Talk:Governorship of Sarah Palin
|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Governorship of Sarah Palin article.|
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 10 September 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.|
|This subarticle is kept separate from the main article, Sarah Palin, due to size or style considerations.|
|This is not a forum for general discussion about Governorship of 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 Governorship of Sarah Palin at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.|
Bridge to Wasilla?
Is there a reason the Knik Arm bridge is called a bridge to Wasilla in this article? The proposed bridge is across the mouth of the Knik Arm, much as the Golden Gate Bridge crosses the mouth of San Francisco Bay. Wasilla, Alaska is way the hell up on the north end of the Knik Arm, nowhere near the proposed bridge. Here is a map of the Knik arm and Wasilla. I'm thinking the references to Wasilla in regards to this bridge should be removed. Kelly hi! 13:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- There is a reason, Kelly, but we've signed the assume good faith pact. :) I agree with you that references to Wasilla should be removed. --SimpleParadox 15:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't. Unless there's a good argument why this indirect benefit is so noteworthy as compared to all other indirect benefits that fail for inclusion it isn't justified. Then one needs to argue why "indirect" benefits or negative are necessary to increase the size of the article on Palin's page. Failing those, this inclusion has one purpose - to create an inference that Palin is trying to "help" her old home city. Theosis4u (talk) 05:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Aerial gunning of wolves/predator control
I think that it should be mentioned in the section on predator control that the people of Alaska have voted down this measure not once, but twice. Also, artificial trying to raise moose and caribou populations are proven to be a disaster to the ecosystem.
That article tells a little of the vote down in the third paragraph. I am in the process of gathering more sources. I think it is important to note when the government does something against the wishes of the majority of it's people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- First of all, just two months ago Alaskans defeated the measure to restrict this program. So if you're concerned about the wishes of the people, that's the best indicator that Palin was right. Second, the two times the measure passed were in 1996 and 2000, and each time the program was suspended for two years as the measure had required. Once they expired there was no reason for the legislature not to reauthorise the program. Third the facts were in the article already, and I've just edited them to make them more accurate. -- Zsero (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The wording in the bill was confusing (as governments who know what their people want, but want an opposite outcome are apt to make it) and sources show that the people want the gunning to stop. What sources, you say? If my damn school email would open, I would be happy to share. It is looking that may have to wait for a new day. However, gun groups wish for this practice to continue to raise moose population. It should be noted that killing predators only leads to problems in the prey populations. In Tennessee, for example deer have no natural predators, so they get hit by cars which causes thousands of dollars of damages, starve to death, and pass diseases easily amongst themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
This is a notification that articles related to Sarah Palin (broadly construed) have been placed by the community on article probation. See Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation for details. Thanks - Kelly hi! 17:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Resignation info needs to be better balanced & NPOV
I know this is a breaking story but the final paragraph makes it sound as if there is some sort of consensus among news commentators that not only is her motivation based on better positioning herself for a presidential bid in 2012 but that such reasoning is actually sound.
The pertinent portion reads: Palin has not yet announced reasons for leaving, but it has been speculated that the resignation is related to the upcoming 2012 United States presidential election. Many sources in media coverage claim that resigning may help Palin to clear a way for her seat as a Republican presidential nominee in 2012 and to brush up on the needed political experience that she lacked while running for vice president in 2008.
From my last reading of the news sites, there were far more media sources saying this move is political self destruction or simply inane and only a handful of Palin supporters were saying such an approach could be successful.
I really think the current language in the article, by omitting the overwhelming sentiment that Palin's resignation is a very negative and foolish thing for a politician to do, tends to weigh the article in a way that supports Palin's action. It definitely minimizes the considerable criticism Palin's resignation has generated among both conservative and liberal commentators.
Can an experienced editor please take a moment to do a more appropriate balancing act here?
- I would be delighted to do so, that is, if you could please provide a source that says her action was "negative" and "foolish" as a statement of fact.Jarhed (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The main article for the resignation is Resignation of Sarah Palin. Both this article and the Sarah Palin#Resignation article should summarize that article. Does it seem reasonable to use the same wording here as in the Sarah Palin article?
On July 3, 2009, Palin announced at a press conference that she would not run for reelection in the 2010 Alaska gubernatorial election and would resign before the end of July. Palin gave a speech offering reasons for her departure. She argued that both she and the state have been expending an "insane" amount of time and money in order to address "frivolous" ethics complaints filed against her. She also said that her decision not to seek reelection would make her a lame duck Governor. Palin did not take questions at the press conference. A Palin aide was quoted as saying that Palin was, " no longer able to do the job she had been elected to do. Essentially, the taxpayers were paying for Sarah to go to work every day and defend herself."
This page needs serious editing - a lot of biased reporting.
I'm sorry, but I found most of the content of this article as distorted. Overwhelmingly, critique made and any controversy appears quickly deflected and defended. There is no real debate of the other side and has Palin's comments stand as the final and verifiable word. This needs honest review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)