Talk:Sarah Palin

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

Oil & Gas Policy Compared to Hugo Chavez

I've noticed that there has been some back and forth on whether or not it is "newsworthy" for Wikipedia to list the news article from Newsweek that says the following:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/139335

"One hails from a Canadian pipeline builder and is endorsed by Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, a Republican who has drawn surprising comparisons with Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez for her tough stance against Big Oil."

From my understanding, this also comes from someone named "Kelly" calling the Voice of the Times a non-notable blog.

First of all, someone's oil & gas policies being compared to Chavez is newsworthy, no matter what you think of the Governor. Second of all, the Voice of the Times isn't "non-notable." For a long time, the Anchorage Times competed with the Anchorage Daily News, and the ADN even allowed them to have competing views in their newspaper. They now have a blog, but that doesn't mean their opinions should be diminished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregorymatthews (talk • contribs) 16:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The Newsweek article doesn't say who is comparing Palin to Chavez - as a matter of fact, the article's language is so weaselly you can't even tell if it's reporter's personal opinion, or if someone is being quoted. From what I remember of the blog reference, it was being used to cite a claim that Palin was being called "socialist", and the reference only had a vague statement that some anonymous caller on a radio show had said she was socialist - hardly a notable opinion. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources, particularly for the biography of a living person. Kelly ^hi! 18:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm just observing...so please don't take this as me choosing any sides. Apparently we have some users who feel the oil and gas policy comparison to Chavez and Socialism should be included on Wikipedia, and some who do not. Here's my question(s). To the people who feel it *should* be included...can you attempt to find another reference that is more accurate / less weasel worded? To the people who are unhappy with it being included based on the current references...are you willing to allow the inclusion of the information if a more factual, extraordinary source can be found? Please leave replies, thoughts here. Thanks. PanzaM22 (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Mike

Anchorage Daily News

June 21, 2008 http://www.adn.com/front/story/442702.html

SOCIALIST PROGRAM?

Environmentalists and others have said Palin is encouraging consumption rather than conservation by handing out money. Conservative critics have attacked it as socialism, comparing Palin to Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez.

Palin said it's a short-term fix at a time when people are hurting from the same high-energy prices that are bringing huge amounts of money to the state. Her energy team is working on a long-term plan to promote conservation and lasting solutions, she said. That will be ready by the end of the year, she said.

Palin said it's a conservative program --not socialism.

Voice of the Times

June 20, 2008 http://www.voiceofthetimes.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1412&Itemid=9

"Palin and Chavez have a lot in common

GOV. SARAH PALIN should be cautious about how closely she patterns her administration after Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's government.

Chavez is fond of high taxes on oil companies, free-money programs for his citizens and government control of the economy, all of which are becoming hallmarks of the Palin administration.

Palin pushed for "Alaska's fair share" of oil revenues, resulting in one of the world's highest taxes on industry; she refuses to let the market decide who should build the Alaska gas pipeline; her AGIA plan would award a gas pipeline "license" to TransCanada Corp. and give the company $500 million to get it started in pursuit of a federal permit.

"Palin is also pushing for a new cash giveaway. Her idea of sending out monthly debit cards worth $100 a month to all residents wasn't exactly greeted by cheering from the Legislature, so she is giving up on that and will be announcing plans for a new way to give money away sometime today. No details yet, but you can bet it will be expensive.

There are many direct parallels between governments under Palin and Chavez, but the Venezuelan president's system isn't working out too well.

Bloomberg.com

March 3, 2008 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a13e84JyS2B8&refer=home

(Bloomberg) -- Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, a former beauty pageant winner, is succeeding where Venezuela President Hugo Chavez, a former paratrooper and military coup leader, so far has failed.

Anchorage Daily NEws

May 17, 2008 http://www.adn.com/politics/story/408969.html

Legislators question Palin's energy voucher plan

ENERGY VOUCHERS: She wants idea included in special session. On Friday, Palin's new proposal was the talk of radio call-in shows and Internet forums. Some people praised the governor, saying they need help with utility bills. Others attacked the plan as socialism, comparing Palin to Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez.'

"Do you still need more comparisons? (UTC)David Adamson209.112.218.198 (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm also not here to take sides, but given the things that you have presented, it looks good to me. Clearly, there's enough media discussion in more than one venue. However, you should be careful when you insert it that you have to present both sides to maintain a neutral point of view; criticism and support both. While we aren't a PR site, we also aren't a smear column. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no possible neutral way to make the original claim that a Republican governor is a socialist on Wikipedia. If you continue add a hotchpotch of random sources trying to prove such a conclusion, it will be removed, and you will probably wind up banned from the article for violating the BLP policy (please see the header). As I said to Lenard, the only possible way such a conclusion could be added here if is some prominent figure could be quoting saying such; absent that, it doesn't go anywhere near this article. Rebecca (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I can help. Rebecca, it doesnt appear that the claim is that the Republican Governor "is" a socialist. It seems to be referenced that "some" of her policies are "comparable" to those of Hugo Chavez. You make the case for why it would be notable. Its not typical policy of a Republican. I didnt see anyone claiming that she "is" a socialist, just that news organizations, including a major one from her home state, are making those policy comparisons which is certainly valid within the context of this article. It is certainly a neutral POV to indentify what an article claims. Maybe a few other editors can comment.

209.112.186.4 (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Dave Adamson

I fully expect this article to be added to [[Category:Venezuelan paratroopers (successful)]] at some point in the next couple of days. All hail the Meme! --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 10:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

POV

This article is disgusting. There are many instances of "a hodgePodge of random sources" being used to spin this Biography of a Living Person to make it more favorable to a current politician. Apparently to some, information can only be considered "controversial" when it is negative. How can it be deemed POV to add information from sourced articles about how this politician's policies have been compared to that of a foreign politician, and yet it is not to say she has "highest [rankings] of any elected official in American politician" and "the most popular governor in the United States" using random sources and in some cases no sources at all? Not only has the comparison been removed but there is no mention of the policies deemed socialist anywhere in this article. The lady wants to give Alaskans $100 vouchers to buy energy with, why is that not mentioned? I'll tell you why because this article is being farmed by goons that have twisted it into a piece of propaganda Dr. Goebbels would be proud of. And calling the sources "a hotchpotch of random sources" by Rebecca is ridiculous, what sources aren't random? Is there a list of approved sources we must choose from, and if there was I would assume that a newspaper from the largest city in the state she governs, http://www.adn.com/politics/story/408969.html & http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/440246.html, would fall into that category or perhaps Newsweek, http://www.newsweek.com/id/139335/page/1, or perhaps Bloomberg L.P. would be a proper source, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a13e84JyS2B8&refer=home. How can they be tossed aside while tidbits like, "She opposes same-sex marriage, but has gay friends and has otherwise been receptive to gay and lesbian concerns about discrimination." stay? I have used Wikipedia for a while now and am aware of its many flaws and inaccuracies, but this deception has been done with malice towards the readers. (Lenerd (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC))

Also, the fact that someone has abused their admin privileges to protect this article in its current state is an abomination, it insinuates that the editors who attempt to properly add sourced information in the correct manner are vandals who should be banned. (Lenerd (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC))

I concur. This article seems like a campaign brochure rather than a non-biased article. Its allowed claims are based on sensationalism and spin and any references to, even well sourced and cited, criticism is stricken from the record and banished with threats of retaliation. It was my first attempt to get involved with wikipedia but it has not been welcoming nor inviting.

209.112.209.162 (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Dave Adamson

Dave Adamson and Lenerd, would you please describe briefly the top two things that should be included and/or removed from this article. Please be specific and brief, so that editors unfamiliar with this article (like me) can easily and quickly focus on the issue. Thanks.

I've made some changes to the article to try and make it more neutral. So, I'm going to remove the tag for the time being. However, please feel free to restore the tag if you think there's still a big problem.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

1-lift the semi-protected status so that it can be edited easily. It was set to semi-protected because some well sourced, albiet notflattering, material was continuously removed, often times for no cited reason. 2- It really needs a clean up as there is material posted that seems to have little to no connection to the paragraph title. (ie. the first paragraph under budget, what does selling a jet or cancelling a road have to do with the budget? and approval ratings as the closing sentence of the first paragraph and then a entire paragraph on approval ratings? Is it really deserving of an entire paragraph? And what does the former chief of staffs pleading have to do with her energy policies? and under "political future" whos political fanclub doesnt mention "president" someday? Do we even need a paragraph titled "political future?" But thats only a brief overlook. 209.112.209.162 (talk) 09:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Dave Adamson

I've never installed or removed semi-protection, and I'm only trying to deal with content issues. Regarding the budget, selling a jet and cancelling a road were apparently intended as cost-cutting measures, and I don't see how they would not affect the budget; in any event, this is just a categorization issue rather than a POV issue, it seems.

Regarding approval ratings, I retitled the section to remove the word "high" but the fact remains that she does poll well. The lead paragraph is supposed to summarize the article, so Palin's polling is a legitimate thing to be included in both the lead paragraph as well as the section on her governorship. As for placement, it is now dead last in the lead paragraph, so I don't think placement is really a big issue. Does it deserve an entire paragraph? Well, there are a couple of reliable sources cited, and it appears that she polls better than anyone else in the country, so an entire paragraph doesn't seem excessive to me.

Regarding the chief of staff, she rescinded his appointment to the Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority, which seems energy-related. "Clark pleaded guilty to conspiring with former officials of Veco, the defunct oil-field services company, to secretly channel $68,550 from Veco into Murkowski's re-election effort." I'll clarify this in the article.

Regarding becoming "president" someday, I put a "citation needed" tag on it, but I'll remove it now since it does seem to be puffing.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If you read the entry from lenerd above, and cross check with the Rebecca protection and the edit war in the history, you will be able to see that the references to the governors energy policies being compared to those of socialist Hugo Chavez and it was cited and sourced in Newsweek, Bloomberg LP, and the two local Alaska papers. This was repeatedly removed, sometimes without reasons and then protection was added after a claim of "good faith re-insertion" Please check the cited sources. I think you will agree the assertion that her engergy policies are being compared to Hugo Chavez, will not flattering, is valid and should be included. It was the issue which I believe caused lenerd to call this "goons that have twisted it into a piece of propaganda Dr. Goebbels would be proud of." 209.112.212.56 (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Dave Adamson

I believe that since it is so well referenced that it should be included that some of her policies have been notably socialist. It should be written to only note how her policies have been compared the policies of another nation's president. It should be made apparent what the policies are that are being compared, but they should not be dissected in a way to make them appear any more populist than they are. (any reader will be able to determine for themselves if a redistribution of wealth of $100 to each citizen is socialistic or not) This is grade school editing people. Present the facts as they are known to you. Even if it is agreed not to have anything about Chavez in the article her policies in question must still be noted in a purely neutral way. Although she is a Republican i.e. conservative, the facts are she has implemented populist policies that seem to result in her high approval ratings. (Lenerd (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC))

If Palin wants to give Alaskans $100 vouchers to buy energy with, then I see no problem with mentioning it. Characterizing it as socialist or similar to what some South Aemrican dictator would do is another matter entirely.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, maybe you can explain why its acceptable to write "In July 2007, Palin was heralded in the media as being the most popular governor in the United States, with an approval rating often in the 90s." but its not acceptable to write something like " In June 2008, Palin was panned by some local and national media for an "energy voucher" policy, drawing criticism and comparisons to the policy of Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez. The plan was later abandonded by Palin due to her perceived lack of legislative support." I dont understand why its acceptable to be "heralded in the media" for one thing but not allowed to be "panned by the media" for another?209.112.209.24 (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Dave Adamson

I toned down the stuff about being "heralded." I also added info about her debit card plan being scrapped.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with those Chavez comparisons was that the sources made no mention of exactly who was making those comparisons. Kelly ^hi! 23:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It was stated by the author of the article in Newsweek. The author of the article at Bloomburg and it was clearly mentioned by the editorial board of the Voice of the times, which is just as valid as the editorial board of the Anchorage Daily news and its more valid than the existing citeless claim of the popularity being "the highest of any elected official in American politics." It would seem to be a proper balance to the reports of popularity. Why then wouldnt a title like "Criticisms" then a reference to the, at least four, news outlets including both local news services,who have published the comparisons, be listed?209.112.217.143 (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Dave Adamson

From what I recall of reading the sources, the article authors (Newsweek in particular) were quoting unnamed people for the comparison. Kelly ^hi! 05:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thats one of the four above referenced comparisons, what about the editorial board of the Voice of the times, what about the article in Bloomberg, what about the references in the Anchorage Daily News. If it were just the Newsweek article I think it could be dismissed but with 4 or more its difficult to deny. I am sure i could find more if I looked. Again, whats wrong with a paragraph titled "Criticisms"? Are we trying to pretend that there arent any?209.112.217.143 (talk) 07:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Dave Adamson

The Bloomberg article does not say Palin is like Chavez, it simply discusses some related situations in Alaska and Venezuela. The ADN article does not say who is comparing Palin to Chavez. I'm sorry, but there is no consensus to include this tidbit in the article. I'm not at all convinced that the user or users who want to include this are really interested in improving this biography - I'd be more inclined to consider this seriously if the people wanting to include it were making any other "improvements" besides including a comparison to some Latin American socialist dictator. Wikipedia is not a political battleground. Kelly ^hi! 14:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Bloomberg article doesnt say she is "like" Chavez, it says she "exceeded" where Chavez failed. You said you'de be more inclined if you thought those wanting to post this material seriously wanted to make other improvements. That, if you look above, is offensive, Kelly. Even though it was not my original addition, I have been one of many who thought it was valid and if you take a look above, this is the last of several suggestions I have made to "improve" this biased article. The stonewalling by those who seem to have a political agenda with this article have driven away the original and many others who felt this was valid too. Again, you still try and discount the multiple other sources making the comparison including the Voice of the Times editorial board and the Anchorage Daily News. Would you be opossed to adding to the follwoing sentence "proposed giving Alaskans $100-a-month energy debit cards, drawing some media sources to compare her poilicies to policies of Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez. and also proposed...?" Again, Kelly, this is the last "suggestion" in a long list that I have made to try and "improve" this article and consequently, Wikipedia. That is my motive.209.112.213.228 (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Dave Adamson

It needs to be protected because people put stupid things like "shes hot" and "used to be a man", which are typically added by new, unregister users.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

New photos

I uploaded a bunch of new photos from Governor Palin's trip to the Middle East last year - they're at Commons:Category:Sarah Palin. Kelly ^hi! 02:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

And I added an Investor's Business Daily interview: Alaska's 'Frustrated' Governor Palin On Our 'Nonsensical' Energy Policy. Asteriks (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

POV and editing by Coemengus

Thanks to Coemgenus for keeping this article neutral, factual and grammatically correct. Ursa2008 (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Dozens of edits

Is it just me, or is this page edited entirely too much? Certain long term editors do contribute an occasional factual edit here and there, but otherwise it just seems like people are editing this page like crazy all the time. Am I only only one who feels this way? I try my best to look over every single edit to keep the page free of vandalism and libel statements, but it's very difficult.

PanzaM22 (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Mike

Two words: Barack Obama. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 20:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

PanzaM22, it's great that you look over every single edit to keep the page free of vandalism and libelous statements. Much appreciated. As Clubjuggle says, just be happy it's not as busy as the Obama article!  :-) I've been watching out for the McCain article, and fortunately it is so incredibly well-written that it isn't messed with as much as the Obama article.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

affiliation

I added her party affiliation to the first sentence, to achieve consistency with, for example, Democratic Governor JEnnifer Granholm of Michigan. It's kind of silly (not to mention the inconsistency in standards) that an article about a politician buries something so basic so far down in the article. 68.108.16.108 (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not exactly "buried"; it's in the infobox at the top of the page. --Coemgenus 01:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Buried might be a stretch, but it did belong in the first paragraph of the article as well. Well done for not scrubbing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.16.108 (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Vice Presidential Edits

Whoever keeps posting Palin as the super, secret, definitely possible candidate for McCain based on an old WorldNetDaily rumor please stop it. Pineapple.express (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup of the section is justified, but not outright deletion. Kelly ^hi! 20:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets are at work on this section. I have no interest in cleaning it up myself, dozens of edits today show this to be the case. Thanks. Pineapple.express (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a curious accusation, coming as it does from an account that was only (at the time of the posting) 38 minutes old. Would you care to share the basis for your accusation? --Clubjuggle ^T/C 21:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about sockpuppets, but I do know about biased editing, and there's some of that going on here, and mention in the first comment here about her "super secret" mentions of her in "one" source is flat out wrong. I agree with Kelly and would hope reference to her VP chances wouldn't be deleted, considering there are many verifiable sources backing up serious VP speculation. NY Times mention, Fox News/Bill Kristol (video), Weekly Standard, Newt backs Palin on Politico.com Palin mentioned on Politico.com today In short, it's definitely possible. Whether a potential editor here thinks it's LIKELY is simply opinion, and thanks for sharing it. I won't lard up the article with these links, but if someone needs proof that she's being talked about as a VP for McCain, then feel free to use them or others. - Nhprman 00:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The whole section is rather off. WP is an encyclopedia and the yellow press or a forum for speculations. If she has been nominated it should be mentioned and if the press speculated about her nomination for a longer time it should been in a sentence, but that's about. A whole section on temporary speculations has no place in WP.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia, but we are also a real-time encyclopedia. The threshold for inclusion here is whether or not it can be reliably sourced. The speculation is rampant, thus we can confidently cover the speculation. Take a look at the Joe Biden article if you need a reference point; it was handled very well, all in all.   user:j    (aka justen)   14:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed?

It's obviously confirmed. It's sourced everywhere. Get over it. /me

CNBC says it's her, but I can't think how to fit this in with all the other stuff that's going on. And I'm personally not convinced so I'll leave it to another editor to decide. Oroso (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's only two hours until the official announcement, I think we can wait that long. Kelly ^hi! 13:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Make it two if you want to count this as a reliable source. Oroso (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Now the Chicago Tribune. Oroso (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Add CNN to that list too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.81.147.160 (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain advisers confirmed that she's the Veep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.77.70 (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.mccainpalin.com/ Seems to confirm this as well Cavafox (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Has different registration info to johnmccain.com, and... an insurance advert. Presumably not an official campaign site.--The Bruce (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I will give you the registration, its possible that they actually had people who were smart in trying to hide it. I am not seeing any advertisements when I load the site. Just a front page with an image and some text. It may be my security settings though. Cavafox (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The ad is still there when I look (it's for ICICI Lombard, though I don't think that's significant - it just seems to be a googlead). The whois info indicates it was registered by the proxy on January 29 (the day of the Florida primary). That's more than a month before McCain became the presumptive nominee. So if it is genuine, then unless his team registered a whole slew of sites for everyone they were considering (and did so before even Romney dropped out), the whole veepstake thing was a sham. If that's true, I wonder if he had to cut some kind of deal in return for one of the endorsements he got during the Flordia campaign. But as I say, I still think it's a fan site of some sort, not part of the McCain campaign.--The Bruce (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The ad I see is a "paid for by john mccain" one about who's the biggest celebrity. It's also been in the news lately that mccain has been quite active in internet based advertising, specifically noting higher bidding on key adwords terms related to issues in this election cycle. 171.159.192.10 (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"On August 29, 2008, presumptive GOP nominee John McCain chose Palin as his nominee for vice president." Actually, he announced her selection today. Presumably, he actually made that selection days or weeks ago. 66.218.190.100 (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

STOP EDITING IT. SHE IS THE NOMINEEE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.247.39 (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No, she is the presumptive nominee until she officially receives the nomination at the convention.--JayJasper (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You happy now? It's all over the major networks that she IS THE NOMINEE! --Krakaet (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No, she is still the presumptive nominee until she officially receives the nomination at the convention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.22.229.180 (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

L:earn some politics. McCain is currently the presumptive nominee officially, also. It's not official until the convention.

Public domain video

We have some public domain video of Sarah Palin, shot by the Department of Defense, that can be found here. Do we have anyone with sufficient technical expertise to convert some of it into a Wikipedia-compatible OGG format? Kelly ^hi! 15:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Miss Alaska in lead

I've removed it more than once now. I don't think a detail this minor belongs in the lead. It's already stated in the article. Comments? --Elliskev 15:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it's trivia, really. Kelly ^hi! 15:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree as well. Hobartimus (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. The reality is that beauty is important. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is it PAY-lin? Michael of Monty Python seems to say it differently. 216.179.123.111 (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You're correct - maybe someone with expertise at the IPA symbology can place that here. Kelly ^hi! 15:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Erm I thought Michael was also "PAY-lin". Can someone put the correct pronunciation in English, not IPA gibberish? Timrollpickering (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct, Michael Palin's Palin is pronounced "PAY-lin". – ukexpat (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "the correct pronunciation in English, not IPA gibberish"? IPA is universal and using IPA any English speaker (or non-English speaker) can accurately pronounce the name. If we write "PAY-lin" how does that help? The pronunciation of 'PAY' depends on which country you are living in. If you have a problem then learn IPA.--217.202.153.5 (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Please link

{{editprotected}} [ja:サラ・ペイリン] = Sarah Palin Japanese version.Please make a link.from japan219.106.52.108 (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

First, this was the wrong template, in the future use {{Editsemiprotected}}. Second, this has been added. Oren0 (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Election Results

Apologies if this question belongs elsewhere but how is it possible that the Margin of Error on the Election Results for Ms. Palin is 7.6%? That seems inordinately high for actual election results (as opposed to, say, exit polls). In fact, the contender with the next highest number of votes (Tony Knowles) is within that MoE. Furthermore, how can Ms. Palin's number be so unprecise when all of the other contenders have MoE within 1%? I'm not trying to suggest anything untoward, just curious how this sort of thing is possible and hoping somebody can shed some light. Cheers. Daqron (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Pro-death penalty in parantheses after the pro-life statement

I don't see that one has anything to do with the other, however they are placed in such a way as to imply a relationship. Being against abortion is unrelated to being for the death penalty for convicted criminals. Moreover it's pretty common for people who hold the former opinion to also hold the later, which leads me to suspect that whoever edited it that way did so for the sole purpose of suggesting some sort of conflict in logic between what are in reality two distinct issues. I suggest editing it to two seperate sentences. 199.133.19.254 (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is really poorly written and needs to be clarified. The parenthetical stands out as an absolute, and in some instances a person who truthfully calls herself pro-life may in fact support use of capital punishment. It would be better here to clearly state her stances, in detail, regarding abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment. 198.242.210.113 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes whoever wrote it was probably politically motivated but how can anyone not see the conflict of logic there? How can the American religious nutters who are so against abortion for religious reasons also be the same people who support the death penalty? I should also stress that I am against abortion but I don't feel its the place of a government to leglislate on this matter.--217.202.153.5 (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Jet sale

Wikipedia lists the sale price at 2.7, NYT citation lists at 2.1. Someone who has access should correct that.

I fixed this. Just so you know, anyone can edit wikipedia. If you're interested, you can find out more at Help:Contents/Getting_started. Thanks. RobHar (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Text moves

I tried to revert the text moves by Wayfarers43 (talk · contribs) but ended up blanking the section due to edit conflicts. Wayfarers43 moved the family/personal background information to the bottom of the article per "journalism standards". I think this should be moved back up, as we're not writing a news paper article. This is meant to be a bio. - auburnpilot talk 15:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither a candidate nor a nominee

Let's get the wording right. Palin is neither a candidate nor a nominee for vice president at this point. She is merely John McCain's pick to be the nominee. If nominated next week by the convention, she will be then be the nominee. --Crunch (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Terminology therefore should be corrected to "presumptive nominee" FatherStorm (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. --Crunch (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "presumptive" is right - it is the same convention we followed for Joe Biden last week. Kelly ^hi! 16:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Slightly different because Biden was at least a candidate for President at some point, but you've the point. --Crunch (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

To quote from the Presumptive nominee article: "In politics, the presumptive nominee is a political candidate who is all but assured of his party's nomination, but has not yet been formally nominated." Palin (McCain, too, for that matter) will not be formally nominated until the Republican convention is held.--JayJasper (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just saw McCain announcing her publicly as his VP pick on all the major cable news networks. That good enough? :) -- Atama^chat 16:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No. John McCain isn't a nominee either. See presumptive nominee. Oren0 (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct, she is the presumptive vice-presidential nominee. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Info on Army son

On this site it states her son is set to deploy with an infantry brigade in september, but I'm in the Army and I looked at the public Army records and saw that her son is indeed infantry but he works out of the Wasilla recruiting station which tells me that he is not deploying and is actually working in a (opinion) protected job set fourth by mommy. It is not common for a Private First Class to work in a recruiting station and in fact you have to be at least a Specialist to be in the Corporal rectuiting program. I think this hits on her character because it tells me that it's okay for me or my children to fight in Iraq but not for her son! What do you think?

Source: Army Knowledge Online (People Search: formally army white pages) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesxpresswmb (talk • contribs) 16:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Site is not publicly accessible without making an account. Lincoln F. Stern 16:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

link [54] "http://stage-v2.wtopnews.com/?nid=104&sid=1247586" no longer works. Can not find information about her son being deployed to Iraq. Lincoln F. Stern 16:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Back to the top of Army son, I can find no source that confirms or denies her son's deployment to Iraq. The source mentioned above does not apear to be open to the public. I see no reason to include the statement without a citation. At the very least the statement should be tagged as needing a citation. --Crunch (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone added a citation needed sticker. I added one as well for him being in the military (given link no longer works) Lincoln F. Stern 16:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Check the regulation on this sit about the qualification to be a recruiter http://www.usarec.army.mil/hq/recruiter/Index.htm

and as for the info of army record you have to be a soldier or sponsered by a soldier to access it but this is exactly what it says

AKO IDAKO ID AKO ID track.palin ServiceService Service Army Account TypeAccount Type Account Type Active Army RankRank Rank PFC Army Basic BranchArmy Basic Branch Army Basic Branch 11 OrganizationOrganization Organization US ARMY RECRUITING Street AddressStreet Address Street Address 1590 E FINANCIAL DRIVE CityCity City WASILLA StateState State AK Zip CodeZip Code Zip Code 99654 PhonePhone Phone 907-373-5174 FaxFax Fax Emailtrack.palin@us.army.mil IM StatusIM Status IM Status Offline For more information regarding AKO accounts, account policy, and account verification, please consult the AKO Account Policy document. Wesxpresswmb (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Recruiters are not deployable and ther is no need for recruiters in a combat zone! Besides the fact that he is infantry on a special assignment as a recruiting station assistant and basically wasting the governments money spent to train him to do his job as infantry.Wesxpresswmb (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone visited the fact that he may be on TAD orders? That is very common in the military, he can just he on TAD orders for a month before going to Iraq. I know a few people in the Marines that did that. What I think is odd; he joined after Sept 11th, which was 7 years ago, correct? How is he still a PFC? That is an extremely low rank for someone one a second enlistment. I think that information must be in accurate. Chexmix53 (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I just re-read the bit about when he joined. it is appropriate for him to be a PFC with only a year in, and it is appropriate for him to be on TAD recruiters orders until he deploys. Chexmix53 (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he reportedly joined on 11 September 2007 - last year - not 11 September 2001. Akiracee (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Something else

Sarah Palin was NOT the first Alaska governor to be sworn in at some place other than Juneau. She was the first governor since statehood, I believe. But before putting that you should check the inaugurations in the 1960s. Alaska has had 2 other capitals in the past, plenty of governors were sworn in in Sitka. I know, I lived there, I didn't just look up something on the internet.65.2.29.233 (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a forum for general discussion of her. Kaisershatner (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Reread this comment, it's a suggested change to the article. Shii (tock) 16:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

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?

[[User talk:Name|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 ^hi! 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 ^pop 16:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

None has ever run for president

"She will be the first politician from Alaska to be nominated for Vice-President; none has ever run for president." What about Mike Gravel? I'm changing this to "none has ever been nominated for President."

Nevermind, someone already beat me to erasing the line.

Eric Rosenfield (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the whole line about first person from Alaska ever to be nominated for VP. It seems trivial, given the number of election cycles since Alaska became a state. --Crunch (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Not only did Gravel run for president in 2008, he ran for vice-president at the 1972 Democratic convention (and lost to McGovern's pick). But to say Palin's the first Alaskan to be nominated on either major party ticket does seem significant; it has been almost 50 years. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed Section Regarding Husband

'Palin's husband, Todd, is a Yup'ik Alaskan native.' -this statement is highly suspect. Todd Palin is Caucasian from the continental US, and not an indigenous Alaskan, so he can not be considered an "Yupik Alaskan Native." Intranetusa (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The cite points to a book by someone named Kaylene Johnson. I haven't read the book, but the Amazon.com reviews are scathing. And the full text is not up, so we don't even know if it says that he is an Indian. If he indeed is an Indian, we will doubtless be reminded of this fact during the next 67 days from other sources. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

He is 1/8 Yup'ik.[1] His mother is 1/4. He's only an "indigenous Alaskan" because he was born there. To quote the Anchorage Daily News, "Palin was born in the western Alaska town of Dillingham to Jim Palin and Blanche Kallstrom, who is a quarter Yu'pik Eskimo." I'm going to fix the article accordingly. -- Atama^chat 16:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

article is being hacked !!! please fix photo !

Wayfarers43 (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC) this article is being hacked and should be blocked for the time being. Please fix the photo.

Agreed: "Before all this, she was a man"? CLearly vandalism. 207.237.198.152 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Seconded

It's just some silly vandalisim. It's expected for now. It will cool of soon. Tenho Karite (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Been cleaned up and semi-protected now. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Please lock this page

Somebody has been vandalizing this page. And, as Biden's page is locked, it would make sense to lock this page. Thank you. 192.77.143.150 (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it would be a sensible move.--JayJasper (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's currently under semi-protection, so that anonymous and newly-registered editors can't make changes. That should help. -- Atama^chat 16:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've unprotected it. Times like these are the most important to have anon editing enabled, as there is a lot to do and many anonymous readers will have valuable content to add. We can reverse vandalism very quickly, and block any persistent vandals.--ragesoss (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"hot" governor???

" is the hot Governor of Alaska, and the 2008 Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States"

looks like vandalism and is probably going to go rampant. why isn't this article under some sort of protection?

also

isn't she the VP presumptive candidate until elected by the R. convention next week? 68.173.2.68 (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Been cleaned up and semi-protected. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

First Major Female VP Candidate

Could we have a link to Geraldine Ferraro where it says "second female Vice Presidential candidate", as it took me a long time to find out the identity of the first by myself.

quote with no context

In the article, "In a CNBC interview about her ongoing ethics investigation, Palin stated that she was unsure about what a Vice President does every day."

She actually stated that, "As for that VP talk all the time, I'll tell ya, I still can't answer that question till someone answers for me - what is it exactly that the VP does everyday?". This was in July, so if she accepted, chances are she has this squared away in her mind.

With no context, I don't know if including this at all even is unbias or useful. Emesee (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. That type of writing is weaselly at best. Removing is right, in lieu of expanding to a paragraph or section on the trajectory of her VP considerations. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Update. I tried to incorporate the material better, by connecting it to the other content concerning her (presumtive) nomination being a surprise, and sending the actual quote to the footnotes. I think it reads much better now. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin's ethnic heritage?

Any sources regarding Governor Palin's ethnic heritage, i.e. is she of German, Norwegian, English, Irish, Swedish, or even Native American descent? Or some mix of European ethnicities? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.170.226.46 (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears from this family tree [2] (which doesn't really track her father) that she is of mostly Colonial American (i.e. English) ancestry, with some German ancestors a few generations back too. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Scandal?

Admittedly, I haven't done any outside research on the matter but the information in the "Commissioner Dismissal Scandal" section doesn't seem to reach the point of being a "scandal." I would describe it as a "controversy". I think scandal implies that *clearly* a wrong was committed. If the investigation turns up something that Palin did that was clearly wrong, then I think it should be called a "Scandal". How do newspapers in the area describe the matter? Lawyer2b (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree, and switched it. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a quote from cnn.com about Sarah Palin

Palin made her name in part for backing tough ethical standards for politicians. During the first legislation session after her election, her administration passed a state ethics law overhaul.

Palin's term has not been without controversy. A legislative investigation is looking into allegations that Palin fired Alaska's public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan, because he refused to fire the governor's former brother-in-law, a state trooper.

Palin acknowledged that a call was made by a member of her staff to a trooper in which the staffer suggested he was speaking for the governor.

Palin has acknowledged that the call could be interpreted as pressure to fire state trooper Mike Wooten, who was locked in a child-custody battle with Palin's sister.

"I am truly disappointed and disturbed to learn that a member of this administration contacted the Department of Public Safety regarding Trooper Wooten," Governor Palin said. "At no time did I authorize any member of my staff to do so."

Palin suspended the staffer who made the call and the investigation is continuing.

Palin has been focused on energy and natural resource policy during her short stint in office, and is well-known for her support of drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, a position opposed by Sen. McCain but supported by many grass-roots Republicans.

Source- CNN 08/29/08 url: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/29/a-look-at-palins-past/#more-15387

And what is your point with regard to this article? (By the way, please sign your posts). --Crunch (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Grammar Edit Unsuccessful

I was attempting to edit the following line to address the grammar:

Palin is strongly pro-life, a supporter of capital punishment,[28] Also has stated she likes hunting mooses for a past time, and promotes rifles as collector's items.

I was unable to find this text in the edit section or edit page. I am confused unless the page is somehow protected now. The area of the edit window where this text should be now says something about promoting creationism in schools. --Tralfaz (Ralraz, yech) (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone had removed it earlier; that's why you didn't see it. It's back now in fixed up form. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin said creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public classrooms

Palin's answer to a question from the moderator in a televised debate: 'Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.'

See http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2006/10/27/intelligent_design_and_the_ala/

This should go into a Political positions of Sarah Palin article, which will no doubt materialize at some point. It's definitely notable to include for a governor, who presumably has influence over state educational guidelines. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The statement in the article on this right now is patently unfair and does not represent her position at all. The article currently says: " While running for Governor of Alaska, Palin supported the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in schools"

I followed the link to the article cited for support of this, and I found her saying this:

"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

In light of that, the sentence the article includes is simply false. She doesn't support teaching them alongside each other. She just doesn't think it's bad for a teacher to discuss both views and the reasons people support both if students happen to bring it up. That's not what people reading the article are going to get. It needs to be removed or changed to reflect her position more accurately. Parableman (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

family

Why are we including non notable references to the family? NonvocalScream (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is her family not notable? Tenho Karite (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course this is relevant. It's all well sourced. Don't think families are relevant? See the page of every major public figure ever. This removal is borderline vandalism. Oren0 (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You really need to read this for a definition of vandalism. Do you know the contribution I make to this project, calling me a vandal. Heavens. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that you are a vandal. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and all that, but show me the page of any public figure in the remote notability range that Palin is now in that goes as far as your edit (no mention of spouse or children). Oren0 (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I mean to say, did they contribute to the notability of the subject? What main contributions have they made? I would posit that the mention is incidental, and privacy interests remain until such contribution can be made. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course they do. Did you watch her acceptance speech and the coverage thereof? I can't tell you how many times I've heard about her husband, or the terms "mother of five"/"hockey mom"/"son going to Iraq". Both the coverage of her son in Iraq and her son with Down's syndrome have been quite significant. Oren0 (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Oren0. A description of her family is appropriate. Family appearance is a key part of American politics and elections. She began her appearance today by introducing each of them in turn, and talked about her absent Army son at some length. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

But *how* did they contribute to her notability? NonvocalScream (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"Contributes to the subject's notability" is not the criterion for inclusion of facts in an article. The criterion is attributability in reliable sources with proper weight. The family meets that bar. Serious question: do you believe that spouses should not be in articles such as Joe Biden and pages of other governors or senators? Oren0 (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I do, if the mention in incidental. This goes to the core of notability. Is it worth mentioning also, the aunts and uncles? NonvocalScream (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

From WP:N: "These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles." When she mentions her five kids and her husband as the first thing she says on the national stage, their mention becomes more than incidental. If she does the same for aunts an uncles, they'll merit mention as well. Oren0 (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Almost the first thing Palin did in the Dayton rally announcing her as Vice Preisdential nominee was to introduce/name all of her children and her husband, so I think it's definitely notable. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Note to American wikipedia editors

When mentioning someone's birthplace and US states, make it clear that the place is in the United States. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Is that really necessary? Is it not safe to assume in an article about a US figure that their birth place is in the US unless indicted otherwise? – ukexpat (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

As a foreigner, you may also be unaware that the US Constitution requires presidential and VP candidates to be born in the United States. Furthermore, the WP pages for Idaho and Alaska are only a click away. Oren0 (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Except for John McCain, who was born in Panama. However, I think it is valid to presume that a candidate for one of those offices was born in the US unless otherwise stated.Alanmjohnson (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Governor Arnold_Schwarzenegger was not born in the US —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.5.54.199 (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

As such, his entry states his birth country. --oZ (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)True, and it says so right on his page. But he's not a presidential candidate. And his constitutional ineligibility for president has been a matter of interest (people are trying to amend the constitution for him). Oren0 (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

And he is not a candidate for president or VP and can never be without Amendment. --RossF18 (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No lets not. Us non-americans are intelligent enough to know where a place is. Europeans actually know that Colorado is in the USA for example whereas US television has to refer to places as 'London, England' and 'Athens, Greece' as they know the average American is not much more intelligent that George W Bush.--217.202.153.5 (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That sort of comment is uncalled for in this venue. This isn't a place to fling insults at a nation worth of people. Tonerman (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

My status as a registered Democract completely aside, this article seems to be a of an NPOV concern to me. Are we really to believe that this poliitician has had no controversies in her career? Are we really to believe that she is as "squeaky clean" as the article in its current form might lead us to believe?

I've tagged the article as an NPOV concern and would like to have a discussion here, in hopes of reaching some form of consensus on the subject. Thanks. --Winger84 (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You haven't made any case for NPOV at all. There are numerous controversies mentioned. Please make your case before re-adding the tag. Kelly ^hi! 16:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kelly here. Suspecting there should be controversies doesn't equal a NPOV dispute. - auburnpilot talk 16:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless you know of something "bad" to write about her that is sourced, I cannot see how the article is not neutral. It is factual, is it not? Just because an article is missing any "controversies" (which it's not... see the commissioner's dismissal section), does not mean that it is point-of-view-ed. Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The article reads like an advertisement taken straight from either her website or the Republican Party's website. Hence, neutrality can - and has - been raised as an issue. The tag can not be removed without a consensus being reached here. --Winger84 (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Which specific part is not neutral? --Ali'i 16:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe there are just a few more positive things than negative, sometime difficult thing to believe from a politician, but still possible. We shouln't try to exactly match the thigs that someone finds positive to the exact number someone else finds negative. Any issue + or - if properly cited could be added. Wikihonduras (talk)

If you find something then add it. Don't use innuendos to justify your political agenda. --user:jojhutton-- —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This is in no way a "political agenda." In fact, I'm pleased that the Senator McCain has chosen her as his VP, because she appears to be a very strong candidate. My concern here is the fact that the article reads very much like an advertisement, rather than an encyclopedia article. --Winger84 (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Winger,

1. I don't perceive a non NPOV article at this point.

2. Of course, any notable controversies that can be sourced according to wikipedia guidelines should absolutely be included.

3. I think you should have more than simply your apparent "belief" that an article about any politician without controversies means that it is not NPOV to charge that an article is, in fact, not NPOV. Lawyer2b (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll compromise. I'll pull the NPOV tag, but I am going to replace it with the ADVERTISEMENT tag because if this article doesn't fail NPOV, it certainly meets ADVERTISEMENT. As I've said, there's no "political agenda" here. I'm very pleased, and very surprised, that Senator McCain selected Governor Palin as his VP choice. In fact, if it were someone other than McCain as the Presidential choice on the Republican ticket this year, this VP candidate might have been enough to make me vote Republican in November, rather than Democrat. --Winger84 (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that the article reads like an advertisement. (As of when I read it anyway, as it is changing constantly). Seemed fairly straight forward and factual to me. I certainly didn't see any "peacock terms." (But like I said it is in constant flux so it may or may not be "advertisement-like" in some versions.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The assertion that this is an advertisement is ridiculous. Before throwing around such claims please familiarize yourself with WP:SPAM, then explain how this article even comes close to what that guideline defines as promotion. -- Atama^chat 16:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is the neutrality tag back on the article? There is no consensus for that. Kelly ^hi! 17:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of this Article

This article, in my opinion is not neutral and objective. This article seems relatively pro-Palin and also some parts of this article are very informally written. Psdubow (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Could someone explain exactly why there is an NPOV tag on the article? (Some specifics would be appreciated). Kelly ^hi! 17:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently cause the media can't seem to find enough dirt to slant it in such a way to support the allegation that she's the devil. :P My god, a relatively clean politician. How refreshing! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

While that last one was a little over the top, struck after seeing emoticon Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC) I agree that but for the disjointedness that such an article in flux has at times like this, that neutrality is not really an issue. Even if it were, a tag may have its own issues as the article changes so rapidly. That said, I concur with not needing the tag, but don't strongly object keeping it until the editing slows down and it becomes easier to assess specific deficiencies. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd give it 24 hours before we worry too much about the NPOV. So little is known about Palin that the media are struggling to get much out about what makes her tick. Her bio is pretty vanilla on the surface based on the fact that... because she's a virtual unknown, few have ever done any digging. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's so laughable, look I'm the biggest liberal nut going so don't accuse me of an agenda. If there is something she's done worth mentioning we will add it. I hate this idea that everyone must have done something controversial in their lives. Some people are just boring and have no controversy, it happens. — Realist² 18:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin in photo with fur

The photo of Palin wearing a fur, why doesn't someone just come out and say that she's in support of hunting and trapping in Alaska. Why the allusion (sarcasm here). Either state it or get rid of it. I can't believe the partiality of Wiki's contributors. We don't show Barack Obama barechested in Hawaii while giving a press conference....75.73.4.221 (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

How do you know it's real fur? Kelly ^hi! 17:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Mmm. Dead fox heads...

(ec) I think it's the best photo we have of her speaking... In Alaska it is not unusual to wear fur, so I don't think there's any great fuss to be had here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

She's also apparently an avid hunter, so I don't think the image is trying to say anything that isn't already said in text. - auburnpilot talk 17:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If God didn't want us to hunt animals, why did he make them so delicious and their fur so wonderfully warm? Kelly ^hi! 17:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

given that the native alaskans have hunting as part of their culture/heritage AND part of their dailies lives for survival/sustenance, we cannot ignore that fact. plus, there is no indication that the article of clothing she is wearing is real fur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.93.18 (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Pro-contraception?

Last night, the article stated Palin is stongly pro-contraception. Now that part's been disappeared. Anyone know the facts?

I don't really know for sure, but I assume she has no problem with contraception since she is a Protestant Christian. Contraception is usually only an issue for Catholic Christians. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd remove reference to either stance unless we have a source clearly stating her position. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Please eliminate the redundancy on her quote about VP

First, it is shown twice.

Second, both quotes are purporting to be quotes, yet are different. Until this is resolved by someone with a tape of the quotation, please remove it.

If we get the real quote, then it is fair to put it in, although I see comments of that nature not really biographical in nature, and unless it becomes a campaign issue, silly for this to have as a highlight for her bio.

This bio needs a careful hand. Her life is relatively short for being a Vice Presidential candidate, so there will be a lot of holes in her bio needing filling. I would love to point people to her wiki page, so lets try to get it as accurate as possible.

Example: I saw that the basketball team won the state championship. This needs to be confirmed, and added if true.

need a real quote?

[3]

Roughly at 2:50

217.95.47.180 (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wedding date

In her speech today, August 29, 2008 -- http://www.breitbart.tv/html/163813.html -- she noted that it's her 20th wedding anniversary, so that would set her wedding date as August 29, 1988.Lawyervon (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this would be a reliable citation. Kelly ^hi! 18:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Down's Syndrome

Down's Syndrome is a disorder not a "disease." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.61.217 (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's a "syndrome"  :-) As such, this should not be hard to fix acceptably to those of all labeling persuasions. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Date links

I don't want it to appear as if I'm edit-warring over dates, but... Date links are deprecated per WP:MOSNUM. The dates don't have any values as wikilinks, they hide inconsistencies from registered users with date preference settings, and provide no benefit to 99% of our readers. Before I delink them (again), I'd like to hear comments. If the consensus is to ignore MOSNUM, I'll live with it. --Elliskev 18:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Additionally The McCain article does not use date links. !--NB—THE DATES IN THIS ARTICLE ARE NON-AUTOFORMATTED -- is included at the top of the edit page. --Elliskev 18:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

People are likely just unaware of the standard change and are acting in good faith. Personally, I'd just let it sit until the editing dies down since it is rather trivial (and if you really want to fix dates, the other 99% of wiki articles are still wrong ;)).--ThaddeusB (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That's reasonable. --Elliskev 18:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Mat Maid controversy topic

It seems that whoever wrote the Mat Maid controversy topic wrote it with a bias against Sarah Palin, as it made no mention of the fact that the reason she fired the Mat Maid board was simply because they refused to see her in any way after announcing they were shutting down the dairy. This was the reason they were fired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.10.61 (talk) 03:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the notability of this topic anyway. Governor fires some bureaucrats, film at eleven!0nullbinary0 (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Should there be more mention of her attractiveness and how that may affect the '08 election? Just a thought Aaya35 (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That's beyond an ignorant and sexist comment. Obama is an attractive man, is there a paragraph about how attractive he is and how that will affect the election on his page?Chexmix53 (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but it is a fact of life that her appearance may play a role. Society is not now, and never will be, free of sexism, and women will always be judged for their looks more than men are. Palin's looks matter more than Obama's...sad fact of life but a fact nonetheless. However, Wikipedia is not a place for speculation or prediction. Such a mention has no place.Alanmjohnson (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Should this article be semi-protected?

There has been some back and forth with protection of this article since the VP announcement. I've just unprotected it, with the same rationale that we use for leaving Today's Featured Article unprotected. More anonymous contributions are constructive than destructive (glance through the history), and vandalism is reverted very, very quickly for articles in the spotlight like this one. Anonymous contributions that are prevented by semi-protection, however, can't be restored so easily. Unless there is a specific systematic attack on this article, as opposed to just a normal proportion of vandalism during a period of intense editing, I think it should remain unprotected.--ragesoss (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Does that logic apply to John McCain, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama—all of which are semi-protected? --Elliskev 19:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily, because those articles have reached states of relative stability. This article is still improving rapidly, and anonymous users are helping with that process.--ragesoss (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Really? Look at the edit history for the last 5–10 minutes. --Elliskev 19:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There are too many bad edits by anonymous users at the moment to keep up with them all. While I appreciate that some anonymous users are helping improve the article, for the time being the article has to be protected. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I looked at every anonymous edit between 19:22 and Jredmond's protection at 19:28. I count 4 instances of vandalism, 7 contructive contributions (3 of which fixed anonymous vandalism), and 3 good faith but unconstructive edits. One of the fixes was very important; an anon changed an expired html link in a footnote (from a "news ticker") to the permanent address of the story. On balance, I think anon contributions are good. And as I said, we can always remove vandalism, but there's no way to recovered edits that were never made because of protection.--ragesoss (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Jredmond just restored semi-protection, arguing that vandalism outweighs positive contribution at the moment. I disagree; looking through the history, I notice that many of the anonymous contributions are in fact good faith edits (often with sources, even) that are simply out of place or repeat what is already mentioned elsewhere. I think semi-protection ought to be removed.--ragesoss (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Lock Up the Errors

Wikipedia has again locked up an article except for changes by Wikipedia owners/elites. Do you see the two errors in the following two sentences:

"On August 29, 2008, Palin was announced as presumptive Republican presidential candidate John McCain's vice-presidential candidate, or running mate.[59] Palin's selection surprised many Republican officials who had speculated about other candidates,[60][61] such as Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, United States Senator Joseph Lieberman, and former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, or did not know Palin personally."

They can't be edited in the normal fashion; they must await some Wikipedia owner/elite to notice how poorly written they are.

This article is not currently locked, and may be edited by anonymous users. In any case, it is changing very rapidly, and is undergoing hundreds of edits in a very short time; short-lived bad sections are inevitable until things settle down a bit.--ragesoss (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

height

How tall is she? There's a long tradition in political science of tracking the Heights of United States Presidents and presidential candidates, so I think it's relevant to the article. --M@rēino 19:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What an article. — Realist² 19:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No controversy sections

No controversy sections. They are not good, disperse the information into the relevant section of article or don't include at all. — Realist² 19:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

==

==

There appears to be some vandalism in this article. The first paragraph refers to Sarah Palin as the "retarded govenor" of Alaska. Can someone please fix this?

minor change (literally)

\ Early Life \ says "Palin holds a bachelor's degree in journalism from the University of Idaho where she also minored in politics." The University of Idaho does not offer an minor in 'politics'. They do offer minors in 'political science'.

IPA

That IPA can't be right. Shouldn't it be /peilɪn/, not /peɪlɪn/? The ɪ would be a southern way of pronouncing that dipthong, but not the general American way, I think. Homunq (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Vogue spread

This needs to be reviewed. The supposed photo shoot for Vogue was a photoshopped image created and posted on the Internet. http://kodiakkonfidential.blogspot.com/2007/12/sarah-in-vogue.html

ITN

After checking out more than 1000 edits, I still can't figure this out so anyone who helped on this article can take it:

On 29 August, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article(s) Sarah Palin, which you created or substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--Spencer^T♦C 19:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Photo

Why are we not using her official Governor's portrait? I think we should.

Rick J. Evans 19:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In general official Governor portraits are not Public Domain.--Appraiser (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoever is deleting/reducing hiring controversy, please stop.

There is no consensus on deleting the hiring controversy. The hiring controversy has the Alaskan media in an uproar. See "Palin has been under heavy criticism since firing former Department of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan." http://www.ktva.com/commissionercontroversy/ci_10192665 If she has been under heavy criticism, that should be reflected. The rest of the article reads a bit like it's written by her staff, and this section will be understandably controversial for a while. But it should not be deleted.Jensiverson (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and she promoted a known sexual harassment aggressor, but mention of that was also scrubbed :: Palin replaced Monegan with Chuck Kopp, who had previously been removed from supervision of an employee he had allegedly sexually harassed. [53] Palin knew of Kopp's alleged sexual harassment before she appointed Kopp. [54]

I agree this needs to be discussed - but maybe not in such detail. RE: Kopp - I understand this has been mentioned in the Alaskan press, but don't slander this man needlessly. He was found innocent of the allegation. Thus the above comment isn't helpful. It would have been standard practice to remove Kopp from supervising the complainant during the investigation. But the investigation found him innocent. What's the controversy? 20:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Slate reports draft Palin movement lead to her pick

Here is an interesting Slate article [4] about the Palin pick. Maybe some of this can be incorporated into the VP selection area. Remember (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Another important neutrality point

This article states that Palin is "pro-life." Pro-life is NOT a neutral term. This is similar to saying she is Anti-choice (some people would say being against the right to choose is anti-life). The correct designation would be that she is "Anti-abortion."

No, that would be POV. Nobody is actually 'pro-abortion'. One is 'pro-life' or 'pro-choice'. If you prefer, we could contrast 'pro government decision' vs. 'pro individual conscience'. Flatterworld (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a standing consensus to use the terms preferred by each side of the abortion issue. It's pro-life and pro-choice. --Elliskev 19:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Abortion and capital punishment

Well-sourced statements on her positions with respect to these social issues were once in the article, but have disappeared. Srnec (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember there being anything more about her stance on abortion in the article since I first looked at it this morning. The article is currently in a constant state of flux and things have been going missing, readded and restructured like mad. I think a valid suggestion at this time is to not panic and wait until the article calms down a bit and see if they come back. If they were well-sourced, I'd imagine there won't be a problem restoring them. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Public Safety Commissioner dismissal

Undue Weight. Too much info. Too much is written on something that has only affected a small period of her life. — Realist² 19:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you kidding? she is CURRENTLY under investigation for ABUSE OF POWER, which is an impeachable offense Scottf43 (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Animal rights seems off

I think the section of Animal Rights Controversies seems a little biased; not neutral at all. it seems like it was done in hurry as well, having too many formatting errors and layout is not too well

most importantly, here are no citations to back up what it is claiming. Without such, it looks more like someone's opinion.

And it also got removed right away, thankfully, considering it wasn't objective in the slightest. - Cair

"what is it exactly that the V.P. does every day?"

This quote is unquestionably relevant. Please stop pushing it into footnotes only. I am 1 away from 3RR so I cannot continue to do so myself. Homunq (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If this quote is to be included (which I have no problem with), the WHOLE quote should be give to show proper context. This was done in some previous versions, but has since been editing out (I don't know why.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is because others edited it out, and I put back what I felt was the most relevant portion. I think that the current compromise is OK - basically, a more-complete quote, but edited down so that it is not given the undue prominence of a blockquote. Homunq (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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 ^Talk 20:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Please keep this article neutral....hawks are trying to descend

Look at all the hatemongers flooding this page to jack this article up full of "controversey"....we all knew this would happen. WIkipedians posing as "NPOV" when in reality they want to spice up the article full of a gigantic "controversey" section...you want this article to have a big "controversey section" don't you? Admit it, you think it "needs" a gigantic section full of macacas. Cmon you wiki libs. I estimate that within 72 hours half this article will be devoted to "controversey"...I can only hope moderators will do the right thing and protect it from the hawks that insert controversey in the name of NPOV

put this in?

I can't add this to the article...

Todd Mitchell Palin is a 42 year old oil field production manager in Alaska and First Gentleman of Alaska. His wife is Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska and Vice Presidential candidate for the November 2008 election representing the Republican Party.

Early life and career

He was born in Dillingham, Alaska to Blanche and Jim Palin. His grandmother, Helena Andree </ref>, is Yup'ik (indigenous peoples of Alaska). In 1988, he married Sarah Pallin who were high school sweethearts.

For 18 years, he was a blue collar employee in the North Slope oil fields of Alaska working for BP and now is a production supervisor.

Advocacy causes of Todd Palin

Natural gas production for the United States

One of the causes that he advocates is construction of a natural gas pipeline which will be able to transport 4.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day. The United States currently imports 1.4 billion cubic feet per day and anticipates a demand to import 8 billion cubic feet per day which exceeds the capacity of U.S. ports.

Oil and gas industry employment for young Alaskans

Encouraging young Alaskans to consider jobs in the oil and gas industry is another issue that Mr. Palin supports. “…For those who don’t have the financial background to go to college, just being a product of that on-the-job-training is really important” Mr. Palin has stated.

Community volunteer

Mr. Palin is a community volunteer working in youth sports, coaching hockey and basketball.

Official duties as First Gentleman

He has hosted a reception for previous first ladies and residents of the Governor’s Mansion in Juneau.

Champion snowmobile racer

In 2008, while defending the Iron Dog Championship, he was injured when he was thrown 70 feet from his machine. This race is a snowmobile race which traces the path of the Iditarod race with an extra journey of several hundred miles to Fairbanks added. He first competed in the race in 1993 and has been the champion four times. His racing co-pilot is Scott Davis. He has previously raced with Dusty Van Meter in the race and were co-champions in 2000 and 2002.

Family life

The Palins have five children. Track is in the U.S. Army and scheduled for overseas deployment. They have three daughters, Bristol, Willow, and Piper. Mr. Palin fishes and is a pilot holding a Airplane Single Engine Land license.