if this should be counted as sources or not:

• http://dwb.adn.com/news/government/legislature/story/8525563p-8419318c.html
• http://seaqwa.com/blogs/qnews/archive/2008/08/29/palin-s-reluctant-pro-gay-veto.aspx

This does accurately reflect the political position of Palin. The others in context, reflect her personal opinion in weight of this.

Theosis4u (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. This is a SUMMARY section. Her full position is explain on the "political positions of Sarah Palin" page. The section in question is already too detailed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that the veto was in regards to the bill being unconstitutional is more important in relation to Palin's political views than what the bill was actually about. 3-sphere (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the veto is a political position on the record, the other points in the article are simply opinions (in contrast to the veto). Though, I think those opinions should be in the article to color the actual veto. I believe both are necessary with this section - though it will make people on the extremes equally disappointed. Theosis4u (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no evidence that the veto reflects anything about her position on granting benefits to same-sex couples. Her statement about it suggests that it does not. —KCinDC (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It belongs. Whitewashing is bad. Bad, I say. This is a notable issue anmd needs to be incorporated into this artice. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Using the veto to misleadingly make Palin appear more gay-friendly is whitewashing. She vetoed it because it was unconstitutional, not because she supports benefits for same-sex couples. —KCinDC (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And likewise to only state her personal opinions and not a political action on the issue is whitewashing, like I said - neither extreme is going to be happy. I believe JUST stating her veto would be inaccurate as well. Theosis4u (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

KC, if what you say is true and can be supported, then it should reported that way. Leaving it out and arguing that the inclusion of the veto will be misconscrewed is a very large pile of moose turds. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You've got it backward. The veto should be left out as irrelevant unless there's evidence that it does indicate something about her position on same-sex benefits. The available evidence suggests that it doesn't. —KCinDC (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. This is a whitewash of the issue. The veto is an indication of how Palin believes the issue should be addressed politically. The veto was against Legislature from banning same-sex health benefits for state employees without the general populations consent and then for a constitutional amendment. Even the statement in this article is whitewashing about "...a non-binding referendum for a constitutional amendment to deny state health benefits to same-sex couples" without the full inclusion of the source - "will be nonbinding but is intended to help guide legislators, Palin has said." This clearly goes to show Palin's belief about this issue and the political process around it. The sources are even picked to remove the full details of the story - this is the one that should be sourced. Theosis4u (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• http://dwb.adn.com/news/government/legislature/story/8525563p-8419318c.html

Answer this then, KCinDC - If Palin didn't veto it and supported the Legislature to ban same-sex health benefits, wouldn't you want that included? Theosis4u (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, because signing the legislation, especially in the face of advice that it was unconstitutional, would indicate that she supported it. In this case, she's stated that the reason for the veto was constitutional, so it doesn't indicate anything about her position on same-sex benefits. Publicizing the veto seems to be part of a campaign to make Palin look more gay-friendly than she is. I certainly don't think it needs to be in the summary, and in any case including it without also including text indicating that the veto was about constitutionality, not her position on same-sex benefits, misleadingly implies that she favors the benefits. —KCinDC (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You avoided the question completely and also ignored my own comments that what is within the article should stay - for the same reasons you give. Your being partisan and non-objective to this issue, sorry. Theosis4u (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What? How did I avoid the question? You asked a question, and I answered it. "Sure" there is equivalent to "Yes". —KCinDC (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

We should just remove LGBT issues from Main Page then. Why? Because neither Obama, McCain, nor Biden have LGBT issues on their main page - it's only on their Political Position wiki page. If this is kept on Palin's main page, then it's only correct to put the summary of "opposes same-sex marriage" for Obama's main page, since that would be an accurate summary. Theosis4u (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Todd Palin DUI

Todd was arrested for DUI. Maybe this should be added to his mini bio.

Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella confirmed Monday that Todd Palin was arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol in 1986 when he was 22. Sarah and Todd Palin, who had been high school sweethearts, were dating at the time. Zredsox (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Please explain again why this is relevant to the biography of Sarah Palin?--Paul (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The same reason Todd being a snowmobiler is relevant.Zredsox (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

1986? I would think not. They weren't even married. Maybe in his biography. Your comment above suggests this is a WP:POINT you're making. Cool Hand Luke 19:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not relevant to Sarah Palin's article. It may or may not be relevant to Todd Palin's bio.--Evb-wiki (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

May be ok for Todd Palin, but not this article. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

A DUI is a criminal offense. She's married to a man with a criminal past, yes it is relevant. At the very least, it should be in Todd palin's article. Lakerking04 (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I brought it over to the talk page on his wiki bio page. As for the size of his mention on Sarah's page, maybe it should be reduced? Zredsox (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Overheated rhetoric much? The sitting President got a DUI once. That the spouse of a VP nominee got one is a non-issue. A.J.A. (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That is an opinion, and mine is in both cases it is a big deal. That being said, I already stated that I moved the discussion to his wiki page.Zredsox (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is the big deal? Bad Judgment because she didn't dump him after the first bad decision he got caught making? A.J.A. (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If the 13,000 + killed in the United States in alcohol related crashes last year were around to answer you, I am sure they could come up with a reason or two as to why a DUI is a big deal. Zredsox (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Emotional rhetoric. A.J.A. (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It starts to become WP:POV when this article contains a lot of positive factoids which have little to do with Sarah Palin, like how "he is a champion snowmobiler" but leaves out any negative information about him (like a DUI). That makes this sound more like a family's Christmas Letter , full of bragging and minutiae, and less like a balanced biography, which must include both the positive and negative. Edison2 (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You are falling into the the Misplaced Pages NPOV trap where people argue that that for every positive thing there must be a negative thing. That's not a neutral point of view, it's a mechanical point of view. Relevancy and undue weight are just as important to consider.--Paul (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! That he's a competitive snowmobiler has a hell of a lot more to do with who Todd Palin is than a DUI 22 years ago. If he had snowmobiled once back in the '80s and had driven drunk ever since, then the situation would be reversed, but that is not the case. --Coemgenus 20:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that he is a competitive snowmobiler has nothing to do with Sarah Palin (and I think the object of this article is to define her.) That being said, I move that we cleanse the article of anything beyond a reference to him (in relationship to her) and redirect the rest to his bio page where it belongs. Zredsox (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

His current snowmobiling has something to do with Palin -- it's not huge but it's not nothing. I agree with Coemgenus's distinction. His DUI has no place in this article; snowmobiling deserves a very brief mention. JamesMLane t c 20:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a brief mention sounds right. As to what should go in his article, I don't know, but that's not something we have to decide on this talk page, anyway. --Coemgenus 20:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

His having received a DUI has something to do with Palin -- it's not huge but it is a political issue. She is the governor of the state whose laws were broken by him. No whitewashing please. If snowmobiling is relevant to Sarah Palin, then Todd's DUI is as well. Would Fox News have reported on it if it were not relevant to Sarah Palin? Digitalmandolin (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What Fox News reports is not the standard of inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Coemgenus 21:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

How does Fox News reporting it indicate that it is relevant to her as opposed to being relevant to him? Nobody is saying that it doesn't belong on his page. Oren0 (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would Fox News report on it unless it were relevant to Sarah Palin? If Todd Palin's DUI were not relevant to Sarah Palin, Fox News would not have reported on it. They are trying to cover an election and this is relevant to one of the political candidates, Sarah Palin. Digitalmandolin (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

They are a 24-hour news station, with the standards and judgment that belong to the news business. We are an encyclopedia, with different standards. Not everything that has ever been on the news belongs in this encyclopedia, let alone this article. --Coemgenus 21:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, which is why the snowmobiling stuff is gratuitous. Trivial and unimportant details about Sarah Palin's husband do not belong here. If we are going to keep the snowmobiling stuff in, the DUI stuff belongs in. If we're going to keep the DUI stuff out, the snowmobiling stuff belongs out. Digitalmandolin (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Moose!

I'm not the person currently removing the moose claim - but I would like to bring up the idea here. I have to say, it seems a little weird to include that claim - it seems unencyclopedic (I mean, why don't we mention what her mother would fix her for breakfast?), but regardless, since there seems to be debate over it I suggest we decide here.-danielfolsom 20:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I read that and thought, "What is this?" It should be removed. JCP (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be kept. It is somewhat unique to the region and helps explain who she is as a person.Zredsox (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

But Zredsox, we're not trying to explain who she is as a person - ha, we'll let the campaign ads do that - we're trying to write an encyclopedic entry on her. And I mean, we've already be criticized for having this - the New York Times story mocked us :( --danielfolsom 20:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not overly attached to it, so don't let me stop you from removing it. I am from an area where it would be considered normal, but obviously some people here think it is saying she likes tasty animals (which she does as a meat eater) and that it is a bad thing. Zredsox (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, it paints a trivial and subjective picture of the individual in question. If it must be included, its positioning should be reassessed. Having it as the introduction to the "personal life" is ridiculous. JCP (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Following that logic, maybe we should remove the entire sentence being they are all trivial details: Palin is a self-described "hockey mom" and mother of five. She hunts, goes ice fishing, eats mooseburgers, rides snowmobiles, has run a marathon, and owns a floatplane. 20:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Zredsox: it's not so much that as the issue that it's just not really an appropriate tone for this encyclopedia. I mean, we don't talk about how Joe Biden ... (I honestly don't even know how to finish this ... so I'll make something up) ... used to have a favorite baseball club that his dad got him. It's just not really notable.--danielfolsom 20:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

...but either is that she rides snowmobiles. All of these are subjective points picked from a hat to tell a story.Zredsox (talk)

Haha, I'm not 100% certain about the snowmobiles comment - but as to the moose comment: that's the thing: we aren't telling a story - we're writing an encyclopedia entry. The real issue is: you're right- we're picking stories out of a hat to "explain who she is as a person". But think about how arbitrary that is. First of all, there's no reasonable way to classify people, second of all, since there's no reasonable way to classify people - we're pretty much picking stories at random. I mean, you could argue that we're picking stories that define her, but who's to say how she is defined? It's just all so arbitrary that it turns into a violation of Misplaced Pages's NPOV (no point of view) policy--danielfolsom 20:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So is there an agreement that it should be removed in its entirety? JCP (talk) 20:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Seemingly--danielfolsom 20:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, User ThaddeusB brought up that he thought I was talking about the "mooseburgers" line; I was actually talking about the 3am line - is everyone else on the same page as me?--danielfolsom 21:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were referring to the moose burgers. Specifically, "Palin is a self-described "hockey mom" and mother of five. She hunts, goes ice fishing, eats mooseburgers, rides snowmobiles, has run a marathon, and owns a floatplane." To me, that should be removed or put in a different location. Where is the line you were talking about? JCP (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I was on a different page! Zredsox (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol, my fault - well Zredsox I would agree with you on the mooseburgers thing. If you want to remove that I think it'd be fine--danielfolsom 21:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the "eats mooseburgers" phrase, as this is probably too trivial a fact even for two words. I would object to the 3am moose hunting being deleted, and especially the 5K/10K family runs part of that line, though. That info seems relevant as part of her "character building" --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Also I do think the other parts of the mooseburgers line are at least slightly relevant. I mean it is a personal life section so what is wrong with listing some things she does in her personal life? --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I revt'd it. The cited source specifically says: "She's also a moose-burger-eating, snow-mobile-riding maverick who's not afraid to take on fellow Republicans she disagrees with." --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say readd the running part, but the moose hunting part is just a little unencyclopedic - especially in how it was phrased. I mean, do we need to describe all her childhood hobbies? The fact that she competed in races is arguably notable ... the fact that she hunted moose at 3am? In my view, not so much--danielfolsom 21:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

re-added as "As a child, she would sometimes go moose hunting with her father before school, and the family regularly ran 5K and 10K races" ... If yous till fell the moose hunting bit is unwarranted, I guess it can be removed. I do fell it adds a bit in way of explaining her later political positions though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That sentence could probably be summarized by sayng, "She grew up in Alaska." :-P --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I agree somewhat with the "moose burger" edit. I still find it in an odd place. Casual activities preceding important issues such as family et cetera? Perhaps it can be merged with one of the subsections. As for the hunting, which danielfolsom has discussed, I believe this should be removed. I mean, she occasionally walks up stairs and from time-to-time breathes. We don't need to add unsubstantial hobbies. JCP (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed the new edit, which includes political travels. That should not be under "personal life." The cited article is very brief; however, it seems that Ireland may not have been related to politics. JCP (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin to be a grandmother

Shall we add this to the article? or waint until the birth. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose adding something such as, "soon to be grandmother," would be relevant. But this information seems somewhat trivial to me. JCP (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought Palin already was a grandmother? Digitalmandolin (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't be cute -- this is a talk page about the article, not the people. --Coemgenus 21:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Alaska Budget in comparison to other states - Larger than 10 other states

• http://washingtonpolicyblog.typepad.com/washington_policy_center_/2008/08/state-budget-in.html

In might be note worthy to reflect the state budget of Alaska in comparison to other states. If this was included in State wiki's, then it wouldn't be noteworthy in Palin's section. But until then, I think it is. The above url is what I've found so far - anyone know of a better source? Should be references in Governor > Budget section. Theosis4u (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Bristol's "marriage"

Is it accurate to state that Bristol "intends" to marry the father, Levi. This is technically speculation. Perhaps saying, "it is speculated that Bristol will marry the father of her child, Levi." "Intends" just seems to give the impression that Levi, whoever he is, has proposed to Bristol. Plus, we don't know if Levi even wants to marry Bristol. 20:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The current write up says the press release stated she intends to marry him, which is accurate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Note the ring. A.J.A. (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The ring is speculation, not fact. We have no proof that that is an engagement ring. This is still speculation. The press release said she intended to marry the father -- not that she was. I could say I intend to marry Anna Kournikova, that doesn't mean I am. JCP (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Now you are just being silly. After all of this whirling dervish publicity this weekend what do you think the odd are that they WON'T get married? This is worse than a shotgun wedding. It was announced they were going to get married.--Paul (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, now that's just speculation. Also, a video of the guy getting on one knee and pulling out the very ring she's been seen wearing may well have been staged, and therefore it's only speculation. Any alleged ceremony may... A.J.A. (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there such a video? Saying that they must get married now isn't fact. Levi may very well feel the pressure and run. It happens all the time. Now, that was also speculation. If it is speculation, it shouldn't be included. JCP (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone can prove that Sarah Palin actually exists and that the external world is not a dream or the deception of an evil genie or demiurge, this entire article is speculation and should be deleted. A.J.A. (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That goes a little too far. But I'll gladly continue that discussion over at Soul. The point is, neither the family nor Bristol or Levi have verified that they are in fact getting married. Saying so is not fact. Believe me, I wish it were. I'd speculate that I was a millionaire and was indeed married to Anna Kournikova et cetera. It would be perfect. JCP (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

How do we know they aren't married? Digitalmandolin (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point -- we don't. Perhaps the entire reference to marriage should be removed? Can we come to a consensus on this? It obviously is a controversial portion of that sentence. JCP (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This poor girl has had quite a weekend. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing the parents could not have forestalled by being open and honest with the public. Like not waiting 7 months to announce a pregnancy. Digitalmandolin (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion to the article, not the people. --Coemgenus 21:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL. A.J.A. (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• MONROE, Michigan (CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama said firmly that families are off-limits in the campaign for president, reacting to news that GOP running mate Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter is pregnant. "Let me be as clear as possible," Obama said. "I think people's families are off-limits, and people's children are especially off-limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as governor or her potential performance as a vice president." Obama said reporters should "back off these kinds of stories" and noted that he was born to an 18-year-old mother. "How a family deals with issues and teenage children, that shouldn't be the topic of our politics, and I hope that anybody who is supporting me understands that's off-limits."

  --Paul (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I am glad for Senator Barack Obama. Can that be fit into the article somehow? Probably not since there is very little being said about the scandals in the article. Thus his quote would seem out of place. Digitalmandolin (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As I am sure you know, I don't think that Obama's quote is pertinent to this article. I do wish, however, that editors would take his counsel to heart.--Paul (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that you want to leave out, but rumors from blogs are extremely relevant. You may find this website more to your liking. Coemgenus 21:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The marriage is not speculation as far as Mrs Palin is concerned. We could put that her mother, Sarah Palin says the couple will marry, as she's quoted as saying on the BBC. Sticky Parkin 22:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sticky Parkin, I believe you've found a solution. I have no objections to that. JCP (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

We can include the referenced fact that Sarah says there will be a wedding. That does not make it a referenced fact that there actually will be one. Any statement about a wedding should stick to it being a statement attributed to Sarah, for the time being, until Sarah or "Levi," whomever he is, makes some public statement, or until the wedding takes place, or some other referenced fact is in evidence. Edison2 (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes: Sarah's statement is sourced; nothing else is. Coemgenus 22:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to not make the mistake of assuming they are not already married in how we formulate the inclusion. That assumption has not been verified. Digitalmandolin (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Trivial Points?

1) "In her high-school yearbook, she stated that her professional ambition was to sit in a broadcast booth with sports journalist Howard Cosell and broadcast basketball games starring her boyfriend at the time, Todd Palin."

2) "Shortly after Stevens was indicted on corruption charges, Palin removed a 2006 campaign ad in which she appeared with Stevens from her gubernatorial campaign Web site."

Both seem pretty trivial and not worth inclusion to me. Other opinions? --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The first is merely fluff. The second, . . . well, duh. Wouldn't you? --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the first is fluff. The second may be substantive; however, it could be re-worded. JCP (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the length of the article, WP:WEIGHT. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the first item here is as important as the other info about her high school years in the article -- it is the only item that connects her high school time to her college years and time as a sportscaster -- making it a relevant piece of information, even if yearbook things ofetn sound a bit flip when one is older. I strongly support leaving it in. BTR (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Author speculation

"in a response to unsubstantiated internet rumors that Trig Palin was actually Bristol's son" This phrase indicates that the author believes he knows that Sarah had an alternative motive. How can an author know motives of Mrs.Palin and how can that be NPOV of us to repeat it? --98.243.129.181 (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The press release stated as as much. This has been discussed extensively above. I could rephrase to "partially in response too" if desired, but that seems awkward to me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Excess details about Trig's birth

Do we really need an paragraph detailing the chronology around Trig's birth? I think most of it was added as support details for the "dispicable rumor." Unless the concensus feels strongly that this level of detail satisfies WP:weight, I'd like to remove the paragraph. That would leave us with a "Family" section that is, in roughly even parts: marriage, husband, children summary, Track detail, Trig detail, Bristol detail. That seems about right for the "Family" section of a national political figure. Celestra (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The rumour as we all know, has been shot down. Palin's daughter is pregnant. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to edit down/summarize better if you can. Some felt it justified to include the somewhat unusual circumstances of his birth, so this should stay in some form. I still don't see any value to the surprise comment though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. A.J.A. (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The unusual circumstances justify some recognition. Especially since she was not cleared to fly. It should be trimmed down though. JCP (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not cleared to fly? states that "After wrapping up the speech, Palin and her husband consulted with her physician about possibly flying home on an earlier flight. After being granted permission from her doctor, she and her husband proceeded with the trek home." That certainly seems to me that she was cleared to fly. --Jdrushton (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You might want to read the sources. First, it was a phone consultation. Second, the Doc. states that she didn't think Palin needed to be cleared to fly. And third, standard medical guidelines for PROM include immediate in person consultation and observation for approx. 48 hours before offering outpatient consultation. With all best wishes, Catuskoti (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we refer to this as Water Breakgate yet? All the news sources seem to be recognizing this as the scandal it is. Digitalmandolin (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi all. The material wasn't added to support any specific conclusion, let alone a "dispicable" one, but to only to show these remarkable circumstances for what they were. Similarly, the fact that Palin's care decision was unusual, per established medical norms, seems relevant to me. What do others think? By the way, though I understand the heat caused by the recent editing frenzy, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't assume that advocates for these edits have sinister intentions. With thanks and all best wishes, Catuskoti (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

AJA, please replace the info you reverted, and Celestra, please return the properly sourced info about medical norms you deleted. With thanks and all best wishes, Catuskoti (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The details around the medical recommendations violates WP:synth, so I removed it. (It clearly is trying to present a conclusion that does not exist in either cite.) If there is a concensus otherwise, I won't object to it being added back. Celestra (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, it's only looking to present a conclusion, but to contextualize. Trig seems to be fine despite the long-trip, as most PROM infants at Palin's stage of pregnancy (but not nearly all) are. Fact is, Palin's action wasn't the norm. Also, what about the risks to infants of women who conclude, e.g., by reading these encyclopedias, that waiting to receive medical care nearly 24 hours after PROM is no big deal? It's noteworthy, IMO. Catuskoti (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting point but I see why you removed it; however, I believe there should be a proper time frame. Was she "just about" to give the speech? Or was it several hours prior? JCP (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

premature rupture at 4am, according to news reports; at least "several hours" before a lunchtime keynote. Catuskoti (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

<-- What the... are there still people pushing some kind of Baby Trutherism here? What is wrong with you people? If a reliable mainstream source says she used bad judgment in returning to Alaska, then we'll discuss including it. If not, then stop trying to synthesize some kind of crap. A woman is responsible for her own body, and decisions she makes are between her and her doctor. See WP:BLP and grow up. Kelly 21:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Word. --mboverload@ 21:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's one thing to be conservative in avoiding synthesis which might be understandable, but it's another thing altogether to present something that is highly unusual as if it were utterly typical, which is what the current version does. Trashing and insulting other wikipedians to support a misportrayal doesn't promote the quality of the encyclopedia entry. Catuskoti (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, whatever. What reliable source again said it was unusual? Anyhoo, no synthesis, please, and read the policies on BLP, as you've been told before, and reliable sources. Kelly 21:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, Kelly, please stop assuming bad intent. Here's your answer: http://www.adn.com/626/story/382864.html (Subsection -- "Early Arrival") Catuskoti (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, all that says about Palin is that she consulted with a doctor before flying, as said above. Her own personal business, nobody else's. I think this meme that something about this is unusual or bad in any way was started by Alan Colmes, who wrote that the circumstances of the birth somehow caused the baby to get an extra chromosome. There's no need to give that kind of gutter idiocy any credence, and there's no need to make judgments of a woman's private medical decisions. Kelly 22:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't read or watch Colmes and so have no idea what he did or didn't say. The article linked to above includes a doctor stating that Palin's action violates professional guidelines. Other material that was deleted showed that the guidelines are given to promote the life of the infant (not just a woman and her doctor, in the class of a late-term pregnancy). Catuskoti (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the doctor was involved specifically with the Palin case? Or was it just some doctor with the spare time to yak to a newspaper reporter? And the other sources dealt with that specific Palin case as well? Exactly what point is being made with this information again? Kelly 22:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You're pushing a POV, Kelly. It's not my job to answer the questions you ask. The info comes from a relevant authentic source. If you have a problem with the Anchorage Daily News' reporting, you might want to write them a letter to the editor. Your POV about these issues shouldn't be relevant here. Catuskoti (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, pushing WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Can you point to a POV edit that I've made? Kelly 23:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

These sources are from April and they were reported in the Alaskan press. Switzpaw (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Fairbanks News-Miner felt compelled to report on the issue as well: http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/apr/22/palins-flight-labor-falls-under-scrutiny/ Switzpaw (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh - and strangely that article says that all was well with the trip and the subsequent childbirth. What was the point of this again? Kelly 22:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you calm down and cite exactly what part of the passage regarding Trig's birth that you are taking an issue with. Switzpaw (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm calm. The passage as currently written is fine, I just oppose people trying to synthesize some value judgment out of disconnected facts. Kelly 23:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I just read through the edit history and saw that some other edits were added to that section since yesterday but were removed, which must be what was generating this discussion. Sorry about that -- I just dropped and I didn't notice them before commenting here. I agree -- I don't think that passage needs to grow any larger than the version currently in the article. We should be prudent about the weight devoted to this. Switzpaw (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Alaskan Independence Party--Alaska First?--Or America First?

When we get time (...next week), we'll research this. Her loyalty to this country is probably more important than who was born when--though that does go to her practice vs advocacy. Sturunner (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

While Palin herself is social conservative, the Alaskan Independence Party perhaps is more stridently libertarian: a combination making for sort of a Ron Paul type niche. (Which association between the AIP and Palin, if any, and how this association, should it exist, would play into attempting to mend the rift between libertarians and other conservatives in the Republican Party, it seems pundits haven't noticed yet. Then again, the AIP is also cooperates with the national Constitution party -- which is paleoconservative.)  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 22:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Marriage and elopment section deleted and restored

I just restored an entire paragraph from the "Family" section that discussed Sarah and Todd's elopment -- I had edited it, so I may be less than impartial, but numerous citations were attached. Perhaps some other editors can have a look and see what they think so I don't stat an edit war.

Thanks, BTR (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Speculation from a blog. Please familiarize yourself with WP:BLP. A.J.A. (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen so many people so fascinated by a female politician's womb. Kelly 21:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

For a politician who believes in government control of said womb, I personally can see where the fascination might stem from.Zredsox (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin believes in government control of women's wombs? Really? That's amazing if true - could you provide a cite for that? Kelly 22:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Try reading the main article. It is filled with fascinating citations/references and all in all a great read.Zredsox (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, couldn't find that claim anywhere in there. If true, it would be astonishing. I did see that she is personally opposed to abortion, but I don't quite see how you go from there to "government control of women's wombs". Kelly 22:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Abortion equates to government control over a woman's right to chose what to do with her own body. That being said, I am not going to debate this here as this is not a forum.Zredsox (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Kelly 22:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

relationship with ted stevens

Does anyone else feel this section is given way too much weight? I mean we don't have here relationship with any other politician getting even one sentence (McCain excluded). I would prefer this editted down to 1-2 sentences. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Way too much weight, transparent guilt-by-association attempt. Why Stevens and no other Alaska politicians? Needs to be chopped down to a couple of sentences. Kelly 22:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is well written. Paring it down would strip away much needed context. I would actually advocate expanding the section because of its significance. Zredsox (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what is the significance? Kelly 22:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It is significant because (a) Palin supported Stevens and (b) she is involved in his dismissal. Now, it may be a bit drawn out. If you can cut it down without losing context, by all means. JCP (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What "dismissal"? Kelly 22:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Was she a director of a 527 named after any other politician? The significance of the section is to provide a bit of balance to the campaign-brochure language about "running on a clean-government platform" and "challeng the state Republican establishment". If part of her claim to fame is opposing Ted Stevens, then her relationship with him is relevant. —KCinDC (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Where does the article say that part of her claim to fame was opposing Stevens? This all sounds like synthesis to me. I've cut down the section. Kelly 22:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would think her claim to fame is running for VP. A.J.A. (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight on Ted Stevens

Based on what has been written, the "relationship" apparently was:

1. . She was involved in an organization that he was also involved with
2. . He once endorsed her in an election.
3. . She once endorsed him in an election.
4. . She made a public statement about his indictment.

Is that about it? Should we get busy writing similar "relationahip" sections for all politicians articles, linking them to every other politician? Kelly 22:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you are free to contribute to Misplaced Pages wherever you can and if that is a project you would like to undertake, I say go for it (as long as you can prove notability.) Zredsox (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess my real question is, what it is about the "relationship" between Palin and Stevens that makes it more noteworthy than any other relationships between members of the same party in the same state? Kelly 22:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree that it's undue weight, which is prohibited per policy. Hobartimus (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So I assume your first question was just you making a WP:POINT? Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it WP policy to not use other articles to argue inclusion of information in a 3rd party article such as this? So Rezko in Obama = Stevens in Palin would not be an acceptable equation. We need to look at each piece of information and conclude on its own merits why it should or should not be entered into the article and currently there does not seem to be a consensus to strip the current language about Stevens. Zredsox (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No, my first question was rhetorical - I guess that wasn't as clear as I thought. And I'm afraid you haven't explained why the Stevens relationship doesn't violate WP:UNDUE. Why is it significant? Kelly 23:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Because of your obvious partisan position, I am sure even a mention of scandal would be considered undue by you (even though it is significant and it has been explained multiple times.) That is why we as a group need to come to a consensus rather then you deciding for the group.Zredsox (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(1) The organization was named after him, not just something he was vaguely associated with. (2) A significant part of her political appeal is that she's being portrayed as a reformer and anti-corruption fighter, as exemplified in the article by the sentence "Palin also publicly challenged Senator Ted Stevens to come clean about the federal investigation into his financial dealings." (3) Endorsement in general don't mean much, but endorsement of a primary challenger against an incumbent is more significant, as is endorsing someone after they've been connected to corruption (though I'm not sure of the state of things at the time she endorsed). There may have been too many sentences about it before, but it should stay in the article. —KCinDC (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that she worked for the organization is still in the article (or was as of a minute ago). That's fine. But it's undue weight to take the fact that members of the same party endorsed each other (before Stevens was indicted, by the way) as a "relationship" with its own section header. It's also a BLP violation to try to tie her to an indicted politician - it's guilt by association. Kelly 23:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Robert Battle

I've removed the references to Robert Battle's independent research site, until someone can show that he is an expert, published by a third-party, in this field of expertise. Wjhonson (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I added that, but I think you may be right to remove it. I thought, at first blush, that Mr. Battle was a professional, but I'm unable to substantiate that. On the other hand (at the risk of indulging in WP:OR) his results duplicate my own investigations into Palin's ancestry from publicly available sources. Still, probably best that it stay out, for now. Coemgenus 23:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd have no problem including your public sources, provided they can be easily validated with minimal effort, by an average editor.Wjhonson (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it's too close to original research for me to compile census records, published genealogies, and obituaries and post it here. If a professional genealogist does it, I'd be glad to cite to him, but I've never published in that field or been employed in it. Hopefully, William Reitwiesner at wargs.com will pick up on it -- his work has been cited in several other wiki articles. Coemgenus 23:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Itinerary?

I am trying to source Palin's itinerary on her trip to Kuwait. It seems that the reported visit to Ireland was just a stopover at Shannon Airport. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If a spokesperson is the only person who is claiming she visited Ireland, it should be removed even if there are not more sources. That is a definite conflict of interest.Zredsox (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The article citing this isn't very clear on any of her visits. We know she visited Kuwait as there are images; however, I am unsure of any itinerary. I believe CNN did a piece that briefly mentioned conversations she had there but that was on the television. The reference to her trip(s) are also mentioned twice, which is redundant. They should be removed from "personal life" since they were for political reasons. JCP 22:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Certainly more info should be looked for on this subject - but relying on a spokesperson for certain information (like relying on a primary source) is appropriate if the notability of the subject is already established, which it obviously is. Unless there is strong reason to doubt the spokesperson, I don't see the reason for removal. 141.161.71.241 (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Why no mention that Palin's family is interacial or that her husband is a Yup'ik Native?

It seems strange that the fact that Sarah Palin's husband and children are Yup’ik Eskimo has escaped mention in this wikipedia article. The Atlanta Journal Constitution is just one of the major newspapers that has reported that the family's Alaskan Native heritage has played a significant role in family life. The fact that Ms. Palin's husband is a member of an Alaskan Native community is significant because it is particularly relevant to understand, Sarah Palin, her family and her husband.

Palin Bio on ajc.com

Mrs. Palin's choice as a white woman marrying into a Alaskan Native family is significant because it shows her personal strenghth and unwillingness to opt for the easy road. In Alaska as in the rest of the Unite States, it is still not the norm to engage in a multiracial relationship. Native Alaskans suffer significantly from white racism and Sarah Palin took a clear stand against that endemic racism.

The implication of this article is that Mrs. Palin's work at a commercial fishery shows opposition to environmental conservationism. This implication would not be made and situation more accurately portrayed if it was noted that this fishery is Yup'ik Native Alaskan owned.

In Alaska, Palin known for battling against long odds

Why no mention of the fact that Mrs. Palin's campaign for governor was partially the result of heavy campaigning in Alaskan Native communities by herself and Mr. Palin's grandmother (a traditional Yup’ik from a Eskimo house in Bristol Bay).

Tsali2 (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Part Yup'ik, and I think the article does mention it.

It's basically trivia. Some degree of America Indian heritage is very common for American whites. A.J.A. (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That is unsubstantiated personal opinion. Alaskan Native Population is 15.39% of the Alaskan Population. You cannot assume that 4.86% of those of two or more races in Alaska are all whites and Alaskan Natives, but even if you can, 5 in 100 is hardly "very common". Tsali2 (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Marrying someone that is one-quarter one-eighth minority is hardly remarkable in itself. You'd need to show that is has had an appreciable impact on her life or views. Dragons flight (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It is original research to drone on about how someone marrying a person with some Native American ancestry shows "personal strenghth and unwillingness to opt for the easy road." Sounds like pure spin doctoring. Edison2 (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That is my personal opinion after having read numerous articles this afternoon verifying that she married an Alaskan Native. I did not say that personal strength and unwillingness to opt for the easy road were statements that should be added to the article only that living in a multiracial family is significant. Tsali2 (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Todd Palin's article talks enough about his heritage. Coemgenus 23:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

A Yup'ik and a Yuppie? Should be a good match. Baseball Bugs 23:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Section on dismissal

This section is currently very misleading. It says:

Initially, Palin denied that there had been any pressure on Monegan to fire Wooten from her or anyone in her administration. She later disclosed that her staff had contacted Monegan or his staff about two dozen times regarding Wooten, including many from her chief of staff, stating most calls were made without her knowledge.

This is misleading because the 24 contacts about Wooten were not necessarily "pressure." Palin's spokesperson has said that her actions were merely to alert Monegan of potential threats to her family. After all, Wooten had made a death threat against her father. Palin has only ackowledged that one of the 24 contacts was pressure to fire Wooten.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"She later disclosed that her staff had contacted Monegan or his staff about two dozen times regarding Wooten, including many from her chief of staff, stating most calls were made without her knowledge". How is that misleading? Her staff DID make 24 calls to Monegan and some of them if not all were concerning Wooten. Lakerking04 (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Were there 24 separate threats to her family that she was informing him of? It doesn't seem unreasonable to characterize 24 contacts from the governor's office about an issue as pressure. Do you have a suggested rewording? —KCinDC (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact remains that initially she lied about the entire affair, and only admitted that her staff made calls when the legislature hired a private investigator. Then she proceeded to claim ignorance about the entire affair despite the fact that she herself admits to sending emails to Monegan about Wooten. Something sounds fishy here, but thats not my call to make, I'll wait for the investigator to release his report in October.. Lakerking04 (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Stevens Section Removed DESPITE ongoing talk page discussion

No consensus was reached and we were right in the middle of the discussion, yet someone (that was taking part in the discussion) decided to whitewash the article and remove materials. This has been happeing a lot today. Zredsox (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need a +/- column on all the election returns? What do they mean?

Also, can the election charts be a bit smaller? They're way too chunky when space is so valuable in this article. Poggio (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a hideous side effect of the {{election box}} templates, which were apparently originally designed for British elections, where analysis of the "swing" between parties is a normal part of the results. Unfortunately, people have used them for US elections all over Misplaced Pages rather than making a variant without that column. —KCinDC (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Fishy Business

Im starting to suspect they're McCain staffers amongst us posing as wikipedia editors. It's clearly apparent that some "editors" on here are very baised in favour of palin, whether the facts support their views or not, they don't care. Lakerking04 (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith. —KCinDC (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Hopkins, Kyle (2008-07-12). "Governor offered Monegan a different job". Anchorage Daily News. The McClatchy Company. Retrieved 2008-08-21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
2. Holland, Megan (2008-07-19). "Monegan says he was pressured to fire cop". Anchorage Daily News. The McClatchy Company. Retrieved 2008-07-22. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help): "Monegan said he still isn't sure why he was fired but thought that Wooten could be part of it."
3. ^ Grimaldi, James V. (2008-08-31). "Long-Standing Feud in Alaska Embroils Palin". Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-08-31. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
4. Cockerham, Sean. “Palin staff pushed to have trooper fired”, Anchorage Daily News (2008-08-14). Retrieved 2008-08-24.
5. "Governor to Turn Over Findings", Department of Law press release with link to audio of Bailey call], August 13, 2008
6. Moore, Jason (2008-07-21). "Complainant details Kopp's harassing behavior". KTUU. Retrieved 2008-08-29. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
7. Joling, Dan (2008-05-22). "State will sue over polar bear listing, Palin says". Anchorage Daily News. Retrieved 2008-08-30.

• 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