Talk:Sarah Palin: Difference between revisions
Line 520: | Line 520: | ||
:::::::::Unfortunately Hobartimus restricted the pledge to subjects where his bias is "openly declared"; any undeclared bias he apparently considers irrelevant, regardless of how obvious it may be. I hope he will reconsider that philosophy. —[[User:KCinDC|KCinDC]] ([[User talk:KCinDC|talk]]) 03:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC) |
:::::::::Unfortunately Hobartimus restricted the pledge to subjects where his bias is "openly declared"; any undeclared bias he apparently considers irrelevant, regardless of how obvious it may be. I hope he will reconsider that philosophy. —[[User:KCinDC|KCinDC]] ([[User talk:KCinDC|talk]]) 03:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::It's not that it's relevant or irrelevant just that we have an opportunity here to observe someone in action with "an enormous openly declared bias" proudly presented on their user page against the subject of this very article. It seems they are not limited from influencing the article in any way, they are reverting other editors, declare if they think there was consensus, make outrageous arguments against facts that were reported by thousands of journalists around the world. If I ever get into a similar situation it seems I will have to limit myself as others are apparently not limiting these actions here at all. [[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] ([[User talk:Hobartimus|talk]]) 05:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC) |
::::::::::It's not that it's relevant or irrelevant just that we have an opportunity here to observe someone in action with "an enormous openly declared bias" proudly presented on their user page against the subject of this very article. It seems they are not limited from influencing the article in any way, they are reverting other editors, declare if they think there was consensus, make outrageous arguments against facts that were reported by thousands of journalists around the world. If I ever get into a similar situation it seems I will have to limit myself as others are apparently not limiting these actions here at all. [[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] ([[User talk:Hobartimus|talk]]) 05:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC) |
||
Hobartimus, please stop changing the subject. The question is, is there a problem with your edit(s). I would say that in both cases you went against a settled consensus. To do so twice in a row, then engage in personal attacks on the person who points it out on the talk page, is not good Wikipedian behavior. Please stop it or go away. [[User:Homunq|Homunq]] ([[User talk:Homunq|talk]]) 22:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== More "Reception" Interpretation == |
== More "Reception" Interpretation == |
Revision as of 22:56, 5 October 2008
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Sarah Palin. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Sarah Palin at the Reference desk. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sarah Palin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65 |
Q1: This article is over 70kb long. Should it be broken up into sub-articles?
A1: The restriction mentioned in WP:SIZE is 60kB of readable prose, not the byte count you see when you open the page for editing. As of September, 2008, this article had about 4,100 words (approximately 26 KB) of text, well within the guideline. The rest is mainly citations and invisible comments, which do not count towards the limit. Q2: Should the article have a criticisms/controversies section?
A2: A section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article. See also the essay on criticism. Q3: Should the article include (one of various controversies/criticisms) if a reliable source can be provided? This article is a hit piece. Should the article include (various forms of generic praise for Palin) if a reliable source can be provided?
A3: Please try to assume good faith. Like all articles on Wikipedia, this article is a work in progress so it is possible for biases to exist at any point in time. If you see a bias that you wish to address, you are more than welcome to start a new discussion, or join in an existing discussion, but please be ready to provide sources to support your viewpoint and try to keep your comments civil. Starting off your discussion by accusing the editors of this article of having a bias is the quickest way to get your comment ignored.
Although it is certainly possible that the article has taken a wrong turn, please consider the possibility that the issue has already been considered and dealt with. The verifiability policy and reliable source guideline are essential requirements for putting any material into the encyclopedia but there are other policies at work too. Material must also meet a neutral point of view and be a summary of previously published secondary source material rather than original research, analysis or opinion. In addition, Wikipedia's Biography of living persons policy says that "views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics [or] give a disproportionate amount of space to critics". Perhaps there is simply no consensus to include the material...yet. Also, the material might be here, but in a different article. The most likely place to find the missing material would be in an article on the 2008 presidential campaign. Including everything about Palin in a single article would exceed Wikipedia's article size restrictions. A number of sub-articles have been created and some controversies/criticisms/praises have been summarized here or been left out of this article altogether, but are covered in some detail in the sub-articles. Q4: Should the article include (one of several recent controversies/criticisms/praises/rumors/scandals)? Such items should be covered in detail in the main article, not buried in a sub-article.
A4: Wikipedia articles should avoid giving undue weight to something just because it is in the news right now. If you feel that the criticism/controversy/praise is not being given enough weight in this article, you can try to start a discussion on the talk page about giving it more. See also the Wikipedia "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle". Q5: If Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, should I just be bold and fix any biases that I see in the article?
A5: It is true that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and no one needs the permission of other editors of this article to make changes to it. But Wikipedia policy is that, "While the consensus process does not require posting to the discussion page, it can be useful and is encouraged." This article attracts editors that have very strong opinions about Palin (either positive or negative) and these editors have different opinions about what should and should not be in the article, including differences as to appropriate level of detail. As a result of this it may be helpful, as a way to avoid content disputes, to seek consensus before adding contentious material to or removing it from the article. Q6: Why is this page semi-protected (locked against new and anonymous users)?
A6: This page has been subject to a high volume of unconstructive edits, many coming from accounts from newer users who may not be familiar with Wikipedia's policies regarding neutrality, reliable sourcing and biographies of living people. In order to better maintain this page, editing of the main article by new accounts and accounts without a username has been temporarily disabled. These users are still able and encouraged to contribute constructively on this talk page. |
![]() | Sarah Palin was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 25, 2008). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) 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 a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
![]() | This article 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.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
Most Googled Person in history
According to Google Trends Palin has had the highest number of searches for any person in its history (over a one week period). Is this worth mentioning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.93.150 (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Is there an article, posting or press release on this? "most google person in history" seems unlikely, but you never know... --Paul (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Aside from the lack of link, that "(over a one week period)" isn't just a parenthetical detail but undermines the whole claim that she's the most googled in history. Clearly it would be pretty hard for her to be the most googled because of the short time most people have even been aware of her. Presumably she's far behind Britney Spears and many other people in the total number of searches "in history". —KCinDC (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, or paris hilton after her tape dropped... this is totally nonfactual! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.190.233 (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Aside from the lack of link, that "(over a one week period)" isn't just a parenthetical detail but undermines the whole claim that she's the most googled in history. Clearly it would be pretty hard for her to be the most googled because of the short time most people have even been aware of her. Presumably she's far behind Britney Spears and many other people in the total number of searches "in history". —KCinDC (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
abstinence only education?
- "Abstinence only" failed in her own case & in that of her daughter. Really? Did either she or her daughter have "abstinence only" education? Maybe if they had had it, it would have stuck. The debate over the effectiveness of such education will go on, but the fact that it didn't have its touted effect on someone who didn't have it is hardly an argument against it! -- Zsero (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
LOL she told her daughter not to root around, even if her daughter had/did not know condoms exist. Obviously her daughter was not abstinant, and she had been told to do this!--203.192.91.4 (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Of course Palin & her daughter had "abstinence only" education! It's the only kind of "sex education" Pentecostals allow... 96.231.165.216 (talk) 03:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, the issue is not Palin but the child. There is no reason why you should need to know the exact birthdate / birthday. Hobartimus (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Just to respond to BenAveling. No, we are not all in agreement that almost certainly conceived prior to marriage. Did you miss the part about 1/3 of the births being premature. Unless you or others have specific knowledge about when these two were having sex or about the birth details, drop it. --Tom 20:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- One third of births are premature? Your source for this statistic being? You don't mean "pentecostals who practiced 'adstinence-only sex education' report that one third of their first births are premature?" Geo Swan (talk) 10:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Medically, "premature birth" refers to "under 37 weeks" -- 34 weeks is "3 weeks premature" by that standard. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/premature_birth . Collect (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Even the McCain campaign has acknowledged the discrepancy 1. There can be no real doubt. 140.139.35.250 (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Should Palin announce that her first son was conceived prior to marriage, it will then become biographical. At this point, considering it's not certain, it's sole intent here is to embarrass the subject of the article potentially very unfairly. I strongly vote it has no place in the article (beyond the obvious privacy concerns of identifying birthdates). Fcreid (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Are you kidding?? If something is not explicitly announced, it certainly does not mean it is not biographical. That is absurd. 208.255.229.66 (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to think that Track was just prem. But I gotta admit, the 1/3 prem claim probably doesn't apply here. According to Premature_Babies, 1 baby in 8 is >3 weeks prem. Track, as I understand it, arrived 33½ weeks after the wedding. So that would be 6½ weeks. There's a chance of a baby being that prem, but it's small. And it's certainly enough time to miss a period and arrange a quick wedding. But, arguing about whether she walks the walk isn't important. She made a mistake. Ideally, nobody would care what she does in her private life. It's what she would do as VP or as President that matters. She knows that abstinence only education leads to pregnancy, statistics show it - her own experience is just one datapoint. And she still supports it. She believes that abstinence only education has benefits that outweigh the costs. And that's what we should be saying. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Are you kidding?? If something is not explicitly announced, it certainly does not mean it is not biographical. That is absurd. 208.255.229.66 (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- She knows that abstinence only education leads to pregnancy, statistics show it - her own experience is just one datapoint. How is her experience a data point? Did she have abstinence only education? -- Zsero (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
"But, arguing about whether she walks the walk isn't important. She made a mistake" So people knowing somthing doesnt work then keep pretending it does is a good thing? Did not work for her, did not work for her daughter! Think she would have worked it out by now.--203.192.91.4 (talk) 00:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ben, your figure is incorrect for firstborn children who has a much higher incidence of prematurity. Fcreid (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Did you consider that perhaps firstborn children have a higher incidence of prematurity due to marriages which occurred when the bride missed a period? Edison (talk) 05:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Damn statisticians! :) Fcreid (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- She made a mistake? I love holier than thou people. geesh --Tom 23:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Leave it out! If any reader is interested, they will do their own math. Wikipedia is not the only source for information, but it can be the most reliable.--Buster7 (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- @Fcreid: We work with what we have. I'm sure there are actuarial tables around, but here's a simple rule of thumb. If 3 weeks early means 1 in 8, then 2 * 3 weeks is probably going to be something like 1 in 64. It's possible, but it's low. Throw in an elopment as well. At 6 weeks prem, Track would probably have been fine, but he wouldn't have left the hospital quickly. And as pointed out above, at less than 4 weeks prem, it would have been unlikely for them to realise, but at 6+ weeks, quite possible. Sadly, nothing else really adds up. But don't make too much out of it: Does this fact alone suddenly make her a bad person? No. Happens to lots of people, and plenty of them respond in worse ways than getting married and staying married. Does it make her a hypocrite? Not in my opinon. See my response to Tom below. Other people might feel differently, at least if they are trying to make her look bad.
- @Tom: Yes, she made a mistake. And are you accusing me or her of being holier than thou? Either way, yes, she made a mistake, and it led to her getting pregnant and married. Probably two things she wanted to do sometime, but I suspect not quite as quickly as she did. Not that any of us know for sure, but the evidence is that she made a mistake, and I don't see it as hypocritical of anyone to say "don't do what I did". "Don't do what I do" is hypocrticial. Yes, "Don't make the mistake I made" would be better, more honest, braver, etc, but I'm not sure how many of the rest of us would be tough enough to carry that line through what she has to go through.
- @Buster7: I'm not suggesting that we say anything more than what we know. We know they got married, 7 1/2 months ahead of the birth of their first child. And that's all we can say, and that's what we should say. It's not OR. To say anything more than that would be OR, so we don't have to say more than that. But I can't see any reason to say less than that either, and I've been trying, and I can't see any reason to leave the matter out entirely. About the only reason I can see to leave it out is censorship. Nobody forced her to bring her kids on stage; she herself has made them part of the narative, and so - I'm open to suggestions here - but I can't find any decent excuse for us not to tell the whole storys
- Regards, Ben Aveling 11:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, i am saying you are being holier than thou because you keep on insisting she made a mistake without any proof of such. Unless you know on what dates she was having sex, then you are being judgemental. Do you know when she first had sex with Todd? Yes or no question, no blathering. --Tom 13:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC) ps, you wrote but the evidence is that she made a mistake do you have 5 x 8 color glossies of her having sex that are time stamped? What is this "evidence" that allows you to be so judgemental? --Tom 13:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Leave it out! If any reader is interested, they will do their own math. Wikipedia is not the only source for information, but it can be the most reliable.--Buster7 (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Did you consider that perhaps firstborn children have a higher incidence of prematurity due to marriages which occurred when the bride missed a period? Edison (talk) 05:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ben, your figure is incorrect for firstborn children who has a much higher incidence of prematurity. Fcreid (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Posting the dates serves only one purpose, and that is to insinuate (in the absence of any absolute proof) that she was pregnant at marriage, and some of the ones pushing for it have made it clear that that's precisely why they want it. She recently gave birth to a preemie, so it's possible the first one was also a preemie. Likely? Maybe not. But posting the dates is inappropriate. Now, IF she owns up to it, or IF some solid proof emerges, that would be different. But 7 1/2 months is insufficient "proof", it's only inference and doesn't belong. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Tom, it's possible that Track was prem, but it's not plausible. 7 1/2 months. Quickie wedding. And every opportunity in the world to just say that he was prem. As for the holier than thou, no, I'm no holier than any one else on this one. By Palin's mistake, I mean becoming pregnant. I don't know what information she had at age 24, but as a potential VP/P her own views and experience on sex education matter. Sex before marriage is an individual choice for each person and couple to make on their own. In my opinion, it should be an informed choice. Whether it is an informed choice isn't up to me or you, or even the VP/P alone. But they have a lot more input into it than most. This is verifiable, it's important, it's relevant. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, her "mistake" was becoming pregnant? Again, that is your opinion and judgement.--Tom 14:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)ps, again, you keep talking about sex before marriage. Do you have ANY evidence of this? Color glossies with time stamp work the best. --Tom 14:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Tom, it's possible that Track was prem, but it's not plausible. 7 1/2 months. Quickie wedding. And every opportunity in the world to just say that he was prem. As for the holier than thou, no, I'm no holier than any one else on this one. By Palin's mistake, I mean becoming pregnant. I don't know what information she had at age 24, but as a potential VP/P her own views and experience on sex education matter. Sex before marriage is an individual choice for each person and couple to make on their own. In my opinion, it should be an informed choice. Whether it is an informed choice isn't up to me or you, or even the VP/P alone. But they have a lot more input into it than most. This is verifiable, it's important, it's relevant. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Concur, Bugs. Ben, I'm certainly not questioning your motivation, but rather the encyclopedic value of this fact unless it's presented in an awkward and "clinical" fashion. In other words, if you listed every child's birth date (and, possibly, the gestation period for each), that would seem encyclopedic (albeit quite invasive). In contrast, a comment like "they eloped... and Trig was born 8 months later" is clearly an insinuation. Yes, facts are stubborn. In addition to those discussed above, we are also ignoring the fact that Palin was 24-years old when she married (and not 17!) That simple fact, and others we do not know such as whether she was living with her parents, would lead to even stranger conclusions. Again, I see no value for the detail in the article except for salacious and possible incorrect conclusion. Fcreid (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- I concur that insinuations without precise facts should be excluded. However I feel trying to turn this into an abstinance only issue is totally missing the point of that campaign. Abstinance only is presented as the best way to control the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Personally I feel that people should not have sex unless married. However, For the arguments against abstinance only to have any meaning here you would have to demonstrate either that one of these people had had sex with another person creating a potential spread of zexually transmitted diseases, or that the father of an unborn child had abandoned the mother instead of going through with standing as the father. Lastly your attacks on abstinance education ignore the psychological costs of free roaming sex and ignore the fact that condoms and not impermiable. It also ignores the fact that any genital contact will spread the HPV.Johnpacklambert (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding claims about "premature birth": By definition previously cited, it applies to before 37 weeks. Thus the child was ~3 weeks premature. Which is quite common for first time mothers of any age. I trust this obviates the statistical misinformation which might otherwise be attached to the discussion. Collect (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Not at 99% certain. Not even at 100% certain.
- Seems like we had this debate several weeks ago, and you indicate the important point yet again - that you can't necessarily draw conclusions from 7 1/2 months. If it were 4 or 5 months, there would be no question. But this is just ambiguous enough that it's a POV push to use it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Why would you include it at 4 or 5 months, but not at 7 1/2 months? Regards, Ben Aveling 13:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't, necessarily. All I'm saying is that 4 or 5 months would be sufficient to demonstrate that the child was conceived out of wedlock. 7 1/2 months isn't, but the POV-pushers want to suggest to the reader that it is. But it isn't. 4 or 5 months would be. That doesn't mean it belongs in the article. But at least it would be solid proof. 7 1/2 months isn't. Did I say that already? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- And maybe I'm not being clear enough on the larger point. Posting the dates amounts to analysis or drawing (or trying to get the reader to draw) conclusions. That is a violation of the wikipedia philosophy. Now, if you can find a reliable source (and the Enquirer emphatically does not count) that discusses this issue, then you might have something, or at least something worth talking about here. But it is not wikipedia's place to draw that inference unilaterally. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- One of the editors said the dates were available in connection with the Hannity & Colmes TV show. So the question is, did they debate the matter? What conclusions did they reach, if any? Because now you're looking at verifiable citations, instead of wikipedians trying to decide what significance 7 1/2 months has, if any. What did they have to say about it? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Dunno. I don't watch the news. It clouds my judgment. :) Fcreid (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- I hear ya. But don't confuse H&C with "the news". :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Dunno. I don't watch the news. It clouds my judgment. :) Fcreid (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- One of the editors said the dates were available in connection with the Hannity & Colmes TV show. So the question is, did they debate the matter? What conclusions did they reach, if any? Because now you're looking at verifiable citations, instead of wikipedians trying to decide what significance 7 1/2 months has, if any. What did they have to say about it? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- And maybe I'm not being clear enough on the larger point. Posting the dates amounts to analysis or drawing (or trying to get the reader to draw) conclusions. That is a violation of the wikipedia philosophy. Now, if you can find a reliable source (and the Enquirer emphatically does not count) that discusses this issue, then you might have something, or at least something worth talking about here. But it is not wikipedia's place to draw that inference unilaterally. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't, necessarily. All I'm saying is that 4 or 5 months would be sufficient to demonstrate that the child was conceived out of wedlock. 7 1/2 months isn't, but the POV-pushers want to suggest to the reader that it is. But it isn't. 4 or 5 months would be. That doesn't mean it belongs in the article. But at least it would be solid proof. 7 1/2 months isn't. Did I say that already? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Why would you include it at 4 or 5 months, but not at 7 1/2 months? Regards, Ben Aveling 13:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Bugs, you were saying that you don't want it included if it was 99% likely, now you don't even want it included if it were 100% certain. Mind if I ask why not? Which specific WP policy are concerned about? Regards, Ben Aveling 20:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ben, I think it's simply a matter of decorum, particularly given that there is a fair possibility that it's an erroneous assumption on anyone's part. I just don't see how it could be included here in an encyclopedic manner without insinuation. More importantly, and as this relates to the talk topic you chose about abstinence, is it really your contention that Palin didn't understand where babies come from at 24? Fcreid (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, I just read the article, and it indicates she supports pro-abstinence sex education but also the discussion of contraception (in deference to the blinding reality that kids screw around!) I may be showing my age, but what's missing from that curriculum, e.g. are there alternatives missing from that program that you feel should be included? Furthermore, I an much more incredulous that a woman of her obvious attraction "abstained" for 24 years, or I truly want to shake Todd's hand for being the most patient man I'll ever meet! Whatever the case, it's none of our business. Fcreid (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, Palin has apparently voiced support for sex ed which includes discussion of contraception (interestingly, this puts her at odds with both John McCain and the official Republican Party platform, which support abstinence-only education). If you want a policy basis for leaving out the date of birth, WP:BLP suggests that we use only the year (if that) for non-public individuals, which would include all of Palin's children. If you want a common-sense basis... come on, people. There's a multilayered economic disaster unfolding, a few wars, a resurgent Russia, climate change, dependence on foreign oil, a critical number of people without health insurance. It's 2008. Who cares whether her first child was born less than exactly 9 months after her wedding day? Can't we all go back to fighting about the Bridge to Nowhere, at least? MastCell Talk 18:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well stated! That was much easier just to ignore! :) Fcreid (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, Palin has apparently voiced support for sex ed which includes discussion of contraception (interestingly, this puts her at odds with both John McCain and the official Republican Party platform, which support abstinence-only education). If you want a policy basis for leaving out the date of birth, WP:BLP suggests that we use only the year (if that) for non-public individuals, which would include all of Palin's children. If you want a common-sense basis... come on, people. There's a multilayered economic disaster unfolding, a few wars, a resurgent Russia, climate change, dependence on foreign oil, a critical number of people without health insurance. It's 2008. Who cares whether her first child was born less than exactly 9 months after her wedding day? Can't we all go back to fighting about the Bridge to Nowhere, at least? MastCell Talk 18:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, I just read the article, and it indicates she supports pro-abstinence sex education but also the discussion of contraception (in deference to the blinding reality that kids screw around!) I may be showing my age, but what's missing from that curriculum, e.g. are there alternatives missing from that program that you feel should be included? Furthermore, I an much more incredulous that a woman of her obvious attraction "abstained" for 24 years, or I truly want to shake Todd's hand for being the most patient man I'll ever meet! Whatever the case, it's none of our business. Fcreid (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
We're not creating the speculation. It already exists. We're just choosing whether or not we self-censor information that is relevant to it. I'm not aware any policy citing decorum as a reason not to include information. As per BLP this alegation is "notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources". Regards, Ben Aveling 07:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- This isn't 1910, Ben. If their oldest child was conceived prior to Nuptuals, he is no different than millions of 21st Century Americans. Plus, let's have some regard for his , how should I say it, "legitimacy". IMHO--His parents sexual activities (and when they took place)(and what resulted from them) are private.--Buster7 (talk) 08:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia doesn't censor itself because a public figure might be embarrassed. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- However:
Have you no shame?--Paul (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
- Have I read that bit? I wrote it: [1]. You're right that we need to be balanced. Would this fact, and it is a fact, be appropriate for an article about a random person? No, of course not. Not even for a random politician. But this isn't a random politician, this is a vice-presidential candidate who is running on a values platform. That makes her own adherence to those values relevant. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Point me to that platform again, Ben? Oh, and by your tone, you did find evidence she engaged in premarital intercourse? Do you have anything to present for peer review? 23:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcreid (talk • contribs)
- Political positions of Sarah Palin more or less covers her platform. To summarise: She has said she is pro-contraception and that she opposes sex education. She wants abstinence taught instead of contraception. She also wants contraception taught. She has knocked back bills that restrict abortions while claiming that she supported the bills. She has said that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. She has described Abortion as an option. If some of these positions seems contradictory, they are statements she has made over a period of time and sometimes under pressure. She may have misspoken and people's positions do change over time, but until she clarifies herself, this is what we have. In short, she's consistently in favour of abstinence and if she has a consistent position on sex education, I can't work out what it is, but whatever it is, she's 100% behind it. To touch on your second point, it is not certain that she engaged in pre-marital sex, but it is the only plausible explanation, and she's never denied it. If you like, it is certain that it is highly probable that she did, and it is certain that it is highly unlikely that she didn't. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Point me to that platform again, Ben? Oh, and by your tone, you did find evidence she engaged in premarital intercourse? Do you have anything to present for peer review? 23:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcreid (talk • contribs)
- Have I read that bit? I wrote it: [1]. You're right that we need to be balanced. Would this fact, and it is a fact, be appropriate for an article about a random person? No, of course not. Not even for a random politician. But this isn't a random politician, this is a vice-presidential candidate who is running on a values platform. That makes her own adherence to those values relevant. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- However:
- Wikipedia doesn't censor itself because a public figure might be embarrassed. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
(Over here) It boils down to a simple proposal, Ben: You're asking us to embarrass Palin, her husband and her son in the article to make a completely inconsequential and tangential point on your narrow interpretation of her moral platform (in which others, myself included, do not join you in your interpretation). Worse yet, there is a distinct possibility you're wrong (and statistically you've overstated the odds supporting your supposition). Finally, as it relates to the *specific* moral position relevant to premarital sex--Sex Education--we both acknowledge her approach of promoting abstinence, while also discussing contraception, is utterly sound and sensible. You're certainly welcome to bring the point up for consensus, but I can't lend my support to something this picayune yet so much lacking decorum on our community's behalf. Fcreid (talk) 10:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- If Palin is embarrassed by the fact, she can issue a clarification or a denial. But we're not going to say either that he was conceived prematurely, or that he was born prematurely. That discussion is happening elsewhere, and if ever we get an answer, we'll run with it. In the meantime, there is one fact that is well verifiable that we are leaving out, as you say, because you don't want to risk embarrassing her - not that it's clear she would be embarrassed. Fcreid, this is an encyclopaedia. Not embarrassing people is something we take into account, but it is not our overriding principle. Don't take this the wrong way, but you'd benefit from working on a few other pages as well as this one. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
1. We have no clear evidence that the Palins did have sex before they were married. 2. Even if they did, standard good-old-fashioned small-town American Family Values ™ are that marriage before a baby is born retroactively legitimates all the sex that preceded it, and nothing more is said about it. That's the way it's been for at least 150 years, and probably centuries longer. Note, for instance, the six months between Obama's parents' marriage and his birth; had they remained together this discrepancy would have been regarded as unremarkable. 3. Conclusion: there's nothing at all to see here. -- Zsero (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- There is clear evidence that it is far and away the most likely scenario. Better than 99% likely. Closer to 100%. And if it's no big deal, lets just mention it and move on. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Better yet. Let's not mention surmise and conjecture. Move on. Collect (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Wasn't planing to. I just want to include a known fact. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Ben..prior you mentioned about embarrassing a public figure, My point was that inclusion would embarrass the young man not his parents.--Buster7 (talk) 01:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it could be embarrassing, whatever Zsero says above. And we do give some more latitude for semi-public figures and for private individuals. But not to the extent that we'd leave out something like this. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- How bout let's just say: A lot of us disagree with you. You seem (at least to me) to be the only one supporting your opinion; thus, you're outnumbered. The majority wins. Get over it. 75.180.224.161 (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- The majority can be wrong. No offense, but more than a few people here haven't been anywhere else in Wikipedia. It's not their fault if they don't understand how Wikipedia works. It's not just about the numbers, it's about the facts. And the facts make it quite clear that on this occasion, she didn't live up to what she now preaches for others. Regards, Ben Aveling 19:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes Wikipedia is not a democracy. In this case it means that if you try to inject your personal opinion "she didn't live up to what she now preaches for others" or try to edit a BLP based off of that, you may be stopped even if you had more people agreeing with you. Even the majority can't trump some "hard rules" such as BLP and keeping personal opinion out. Exactly right. Hobartimus (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hobartimus, you keep bringing up BLP, and each time someone has to explain to you that our BLP policy in no way prohibits adding verifiable notable views from reliable sources into this article. The only issues in this particular discussion are NOR and V. And yes, thse are very serious issues. But please, let's stayon track and be clear about what the policy issues are. Here they are V and NOR, we do not even have to get into BLP. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes Wikipedia is not a democracy. In this case it means that if you try to inject your personal opinion "she didn't live up to what she now preaches for others" or try to edit a BLP based off of that, you may be stopped even if you had more people agreeing with you. Even the majority can't trump some "hard rules" such as BLP and keeping personal opinion out. Exactly right. Hobartimus (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- The majority can be wrong. No offense, but more than a few people here haven't been anywhere else in Wikipedia. It's not their fault if they don't understand how Wikipedia works. It's not just about the numbers, it's about the facts. And the facts make it quite clear that on this occasion, she didn't live up to what she now preaches for others. Regards, Ben Aveling 19:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
discuss here if you insist a June 2008 article is present tense for a position
Someone keeps insisting Palin "continues" to support the Knik bridge even thought the feasibility reports etc. are in. The article cited is from June, when she ordered the study. Later articles still refer to her position as of June. There is no reason to insinst on the present tense when no cite is used to support the present tense in the article. This has, in fact, been rehashed here in the past. If you want to revert it again, then at least post here first. Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Collect, unless you have evidence that suggests she stopped supporting the bridge at some point after June, then the default is that she continues to support the bridge. That is how it works with all politicians political opinions. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Bobblehead, I agree with your statement of the general principle. We should not, however, give the reader a misleading picture of the chronology. The language with "until" was wrong because it implied that she'd changed her position based on the study, and we have no source for that assertion. On the other hand, we shouldn't say something like the phrasing at the beginning of Collect's comment, because we shouldn't imply that she has expressed support for the bridge after commissioning the study (or after seeing its results) . Your latest version is "As of June 2008, Palin continued to support the Knik Arm Bridge idea but she has ordered a funding and feasibility review." That seems correct to me in terms of the chronology -- no false implications -- but I think "idea" is a little vague and I'll change it to "proposal". JamesMLane t c 07:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for noting my osition that an article which is dated in the past, and which states that something was ordered which would affect the "present tense" at the start of the article has been undertaken, should have the initial statement placed in the past tense. My mom taught Latin, and using the correct tense is important. I sought to make the precise correct phrasing, as I understand it to be. Thanks. Collect (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Changed "as of" to "in" as "as of" has a specific meaning of "starting at" and "in" is precisely correct. "Until" is still more accurate than "as of" due to the idiomatic meaning. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for noting my osition that an article which is dated in the past, and which states that something was ordered which would affect the "present tense" at the start of the article has been undertaken, should have the initial statement placed in the past tense. My mom taught Latin, and using the correct tense is important. I sought to make the precise correct phrasing, as I understand it to be. Thanks. Collect (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- The AP article cited in the article (http://community.adn.com/node/131399) notes her continued support. It's dated September 16, 2008. GreekParadise (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Read the dates in the article before upsetting an agreed-upon compromise. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- The AP article cited in the article (http://community.adn.com/node/131399) notes her continued support. It's dated September 16, 2008. GreekParadise (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Collect has reverted the time from September to June on the grounds, as he wrote in the history that "neither cite remotely supports September -- the date was June". Here's what the article, dated September 16, 2008, says (emphasis added by me):
- "A $600 million bridge and highway project to link Alaska's largest city to Palin's town of 7,000 residents is moving full speed ahead"
- "A Democratic council member in Anchorage will try Tuesday to spike the city's sponsorship of the project, which Palin supports with some reservations."
- "Palin still supports the second bridge, officially named Don Young's Way in honor of the congressman"
- "She called for a review of the bridge's financing plans and raised concerns about its financial risks for the state. Still, the planning process is marching forward."
- "The bridge is popular with property developers - including a group comprised of Young's son-in-law, the former legislative director for indicted Republican Sen. Ted Stevens and three others - who own land across from Anchorage on the inlet's western side."
Collect contends that even though the September article says twice "Palin supports the bridge" and describes the process as "marching forward" "full speed ahead" that actually the article doesn't "remotely" suggest that as of September (two weeks ago), she supports the bridge. I contend that the aricle, which says "Palin supports the bridge" actually means "Palin supports the bridge" and request permission to revert back.GreekParadise (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
(On a separate issue, "less frequently" is better than "rarely" for use of both bridges as "bridge to nowhere", because the mention of both bridges has 50,000 hits on Google. While this is less frequent than the 400,000 hits the Gravina Bridge has, I don't know that 50,000 is rare. It is just "less frequent.")GreekParadise (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- "Bridges to nowhere" has 233 News mentions today. "Bridge to nowhere" has over ten thousand. I consider a ration of over forty to one to justify "rarely." Your search includes tons of non-news relatred blogs etc. Collect (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The NYT article says she supports, and does it more than once. Now you're trying to censor that... GrszX 15:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Of the two cites given (currently 101 and 114) NEITHER is reasonably citable as stating a current position. And one of them still claims the purpose of the Knik brdge was to serve Wasilla! Clims by opponents as to one's opinions are not valid -- find any statement by Palin after June that she specifically supports the Knik Arm Bridge as proposed, and then change the tense. Absent that, stick with the agreement reached here. Thanks! Collect (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why I have to find a statement by Palin, three months after her statement in June 2008, to note that she continues to support the bridge when a September article states her continued support twice and shows the process moving forward. Would it be wrong to say Bush supports social security private accounts, even though he hasn't give a speech on it for more than three months? If she didn't support the bridge, would it continue to be moving full speed ahead? If she didn't support the bridge, wouldn't someone issue a correction to a widely reported Associated Press which stated her support twice? If she didn't support the bridge, why would some council member have to move to "spike" the project?
- In sum, we can reasonably assume that when a politician says she/he supports something and moves "full speed ahead" with it, that that support continues unless and until that politician says she/he no longer supports it, right?GreekParadise (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Precisely and 180 degrees from what is right. Palin asked for a review. That means that she wanted further information. That is what "review" means. Collect (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I fully agree that the June review should be in the section and am not seeking to remove it. Maybe I'm missing your point here. We have a verified source, Associate Press, that says she supports it. Do you have some contrary source that says she does not?GreekParadise (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Journalists don't always include a verbatim quotation when reporting a politician's position on an issue. If we accept the publication as a reliable source, then that means that we trust the reporter and the publication to be giving us an accurate statement as to a matter of fact. We can report it as a fact unless there's some evidence to create a good-faith doubt on the point. Here, it's not just an AP story, it's an AP story datelined in Anchorage, so the reporter was on the scene; it was published in the Anchorage Daily News [2], the newspaper most likely to have some editor who'd say, "Wait, Palin changed her position on that in a speech last month"; and it was picked up by Fox News [3], which is totally in the tank for the Republican Party and would have had every incentive to ferret out any inaccuracy in this report. Under these circumstances, there's absolutely no basis for dismissing this information just because the reporter didn't choose to include a verbatim quotation. Furthermore, Collect, there is no basis for your insistence on sticking to an alleged prior agreement. When I agreed with using the past tense, I had not read this AP story. It's a reliable source, it says "supports", so our article should say "supports".
- After "supports", though, the source says "with some reservations". That qualifier apparently refers to this passage: "She called for a review of the bridge's financing plans and raised concerns about its financial risks for the state." That should be reflected in our article so as not to oversimplify her position. I suggest the following wording:
In June 2008, she ordered a funding and feasibility review concerning the Knik Arm Bridge, because of concerns about its financial impact, but as of September 2008 she continues to support it.
- We could just say "with some reservations" but I think the fuller exposition of her view is worth including. JamesMLane t c 17:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Collect, the burden of proof is upon you to provide us with reliable sources that says Palin no longer approves of the bridge. Just because she has requested that a review be run on the project does not mean she no longer approves of the project, particularly when the sources that say she is ordering the review also say that she still supports the project. Considering how the bridge is behind schedule, over budget, and the top two people heading the project of resigned, I'd be seriously worried if she hadn't ordered a review of the project. That being said, I approve JamesMLane's wording. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Nope. Unless, of course, you want me to take Dunninger pills, there is no way to say that a claim must be shown to be false. Rather WP requires the positive of a claim to be shown. And the date of the claim was, and remains, June 2008. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Did you not see the September 16, AP article that has "Palin supports $600 million 'other' bridge project" as the summary and "which Palin supports with some reservations" and "Palin still supports the second bridge, officially named Don Young's Way in honor of the congressman." in the body. Hate to break it to you, but unless you have a reliable source, that counters the AP article, sounds like it is a current position to me.. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I also support JamesMLanes' sentence. As he states, the sources are right on the scene and, I'm sure, they are well aware of the National interest the bridge(s) have created. If Gov. Palin had changed her stance, even the slightest, they would be on it like flies on _____!--Buster7 (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Did you not see the September 16, AP article that has "Palin supports $600 million 'other' bridge project" as the summary and "which Palin supports with some reservations" and "Palin still supports the second bridge, officially named Don Young's Way in honor of the congressman." in the body. Hate to break it to you, but unless you have a reliable source, that counters the AP article, sounds like it is a current position to me.. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Nope. Unless, of course, you want me to take Dunninger pills, there is no way to say that a claim must be shown to be false. Rather WP requires the positive of a claim to be shown. And the date of the claim was, and remains, June 2008. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Collect, the burden of proof is upon you to provide us with reliable sources that says Palin no longer approves of the bridge. Just because she has requested that a review be run on the project does not mean she no longer approves of the project, particularly when the sources that say she is ordering the review also say that she still supports the project. Considering how the bridge is behind schedule, over budget, and the top two people heading the project of resigned, I'd be seriously worried if she hadn't ordered a review of the project. That being said, I approve JamesMLane's wording. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I will put JamesMLane's sentence in the article with one (hopefully non-controversial) addition, the quote from the article that the project is "moving full speed ahead."GreekParadise (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with your repeated denial of an agreed upon version. Your unilateral changes are contrary to all accepted WP practices. You have repeatedly reverted a consensus version to your own version. Your past reversion violations seem to be ignored. Will someone kindly change the wording back to what everyone else accepted as a compromise? Thanks! Collect (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Collect, on this segment, I count Bobblehead, JamesMLane, Grsz, Buster7, and GreekParadise (five of us) as in agreement. And you alone -- with no allies -- in disagreement. I realize we shouldn't do wikivoting, but I fervently submit that "support" really does mean "support" and thus far, you have found no sources or allies who believe to the contrary. Right now, you are the only person outside the consensus. But show me a single article from a neutral source saying she has abandoned her support and I promise I will change my mind. Indeed, find me such an article and I will revert it myself.GreekParadise (talk) 00:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oh? James: "we shouldn't imply that she has expressed support for the bridge after commissioning the study (or after seeing its results)" Bobble: "Collect, the burden of proof is upon you to provide us with reliable sources that says Palin no longer approves of the bridge" which is an absurd position. It is the requirement to show something is true that is the burden, not a requirement to prove a negative. GP, your September cite names Democratic opponents as saying she still supports the bridge. I don't care if you have a thousand allies --- saying something that ain't so does not belong in WP. In short -- all you are doing is fomenting still more unproven political claims into a page which I have done my damndest to make NPOV and actually a legitimate article. Care to explain that to the world when you also explain why you stove mightily to have the AIP in the article, strove to claim Palin was a Buchanan supporter, that Palin "flew annually to Washington to get earmrks", that Palin supports secession, that she has extreme religious beliefs and so on ad nauseam? At some point, I trust you have realized all those were wrong to push for. Collect (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Collect, your quotation from my comments is disingenuous. I subsequently wrote, "When I agreed with using the past tense, I had not read this AP story." What's proper for the article depends on what the reliable sources say, and if there's new information, or old information that was previously overlooked, that will often affect the article.
- Your understanding of "burden of proof" is also incorrect and you are applying it quite selectively. This article recounts many political positions of Sarah Palin, not all of which were reiterated by her yesterday in a speech that was quoted verbatim by a reliable source. That doesn't mean we remove the statements until someone can find such a quotation. If you're going to make such a deal about burden of proof, you should read our Burden of proof article, and in particular this passage:
An "evidentiary burden" or "burden of leading evidence" is an obligation that shifts between parties over the course of the hearing or trial. A party may submit evidence that the court will consider prima facie proof of some state of affairs. This creates an evidentiary burden upon the opposing party to present evidence to refute the presumption.
- In this instance, evidence that Palin took a particular position as of June 2008 fulfills the burden of including that position in the article. The burden shifts to anyone who wants to contend that her prior statement is "inoperative" because of a subsequent change of position. Such a change of position is always possible, but we don't assume it. It must be established.
- My point about the tense was that we should not falsely imply that she had specifically reaffirmed her position after seeing a particular report. On the state of the evidence I then relied on, it was improper to say "She supports the bridge and continued to do so after receiving a report about financing" but it was proper to say "She has supported the bridge but in June she ordered a study". (I'm paraphrasing for conciseness.) Now, the fairly recent AP story justifies "she supports it" -- unless, of course, you and anyone else who wants to remove it can meet your burden of proof.
- Finally, I must say that you seem to have a tendency to discover consensus in favor of your personal position where others do not see such consensus. I respectfully request that you be a bit more cautious in asserting the existence of consensus. You should also bear in mind that, on Wikipedia, no consensus is carved in stone, and the resolution of an issue may change even if at one point there really was consensus. JamesMLane t c 06:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Source does not say Democratic opponents say she supports. It says she supports. Collect, please stop saying the source says what it does not. Please give direct quotations from now on, as I have. People won't be fooled. All they have to do is read the source to know if quotations are accurate.GreekParadise (talk) 05:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Yankee Division Highway
An "official name" for the Connecticut Turnpike is "Yankee Division Highway." It has the same relevance as insisting on adding "Don Young's Way" to every mention of the Knik bridge. Collect (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC) NY Thruway: "Thomas E. Dewey." Triborough Bridge "Robert F. Kennedy." What would you suppose the average New Yorker would tell you if you asked directions to the "Robert F. Kennedy Bridge"? Finger counts do not apply! Collect (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't insist on adding Don Young's Way to every mention of the bridge, but I do insist on at least a single mention. Don Young's Way matters because it is a symbol of pork barrel spending and because Young's family has property interests in the bridge. While we include benefits of both bridges in the article, we also should say why both are considered pork barrel.
- I should also note that I had heard of "Don Young's Way" years ago and only recently heard of Knik Arm. While my own experience is certainly no grounds for a wikipedia entry, Google gives "Don Young's Way" about 4,000 hits and "Knik Arm Bridge" about 16,000. For NEWS entries, "Knik Arm Bridge" has 33 cites and "Don Young's Way" has 76 cites, or more than twice as much.
- I suspect that's because Don Young's Way is a symbol of the pork barrel spending, and his name on the bridge is one of the things that made the bridge famous. The other roads mentioned by Collect have not been widely criticized as pork barrel, so perhaps that's why we don't know their name, but I do know there are a huge number of roads named for Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, even though I have no idea what their "local names" are. And, in fact, the wikipedia entry on Robert Byrd mentions the "Robert C. Byrd Biotechnology Science Center" without mentioning the science center's original or local name at all.GreekParadise (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Alas -- phobes tous etc. Bridges generally do not get referred to as their "official name" by anyone who is not into bronze plaques. I can furnish you several HUNDRED more cites that calling it "Don Young's Way" is not typical of anyone other than those involved in politics. As such, it does not belong in a BLP. Unless, of course, her name were Don Young. Is it? Collect (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with BLP. It simply explains why a bridge has been considered pork barrel. That's why we included the Gravina population of 50, along with the benefits of that bridge. On each bridge, we should give both pork barrel negatives and development positives.GreekParadise (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm from Alaska. I've been hearing about the Knik Arm Bridge all of my life. Never once, until reading these talk pages, have I heard anyone call it Don Young's Way. Anyone who lives here knows that the largest city in Alaska has only two roads leading in and out, and the huge amount of traffic pouring down these freeways everyday on snowy, icy roads is a major source of accidents. Attaching a senator's name to a project for the sole purposes of labling it Pork-Barrel seems a bit one sided. I say use the name that everybody will call it if it ever gets made. Don Young's Way, sounds like it's Don Young's Philosophy or something like that.Zaereth (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- The proper discussion of "Don Young's Way" under Don Young is fine. Under Palin, the title should be "Knik Arm" as that is its descriptive name. Personally, I think the Gravina population is "excess trivia" somewhat akin to listing maternal grandmothers. I would not delete it on other than trivia grounds. In the case of using a name which is not one in genuine use ("Dewey Thruway"?), I would regard the local name as attested above by a "local" to be far superior in any article. Good luck on the cabbie taking you to the Robert F. Kennedy Bridge, by the way! Collect (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I strongly suspect that in Alaska, where the bridge is known by its location, the bridge is primarily known as "Knik Arm Bridge" while in the Lower 48, where the bridge is primarily known as a symbol of pork barrel spending, the bridge is primarily known as "Don Young's Way." I think we should include both names in the article, and I'm willing to limit "Don Young's Way" to a single mention.GreekParadise (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Finally, I think we should look both at full Google and Google News for cites, but in section on the "bridge" v. "bridges", Collect felt that Google News was far more justified than Google proper. Given that Google News mentions "Don Young's Way" more than twice as often as "Knik Arm Bridge", Collect's preference for the News would suggest that Don Young's Way should be the primary title with Knik Arm Bridge secondary. But I'm not arguing for that. I'm merely arguing that Don Young's Way should be mentioned in the article. And by Collect's own criteria -- how well it's known based on Google News -- Don Young's Way is more well known than "Knik Arm Bridge."
- So Collect, which Google source do you trust? I say trust both and use both. But I don't think you can't argue to use "news" for one and "general" for the other. Or I could make the exact same arguments in reverse.GreekParadise (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think what we need to ask ourselves is this: If the election were over, would the name Don Young's Way being in this article matter to you? Ten years from now, let's say the bridge gets built, would we still be calling it that, or would we by then change the article to reflect common usage. I think any decision should be made with these thoughts in mind. I would like to hear from some other editors on this matter Zaereth (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- GP, you are confusing epithets ("Bridge to nowhere") with the names used by local people with regard to a bridge. I demonstrated that of the two epithets you used with regard to the projects, that "bridges to nowhere" is much more rarely used than "bridge to nowhere." I did not remove the plural, just noted that "less frequently" is used to mean "less, but reasonably often." On the other hand when one usage is only 2% as often, I consider that usage "rare." Note than I did not remove your rare usage. On the other hand, the local usage of DYW is probably well under 2% of the rational usage. Just as your cabbie probably gave you a salute for asking for the "Robert F. Kennedy Bridge"! Collect (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I'd rather leave "Don Young's Bridge" out of this. That name is much less common for the Knik Arm Bridge, and can be mentioned in the subarticle. I mean, do we also want to mention in this article that Alaska is known as "Seward's Folly" or "Seward's Ice Box" or "Last Frontier" or "Land of the Midnight Sun" or "Icebergia" or "Polaria" or "Walrussia"?
This bridge material is going to be confusing enough already without introducing another synonym. We're already using two names for the Gravina bridge, and we say that the Knik Arm Bridge is rarely known as a bridge to nowhere, so Don Young would be the third name for this bridge, and the fifth bridge name overall in this section. Enough already. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
"CITIZEN"..."Step away from the Bridge!!!"....--Buster7 (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- It's precisely because there are multiple terms floating around that we should clarify the situation for the reader. Some readers will come to this article having heard of Don Young's Way as a controversial bridge. If that term is omitted from the article, they'll say, "OK, now I've read about the Gravina Island Bridge and the Knik Arm Bridge, but what's Palin's stance and record on Don Young's Way?" Tossing in one parenthetical reference, and thereafter using only the "Knik Arm" name, is completely appropriate. (In a Yahoo! search for "Don Young's Way" without "Knik", there were 19,600 hits, from the 2005 debate on the bill [4] and from this year [5]. Let's throw a lifeline to the people who read those articles, or who saw the two terms explained somewhere but who aren't so completely immersed in Palin-tology as we sad cases are, and so have forgotten the linkage.)
- The analogies don't hold water (or bear traffic). No one will come to this article who's heard of "Seward's Folly" but hasn't heard of "Alaska". As for the bridge here in NYC, the bill to rename it for Robert F. Kennedy was passed less than four months ago [6], and our article on the Triborough Bridge says the Governor didn't even sign the bill until less than two months ago. Furthermore, renaming a bridge for someone who died forty years ago raises different issues from using the name of a living person who's still a powerful legislator. The latter scenario will generate more criticism and is therefore more noteworthy. JamesMLane t c 17:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
First, we should use whichever - or however many - names people who read Wikipedia (which means, mostly people who are not from Alaska) will have heard, simply for the sake of clarity (although once given, we do not have to keep repeating every name). Second, if there is any controversy over the name that is related to Palin's political career, we should summarize it, as concisely as possible, while providing all notable views from verifiable sources. This can't be too hard to do. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- There are 40,000 Google hits for "Bridge" and “Knik Arm." In contrast, there are only 1500 Google hits for "Bridge" and “Don Young’s Way” without “Knik Arm”. That's less than 4% so I don't think we should use the suggested third name for this particular bridge in this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see the relevance of this ratio. If we were somehow constrained to use only one name, then, yes, we'd look at the ratio and decide to use "Knik Arm". For the current purpose, though, the issue isn't how much more often that name is used. The issue is whether the "Don Young's Way" name is used often enough that a significant number of readers will be familiar with it. What's the problem with inserting one little parenthetical to explain the nomenclature the first time it occurs? I agree with not using both names throughout. JamesMLane t c 18:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- "One little parenthetical" is not the issue if you have been following the revision history of this section for the past three weeks. This has been an ongoing issue, with excessive reversions causing editors to be blocked, etc. It is cleaner to simply keep the rare usage of DYW out, than to open the floodgates to the prior arguments. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see the relevance of this ratio. If we were somehow constrained to use only one name, then, yes, we'd look at the ratio and decide to use "Knik Arm". For the current purpose, though, the issue isn't how much more often that name is used. The issue is whether the "Don Young's Way" name is used often enough that a significant number of readers will be familiar with it. What's the problem with inserting one little parenthetical to explain the nomenclature the first time it occurs? I agree with not using both names throughout. JamesMLane t c 18:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have no problem with one reference to DYW in parenthesis, except that it seems like extra clutter. I'm sure a reader that comes here looking for DYW but finds the unknown, (to them), KAB will have no problem clicking on the link to find out more about it. It seems to me that we should stick to one common name in this article, and leave alternate names in the main KAB article.Zaereth (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- And since the title of that article is Knik Arm Bridge, I especially think that's the name we should use here.Zaereth (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Originally the title was "Knik Arm Bridge (Don Young's Way)" and I would support that change back.GreekParadise (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree. Nothing is ever settled with you, is it GreekParadise? Every dispute must be extended indefinitely, it seems. Previously you said that the present heading is "great" after endless negotiations. Please stop recycling every possible controversy. It's a waste of your energy, and the energy of your fellow editors. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Based on the discussion here, I will add the brief parenthetical reference. I note that "Don Young's Way" is used twice as often as "Knik Arm Bridge" in Google News, which Collect believes, on another point, is more relevant than Google general.GreekParadise (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Kindly do not misstate what I said. I did not state that "Google news ... is more relevant than Google general". It makes for ill feelings. The prior choice was between two almost identical epithets primarily of interest only to political junkies -- and I said BOTH epithets would be ok, but that where one was used less than 2% as often as the other, that the usage should be described as "rare" and not just "less frequent." Thus the issues at hand are vastly different. But then again -- feel free to ask a cabbie to drive you to the Robert F. Kennedy Bridge. Collect (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
It's 2% on Google News but more than 10% on Google general (50,000+ vs. less than 500,000). I don't think 50,000 mentions is "rare", do you? I would agree with "more rare" if you prefer that term instead of "less frequently." But "rare" is subjective whereas "more rare" is objective. I don't think we can say 50,000 hits is rare. I do think it's unequivocally true that 50,000 is more rare than 500,000 and that 2% is more rare than 100%. Are you OK with changing the subjective "rarely" to the objective "more rarely"?GreekParadise (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
In the fervent hope that Collect and I can agree on at least one thing ( :-) ), I've added the word "more" before "rarely" on the two bridges.GreekParadise (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- You are pushing AGF. I would like to point out that "Don Young's Way" applies only to the original earmark legislation. I can find no sign that it would be the name for any Knik Arm Bridge in the future. Sorry to burst that bubble! Do "DYW" applies only to the earmark, not to any future bridge! Isn;t that neat? All of a sudden, the name is joyfully irrelevant! BTW, "rarely" is quite objective -- and applies to the choice between two virtually identical epithets at a ratio of fifty to one -- how you can continue to distinguish between commonness of two nearly identical terms and the difference between a local name for a bridge and a name which may never be actually attached to the bridge is amazing! Collect (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- The current Google (general) references to "bridge to nowhere"+Alaska and "bridges to nowhere"+Alaska have increased since I last checked. They are 926,000 to 53,000 or about 17 to 1. It is my position that 53,000 references is not "rare". That is subjective. But it clearly is "more rare" than 926,000.GreekParadise (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)GreekParadise (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please give your source for your claim that Don Young's Way would NOT be the name of the Knik Arm Bridge if it is ever built. This source (http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/ap_alaska/v-printer/story/527524.html) doesn't mention that the DYW name is restricted to the earmark legislation, but it does mention the name Don Young's Way as the "official name" of the proposed bridge.GreekParadise (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- From your own cite:
- "Anchorage Assembly members Patrick Flynn and Matt Claman, both Democrats, plan to introduce a proposal to kill the bridge on Tuesday. They argue the money would be better used to set up commuter van pools and fix Alaska's existing highways, some of which are so rutted that cars go skidding off the road.
- From your own cite:
- "She clearly hasn't said 'no thanks' to this particular bridge," Claman said. "If money were not an issue and we had no limits, maybe we'd build a bridge. But this is not a pragmatic or efficient way to spend scarce resources."
- Thus all you have is what two Democrats have said. Not her words. As for DYW, the ONLY place I have found designating it as the name is in the original federal legislation. Alaska is under zero obligation to ever use that name. Congrats on proving yourself wrong again! Collect (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Read my source. It's there with no mention of the original federal legislation.GreekParadise (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- "Someone" has gone into the "multiple reversion game" again. The fact is the statement about Palin "continuing" support is from two Democrats, not from Palin. I added that uncontrovertible fact found in the cite given, and had it reverted without any notice or comment. OK -- GP revert a thousand times to play games. You win -- the article is, in my point of view, now trashed by those who play revert wars rather than compromise. Collect (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't revert that.GreekParadise (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
GreekParadise, do you believe that you have consensus to insert "Don Young's Way" into this article? If not, then why do you insist on doing so?[7] Do you think that you have a right to insert whatever stuff into this article that you want to?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe I have consensus. I realize you and Collect disagree. But JamesMLane and Slrubenstein and even our resident Alaskan Zareth believe a brief mention is appropriate. And you have made no effort to respond to the very powerful arguments of the four of us. Ferrylodge, what's the harm in telling wikipedians -- some of which, like me, heard of Don Young's Way years before we heard about Knik Arm, that it's the same bridge? You can't dispute the truth, or the relevance, or the briefness. And I'm not even sure it hurts Palin, if that's your concern. It's just a fact.GreekParadise (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Zaereth also disagrees: "It seems to me that we should stick to one common name in this article, and leave alternate names in the main KAB article." So that's three who disagree with putting it in: Ferrylodge, Collect, and Zaereth. And three agree with putting it in: GreekParadise, JamesMLane, and Slrubenstein. You obviously do not have a consensus to put it in.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Zaereth said he has no problem with the parenthetical. Please state clearly, Ferrylodge, WHY you would exclude a fact that you agree is true, verified, notable, relevant, and takes up very little space. Don't just tell me you oppose it. Tell me why you oppose it. Why not let wikipedians who know the phrase know it applies to this bridge? I think far more Americans have heard of "Don Young" than "Knik Arm."GreekParadise (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't pretend that I've simply opposed without giving any reasons. You know very well that I gave not only reasons but also links. And please stop quoting other editors such as Zaereth out of context. Yes, he said that he has no problem with the parenthetical, with an exception: "I have no problem with one reference to DYW in parenthesis, except that it seems like extra clutter." So he does have a problem with it, and he adds: "It seems to me that we should stick to one common name in this article, and leave alternate names in the main KAB article."
- I don't see why I should bother trying to explain myself further. Your position is that you can do whatever you damn well please, regardless of consensus, and I have no taste for endless, futile arguments. Whether your motives are sincere, or whether you are instead motivated by a desire to use an uncommon name of this bridge to insinuate that Palin is supporting a vain and pork-laden project, I do not know. And it is irrelevant, because you do not have consensus to insert this material, which places undue weight on an uncommon name for the bridge, thus making the bridge (and Palin's support for it) appear to be a slimy thing. It may well be a slimy thing, but its official name has very little bearing on its sliminess. I do not think your stated reason is plausible (i.e. inserting the third name --- Don Young's Way --- accommodates the small percentage of people who never heard of the other two names for this bridge), but even if you're sincere using a third name for the bridge is still overkill, it still slimes Palin with the notion that she is merely catering to Don Young's vanity, and it is still not supported by consensus.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- I am persuaded by GreekParadise's arguments. Not to mention his or her commendable patience in putting them forward. Oh darn it (as Mrs. Palin would say), I mentioned it. — Writegeist (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see why I should bother trying to explain myself further. Your position is that you can do whatever you damn well please, regardless of consensus, and I have no taste for endless, futile arguments. Whether your motives are sincere, or whether you are instead motivated by a desire to use an uncommon name of this bridge to insinuate that Palin is supporting a vain and pork-laden project, I do not know. And it is irrelevant, because you do not have consensus to insert this material, which places undue weight on an uncommon name for the bridge, thus making the bridge (and Palin's support for it) appear to be a slimy thing. It may well be a slimy thing, but its official name has very little bearing on its sliminess. I do not think your stated reason is plausible (i.e. inserting the third name --- Don Young's Way --- accommodates the small percentage of people who never heard of the other two names for this bridge), but even if you're sincere using a third name for the bridge is still overkill, it still slimes Palin with the notion that she is merely catering to Don Young's vanity, and it is still not supported by consensus.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
If your goal, Ferrylodge, is to prevent information you consider to be anti-bridge in POV ("slimy" in your words) then I must insist we remove pro-bridge material as well. Why is wrong to include both sides? In this case, no one's arguing that Palin's catering to Young's vanity and certainly not me. But the name is one reason why the bridge was a symbol for pork barrel spending. It is one reason this bridge was called the "bridge to nowhere." You would have us give 100 words supporting this bridge but none to show why it was criticized as pork barrel? Do you agree that outside of Alaska, few have heard of Knik Arm but some have heard of Don Young?GreekParadise (talk) 05:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- This article does include information that makes the bridge look bad. The goal here is be as neutral and informative as possible, providing info that may make the bridge look bad, as well as info that may make the bridge look good. The way we do this is by a process called CONSENSUS. Consensus does not mean that Greek Paradise shall be the final arbiter. It means that info comes out of the BLP if there is not consensus to include it. This is the most fundamental principle of Wikipedia, and I hope to live to see the day when you finally recognize, acknowledge and abide by it.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- In response to my support for "one little parenthetical to explain the nomenclature", Collect argued: "'One little parenthetical' is not the issue if you have been following the revision history of this section for the past three weeks." Well, actually, I wasn't trying to do a thorough historical analysis of the dispute. I was responding to what GreekParadise wrote, at the top of this particular thread, in response to Collect's denunciation of "adding 'Don Young's Way' to every mention" of the bridge. I was agreeing with GreekParadise's call for "at least a single mention".
- Assuming solely for the sake of the argument that the phrase "Don Young's Way" was used formally only in connection with the federal earmark, the fact is that many people have heard that term, and sources even into 2008 continue to use it. Therefore, our bridge discussion will be clearer to many readers if there's a parenthetical. Perhaps, instead of "Knik Arm Bridge (Don Young's Way)", the initial reference should be "Knik Arm Bridge (formerly Don Young's Way)" or "Knik Arm Bridge (designated in at least one bill as 'Don Young's Way')" or some such. If Ferrylodge is insistent that any mention of Young must be segregated from Palin, then we would have to get more elaborate: "Knik Arm Bridge. (In at least one federal bill voted on before Palin became governor, this bridge was designated as 'Don Young's Way'.)" I think that's more trouble than it's worth, even if the sources support so narrowly limiting the reference, which I'm not convinced they do.
- Ferrylodge gives this interpretation of consensus policy: "It means that info comes out of the BLP if there is not consensus to include it." That's not my understanding. The BLP policy states: "In order to ensure that biographical material of living people is always policy-compliant, written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material." In the present case, there's no dispute that the term "Don Young's Way" has indeed been applied to this particular bridge. There's an editorial decision about whether to include it, but the process for making that decision is no different just because this is a BLP. The process is that editors are supposed to try to reach consensus. If we can't do so, I suppose we'll have to go to RfC on the point. The alternative interpretation would mean that anything in this article could be removed by one editor, or by whatever small number of editors is necessary to show the absence of consensus for inclusion, and the removal would be nonnegotiable and unappealable as long as Palin is alive. I don't think that's what BLP means. JamesMLane t c 06:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- We're having a discussion about it at the BLP noticeboard.[8].Ferrylodge (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up. I have
flamed youcommented there. JamesMLane t c 09:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up. I have
Good God, is this still going on. To clear things up for those who misrepresent my previous statements, I do believe I said "I have no problem, except... I do not think the name hurts or helps Palin in any way. I simply think its not necessary.Zaereth (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Scare quotes
"'Quotation marks' for emphasis of a single word or phrase, or scare quotes, are discouraged."[9] Therefore, I'll remove the scare quotes.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ferrylodge...I noticed that you removed the word access along with the quote marks. Was this in error? ty--Buster7 (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- If the road is not for accessing the bridge, it doesn't seem like an access road anymore.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Please correct FALSE last sentence in bridge section. Source 97 says exactly the opposite from what it is claimed to say
As noted above in section entitled "discuss here if you insist a June 2008 article is present tense for a position", the Associated Press and the Anchorage Daily News in this article dated September 16:
states TWICE that Palin currently supports the Knik Arm bridge and state TWICE that the bridge is going forward full speed ahead. Here are the quotes
- $600 million bridge and highway project to link Alaska's largest city to Palin's town of 7,000 residents is moving full speed ahead"
- "A Democratic council member in Anchorage will try Tuesday to spike the city's sponsorship of the project, which Palin supports with some reservations."
- "Palin still supports the second bridge, officially named Don Young's Way in honor of the congressman"
- "She called for a review of the bridge's financing plans and raised concerns about its financial risks for the state. Still, the planning process is marching forward."
NOWHERE IN THE ARTICLE is there a suggestion that Palin's position is unclear.
Yet a single wikipedia editor, for the third time, has written a FALSE statement and attributed it to this article. This editor wrote "her opinion of the bridge since being nominated as the 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate is unclear.[97] 97 is the very source that says exactly the opposite above!
Bobblehead, JamesMLane, Grsz, Buster7, and I all agree that when the source says Palin supports the bridge, it means Palin supports the bridge. A single editor (Collect) believes that "still supports the bridge" and "supports with some reservations" actually means "her opinion . . . is unclear." Collect believes this so strongly that even though not a single wikipedia editor agrees with him, he has reverted to the false statement three separate times.
I have reverted it back once and would like to stick to 1RR. Could someone else please undo the patently false statement and return it to the version that is based on the source? Collect can't revert it back again, because if he did that would be 4RR.
The last sentence of the bridge section should read as follows:
- In June 2008, Palin ordered a funding and feasibility review concerning the Knik Arm Bridge, because of concerns about its financial impact, but as of September 2008 she continues to support the Knik Arm Bridge and the project "is moving full speed ahead." [1][2] GreekParadise (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- While I support this change and salute your continued effort, GP, to maintain a truthful balance regarding the Bridge(s), I cannot bring myself to cross them again. I know they have been your personal focus for a few weeks now. But, I think you would be better served to move on.--Buster7 (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- I can't move on, Buster. The article they're citing to says TWICE that Palin supports the bridge. The article as edited by Collect, cites to this source and claims it doesn't say "support" when it says so twice. I can't sit back and allow a wikipeida article to cite to a source that clearly says the opposite of what the article claims it says. I won't give up. And I would ask you politely to please revert it back so that the text matches the source. Only one editor believes in actively using a source to say the opposite of what it says, to claim "support" does not mean "support." And I'm confident I can convince even pro-Palin supporters to use the source accurately. I have asked this editor to find a single source that supports the view he expresses in the article. He cannot. And every other editor who has looked at this (so far five) think the source should be quoted accuratedly. If we can't trust a wikipedia article to be backed up by its sources, then there's no point to wikipedia at all.GreekParadise (talk) 05:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- What he said. With brass knobs on. — Writegeist (talk) 05:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- I can't move on, Buster. The article they're citing to says TWICE that Palin supports the bridge. The article as edited by Collect, cites to this source and claims it doesn't say "support" when it says so twice. I can't sit back and allow a wikipeida article to cite to a source that clearly says the opposite of what the article claims it says. I won't give up. And I would ask you politely to please revert it back so that the text matches the source. Only one editor believes in actively using a source to say the opposite of what it says, to claim "support" does not mean "support." And I'm confident I can convince even pro-Palin supporters to use the source accurately. I have asked this editor to find a single source that supports the view he expresses in the article. He cannot. And every other editor who has looked at this (so far five) think the source should be quoted accuratedly. If we can't trust a wikipedia article to be backed up by its sources, then there's no point to wikipedia at all.GreekParadise (talk) 05:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Ferrylodge, for fixing this.GreekParadise (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- You're welcome.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks FL, I hope these endless bridge discussions to nowhere will stop. They have become very disruptive. IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 06:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- You're welcome.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- I wish we could all just agree to leave in BOTH sides of the controversy. Now a single editor has once again for the umpteenth time deleted all explanation of why the bridges were criticized as "to nowhere" while leaving in pro-bridge arguments. Readers will know the bridges were "criticized" but have no idea why, given that all the anti-bridge arguments have once again been removed.GreekParadise (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
mistaken party affiliation dates
This is a complaint.
sarah palin has NOT been a republican since 1982. Up until recently (about 2000) she was 'Alaskan Liberation party' or something very similar, a group of Alaskans who wanted to secede the state from the US government. I'll look for some sources to show you, I think it's at least worth checking out. Dave/Sly/Slydawg (talk) 08:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please review the archives of this talk page. The matter has been discussed in some detail. There do not appear to be any reliable sources for this, just someone from the party making that claim plus a few sources reporting that the claim was made. I may be mistaken and I'm just trying to give you a pointer, but I think she never actually registered for the party, just attended a few events.Wikidemon (talk) 08:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Palin has been a registered Republican since 1982. Read the entry at factcheck.org: [[10]] IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- It will get back in the article for sure. Check the archives, it was removed by an old consensus, and a new consensus will appear. Collect (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
reasons for criticism should be included
I hate to add anything to the can of worms that I'm sure this article has been (and kudos to those of you who have dared to write and edit!), but I notice that, while mention is made that Palin's performance in recent interviews has been "widely criticized," there's no explanation of the actual substance of these criticisms.
This strikes me as a highly pertinent and important piece of information, and one that is hardly under debate, since the vast majority of Palin's critics in BOTH parties are citing EXACTLY the same reasons for their dissatisfaction - avoidance of certain questions by subject-changing or retreat into generalities, consistent failure to provide facts or examples, etc.
Without agreeing or disagreeing with those criticisms (i.e., without offering an opinion, since that would be inappropriate here), it should be possible to at least state them clearly, perhaps providing a single example of one of the most criticized responses and/or a link to an official transcript such as the ones at the CBS news website, or a direct quote from a reasonably articulate and respected critic in either party (or, better yet, both).
Good luck, all!
24.62.163.33 (talk) 09:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
ALL Explanation of Why Bridges to Nowhere Were Criticized Has Once Again Been Deleted.
Here we go again. For the umpteenth time, a single editor has deleted a a large portion of the bridge article with NO discussion on the talk page. Here's the process on this section, which I've been involved in for weeks:
- Palin supporter puts in strongly pro-bridge material
- Palin opponent puts in anti-bridge for balance.
- Fierce argument, reversion, and edit wars ensue, with the argument that "consensus" does not support showing both sides of a controversy in BLP, so only the pro-bridge stuff should be there and not any criticism of the bridge. It is insisted that nowhere in the article is it ever explained WHY they're called "bridges to nowhere"
- After strong argument and long discussions, it is finally agreed that all sides of a controversy be represented. It will be explained why they're called bridges to nowhere along with ample (and twice as long) citations of why these bridges are good ideas This makes the article longer, of course.
- Hobartimus without any discussion on the talk page wipes out any mention of why the bridges are bad ideas or called "to nowhere."
Rinse and repeat. It's happening again.
Hobartimus has made a substantial deletion. All of the sections below were removed from the article with no discussion:
- The Gravina Island Bridge proposal became nicknamed the "Bridge to Nowhere" because of the island's population of 50.[3] More rarely, the term "bridges to nowhere" has been used to refer to both bridge proposals.[4]
- The goal of the Gravina project, according to the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, was to "provide better service [than the existing ferry] to the airport" which serves 350,000 passengers per year,[5] and "allow for development of large tracts of land on the island."[6] The Knik Arm Bridge, officially named "Don Young's Way" after Alaska Congressman Don Young in the original legislation, is a $600 million project to open up development and provide an alternate link from Anchorage to Wasilla;[7] the bridge is being evaluated by officials as a possible threat to nearby beluga whales. [7]
The deletion makes the article entirely one-sided. Now there's no indication anywhere in the article of why the bridges were criticized, why they were symbols of pork barrel spending, or why they were even called "to nowhere", or that Knik Arm provides a link to Palin's hometown of Wasilla. But there's still mention of the airport and Knik Arm inlet, as if the bridges were completely non-controversial building project. Could someone please undo the Hobartimus deletion without discussion? I firmly believe BOTH sides of the controversy should be represented, as they have been on this page for more than a month now.
P.S. I have no problem with deleting
- "The goal of the Gravina project, according to the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, was to "provide better service [than the existing ferry] to the airport" which serves 350,000 passengers per year,[3] and "allow for development of large tracts of land on the island."[4]
which is repetitive since both the airport and development are already mentioned in the article. Because I don't delete pro-bridge information, even when it's repetitive, I had left in this redundancy. But we agreed long ago that it is improper to include only pro-bridge comments while deleting all the anti-bridge comments.
I would also ask that in the future, folks don't delete two paragraphs in one fell swoop without at least noting what you've done and why on the talk page. This has been done a large number of times by the same editor over the last month and it's getting very frustrating. Is it really that painful to leave in BOTH sides of the controversy? To explain to wikipedians what the controversy was? I don't think so. In fact, I think it's precisely what wikipedia should do.GreekParadise (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- I completely agree with GreekParadise on the substance of this particular edit and on the procedure by which Hobartimus made it. JamesMLane t c 15:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- IMO GreekParadise has repeatedly made a convincing case for inclusion of his edit. As it is key to understanding the common nomenclature, it warrants inclusion in this overview. Therefore I don't think Hobartimus's contention that readers can go to the detailed article sufficiently justifies the deletion. I ask Hobartimus to restore it in the interests of balance, truth and courtesy. — Writegeist (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hobartimus need not restore it, as I have already done so. JamesMLane t c 16:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
And more of the same from Hobartimus re the email hack
Coverage of the hacking of Palin's email account has been previously discussed at Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 26#Suspect Nabbed in Palin E-mail Hack and Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 27#Serious WP:BLP issue with hacking section. Hobartimus eagerly reported the tangential reference to the son of a Democratic politician from Tennessee, but there was no reason to include that information in the Palin bio. Therefore, in this version of the article, edited by Hobartimus himself, the hacking was covered as follows:
In September 2008, a hacker accessed a Yahoo! email account Palin uses, hoping to "derail her campaign,"[8] and precipitating an investigation by the FBI and Secret Service.[9]
I think the matter rested there for a week. Now, without further discussion, Hobartimus has by this edit inserted the name of the Tennessee poltician's son, as a wikilink, and has piped the link to lead to the article about the politician.
I have the same two issues here: substance and procedure.
First, as to substance, the issue is whether the reader of the Palin bio is enlightened about her life by learning details of the FBI investigation of a fairly minor incident. The FBI searched a particular apartment. The FBI probably also had some software expert interface with some Yahoo! software expert, and tried to back-trace the published information about Palin's emails, and so forth. Recounting such specifics doesn't tell anything about Palin. The only reason to include this is POV-pushing: the FBI searched David Kernell's apartment, David Kernell is the son of Mike Kernell, Mike Kernell is supporting Obama, therefore Obama is evil. I don't think this "information" would belong in the Palin bio even if David Kernell were arrested, charged, indicted, tried, and convicted, none of which have actually happened. (Even including it in the Mike Kernell bio is dubious on BLP grounds, but for the Palin bio its irrelevance is the more obvious objection.) Second, as to procedure, it is very disruptive for Hobartimus to unilaterally add material that was thoroughly discussed, when there was apparent consensus on a particular version, when there is no indication of any new information that has surfaced (the reference cited by Hobartimus was published on September 22), and when there was no further discussion on the talk page. Hobartimus, this is simply not how Wikipedia works, particularly on articles of such a controversial nature. You've been here long enough that you should understand this. I am reverting. JamesMLane t c
- I think your comment above speaks for itself, contains some pretty extreme agenda. I hardly need to make a case here in light of the above but to accuse an organization on the level of the Associated Press and several thousand other news outlets who reported on this particular news of trying to argue that "David Kernell is the son of Mike Kernell, Mike Kernell is supporting Obama, therefore Obama is evil." is really extraordinary. You do realize that this small piece information that you removed to prevent any imagined conclusion that "Obama is evil" was reported on by thousands of journalist all over the world right? I shouldn't even point to other parts of your comment such as "FBI investigation of a fairly minor incident", surely the FBI gets involved in minor incidents and they leave the investigation of federal crimes to the local police to sort out. Their involvement is a clear sign that the incident was minor, right? I mean I just don't know what to say after reading such comments. Hobartimus (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- We should not be including Kernell's name in this article (whether it's appropriate for the subarticle is a separate issue). This has been dead in the water for a few weeks now. That could mean that the FBI is just about to arrest him, or it could mean that the evidence has pointed elsewhere. WP:BLP suggests we should err on the side of being conservative (NPI), since the person in question is a private individual who has been charged with no crime. He could be guilty, or he could just as easily be the next Steven Hatfill or Richard Jewell. Let's let it play out before we jump in to spread this around. Furhter, this issue has been discussed extensively and I think, as JamesMLane mentioned, consensus has favored the shorter version. MastCell Talk 17:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know if you looked at what was reverted but both versions were a single sentence, so I think they can both be fairly described as short. I'll look at the articles I have to say I have no idea who these people that you mention are. Hobartimus (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- We should not be including Kernell's name in this article (whether it's appropriate for the subarticle is a separate issue). This has been dead in the water for a few weeks now. That could mean that the FBI is just about to arrest him, or it could mean that the evidence has pointed elsewhere. WP:BLP suggests we should err on the side of being conservative (NPI), since the person in question is a private individual who has been charged with no crime. He could be guilty, or he could just as easily be the next Steven Hatfill or Richard Jewell. Let's let it play out before we jump in to spread this around. Furhter, this issue has been discussed extensively and I think, as JamesMLane mentioned, consensus has favored the shorter version. MastCell Talk 17:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hobartimus, you ignore my point about relevance to the Palin bio. If Barack Obama were caught on camera murdering someone, it would be widely reported and it would be widely taken as proof that he was evil, but it still wouldn't belong in this article. I am, of course, not making any such accusation against AP as the one you falsely impute to me. The POV-pushing that I identified is the insertion of Kernell's name into Palin's Wikipedia bio. AP hasn't done that. And, yes, unfortunately for the much-put-upon FBI agents, they do sometimes have to spend time investigating fairly minor incidents. This email hack isn't Watergate, or even Troopergate. JamesMLane t c 17:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- The AP reported the whole case in connection with Palin in a story about the Palin hack, the same nice line of reasoning that you shared with us also applies to the AP "the FBI searched David Kernell's apartment, David Kernell is the son of Mike Kernell, Mike Kernell is supporting Obama, therefore Obama is evil." the AP reported all of it. I repeat all of it. Let me say that again the AP reported the FBI search, the AP not only reported but it's main description was that David was Mike's son, they mentioned that Mike is a democratic politician the only, the only thing they left out is your "Obama is evil" conclusion. They reported all of it. It is them who you really accuse, as editors we simply follow what reliable sources say. Hobartimus (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- To clarify, JamesMLane I don't mind that you disagree on whether to include or not even with your user page statement. I only struggle with some parts of your original comment and a little with your section title by making it personal. Hobartimus (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- The AP reported the whole case in connection with Palin in a story about the Palin hack, the same nice line of reasoning that you shared with us also applies to the AP "the FBI searched David Kernell's apartment, David Kernell is the son of Mike Kernell, Mike Kernell is supporting Obama, therefore Obama is evil." the AP reported all of it. I repeat all of it. Let me say that again the AP reported the FBI search, the AP not only reported but it's main description was that David was Mike's son, they mentioned that Mike is a democratic politician the only, the only thing they left out is your "Obama is evil" conclusion. They reported all of it. It is them who you really accuse, as editors we simply follow what reliable sources say. Hobartimus (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hobartimus, you ignore my point about relevance to the Palin bio. If Barack Obama were caught on camera murdering someone, it would be widely reported and it would be widely taken as proof that he was evil, but it still wouldn't belong in this article. I am, of course, not making any such accusation against AP as the one you falsely impute to me. The POV-pushing that I identified is the insertion of Kernell's name into Palin's Wikipedia bio. AP hasn't done that. And, yes, unfortunately for the much-put-upon FBI agents, they do sometimes have to spend time investigating fairly minor incidents. This email hack isn't Watergate, or even Troopergate. JamesMLane t c 17:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- The email hacking incident is similar to the passport access incident of multiple canditates. It should be noted that the passport incident is not included in any of the other candidates bio articles due to lack of relevance. IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hobartimus, I wrote the section title without your name, then thought some more and included your name, then thought some more about whether to return to my original version and decided not to. The point is that I didn't act lightly. I believe in WP:AGF but editors who display a pattern cannot trade on that assumption indefinitely. I do wish to make it personal to the extent of calling to your attention that you, personally, should display a greater readiness to discuss controversial edits on the talk page before making them. JamesMLane t c 19:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- If I will ever choose to edit an article in a subject in which I have an enormous openly declared bias against the subject I will certainly be very careful and display great care and readiness to discuss everything potentially controversial and toward my actions to not let the desire to defame malign and attack the subject influence my actions as an editor. Let's hope this will never be the case. Hobartimus (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hobartimus, I wrote the section title without your name, then thought some more and included your name, then thought some more about whether to return to my original version and decided not to. The point is that I didn't act lightly. I believe in WP:AGF but editors who display a pattern cannot trade on that assumption indefinitely. I do wish to make it personal to the extent of calling to your attention that you, personally, should display a greater readiness to discuss controversial edits on the talk page before making them. JamesMLane t c 19:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- I applaud your resolution that, on any article where you have a bias, you will "display great care and readiness to discuss everything potentially controversial". That is, in fact, the correct procedure even if you don't have a bias either way concerning the article subject. This is one reason that I deprecated the importance of an editor's bias. Biased and unbiased editors alike are held to the same standard.
- Sometimes, even in a controversial area, an informative edit summary will suffice, especially for a comparatively unimportant change. That's not the case with regard to your most recent edits, however. When you're going against a prior consensus, and especially when you're not relying on any new information to do so, then you really have to present a proposed edit on the talk page instead of just unilaterally making a significant change. JamesMLane t c 03:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately Hobartimus restricted the pledge to subjects where his bias is "openly declared"; any undeclared bias he apparently considers irrelevant, regardless of how obvious it may be. I hope he will reconsider that philosophy. —KCinDC (talk) 03:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- It's not that it's relevant or irrelevant just that we have an opportunity here to observe someone in action with "an enormous openly declared bias" proudly presented on their user page against the subject of this very article. It seems they are not limited from influencing the article in any way, they are reverting other editors, declare if they think there was consensus, make outrageous arguments against facts that were reported by thousands of journalists around the world. If I ever get into a similar situation it seems I will have to limit myself as others are apparently not limiting these actions here at all. Hobartimus (talk) 05:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately Hobartimus restricted the pledge to subjects where his bias is "openly declared"; any undeclared bias he apparently considers irrelevant, regardless of how obvious it may be. I hope he will reconsider that philosophy. —KCinDC (talk) 03:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sometimes, even in a controversial area, an informative edit summary will suffice, especially for a comparatively unimportant change. That's not the case with regard to your most recent edits, however. When you're going against a prior consensus, and especially when you're not relying on any new information to do so, then you really have to present a proposed edit on the talk page instead of just unilaterally making a significant change. JamesMLane t c 03:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Hobartimus, please stop changing the subject. The question is, is there a problem with your edit(s). I would say that in both cases you went against a settled consensus. To do so twice in a row, then engage in personal attacks on the person who points it out on the talk page, is not good Wikipedian behavior. Please stop it or go away. Homunq (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
More "Reception" Interpretation
"Palin debated Vice-Presidential candidate Joe Biden on October 2, 2008. [158] a month before the election on November 4. Her performance was widely deemed to have adhered to general principles, in contrast to Biden's detailed responses. Palin made several points without regard to the questions being asked by the moderator, at one point declaring that she was taking her case "directly to the American people," and thereby seizing an opportunity to state her positions free of the "filter" of news media."
- Borderline laughable. I believe the above belongs in the upcoming site: "Wikipundit".. It has no place here, that's for sure. Wikiport (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe the above should have been added without consensus and certainly not without proper sourcing. It kind of sounds like someone's opinion. That said, I didn't watch the debate, so I don't know whether I agree with this person's opinion. However, as with most opinion, it is subjective and quite likely countered by differing opinion. Suggest we try to avoid expressing our own or other's opinions, particularly as they arrive hot-off-the-press.Fcreid (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- theres weasel wording with "widely deemed" ... by who??? she "seized the opportunity" sounds like peacock language. in other words, totally unsourced npov violation... a cnn poll and a cbs poll of uncommitted voters offers a more accurate assessment of the debate... 99.251.171.248 (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- As I have already stated, I think this entire section is a POV magnet. It's about the opinion of others. "Opinion" is just another way of saying "Point of View", and since there is no such thing as a wrong opinion, people are free to source whatever opinion matches their own. I say quote everybody who has an opinion on the subject, or none at all. Quote the National Enquirer for all it matters ... it's not like we're looking for facts here. I don't see how this section serves any encyclopedic purpose. Give the people facts, not opinions, and let them decide.Zaereth (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that the article could be improved by boiling down this entire section to only mentioning that Palin appeared on the national scene out of nowhere and has been the subject of tremendous curiosity (the comment elsewhere on this page of Palin apparently being the most Googled person of all time would be a good reference). Anything going beyond that just gets into dueling political spinning which has no place in a biographical article.--Paul (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- I can live with that. But, as long as the title remains "Reception", that still seems imply this is a nesting ground for opinion. (ie: how is she being received by the media).Zaereth (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Or we can just handle it in a more encyclopedic manner and remove the reception header and then interleave it into the rest of the VP section. Breaking out her "reception" into a separate section can end up being a POV magnet, but there is quite a bit of good information in the section that should probably be retained in the VP section. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- I can live with that. But, as long as the title remains "Reception", that still seems imply this is a nesting ground for opinion. (ie: how is she being received by the media).Zaereth (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- i agree "reception" is a POV magnet... include one pundit and you have to include them all including the hacks... we should cut the reception down alot... the only reception that matters is reliable polls of actual voters. here's another one. 99.251.171.248 (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- I removed the reception heading last night because it didn't seem descriptive of the content.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Good edit Cdog. I also agree with the above comments by Bobblehead.
- IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I like Bobblehead's better. Save the facts, thow the opinions, and the section, out. I wouldn't mind hearing from some others before a hasty decision is made, though. Zaereth (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- We should really see a proposed wording here before anyone goes about removing things from the section though. Considering the amount of edit warring that has gone over that section, it'd probably be best to work it out on the discussion page rather than in main space. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I like Bobblehead's better. Save the facts, thow the opinions, and the section, out. I wouldn't mind hearing from some others before a hasty decision is made, though. Zaereth (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The debate is an important source of information. I think this article has to provide some account of it. Th debate in and of itself is important, and we do not need to get boged down in discussion of its reception. The question is, has a transcript of the debate been made available, or is the whole thing available? We can quote it directly and as long as we make no editorial comments, we would not be violating NOR. I think we should certainly include Palin's declaration that she would not always answer the moderator or Biden's questions. There is no need to comment on it: people who like her will see this as something positive, people who do not like her will see it as negative, people who are undecided can think about it and reach their own conclusions - but it is notable because it is Palin herself expressing her attitude concerning her relationships with the poress, her opponent, and the electorate. other things that might be worthy of quoting are points where both Palin and Biden agreed that they agree with each other, and points where Palin stated explicitly she disagreed with Biden. That would provide our readership with a fair and concise account of hat we all learned about her poltiical position from the debate, straight from the horse's mouth. And like I said, this can be written up with no editorial comment, no analysis or judgement, at all. Just, "During the debate, Palin expressed the following views..." Slrubenstein | Talk 16:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- But without fact-checking, simply reporting her views or her statements as factual can itself be NPOV. I think the only useful thing to do is to go to the [post-debate polls http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2299]. Really, this is an election, and the only thing that matters is how the public receives it -- not pundits. And we definitely shouldn't become a vanity page that repeats our favorite quotes with no independent analysis/criticism. 99.251.171.248 (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
No, I do not agre with you. To convince me you have to tell me specifically what part of NPOV this would violate, and explain to me how it would violate NPOV. As long as we make it clear that this is what Palin said, these are her views, I do not see how it could possible violate NPOV. This being the article on Palin, one thing it must include are Palin's own views. Also, I thought it would be clear that when I said no editorializing, no analysis, no interpretation, i meant by wikipedia editors - that is why I mentioned our NOR policy. And you are a little mistaken when you write "This is an election, and the only thing that matters is how the public receives it." What is important is the frame of reference. As for the US public, the only thing that really matters is the election and after the election we can add to this article the election results. in the meantime, for the electorate and outside observers to know what Palin's positions are, they need to be able to read about her positions. An article on Sarah Palin should include her positions. The article on Karl Marx describes marx's views. The article on Charles Darwin describes his views. The article on Martin Luther King quotes his speeches. How you can then argue that it would violate some policy for the Palin article to quote her on what she thinks makes no sense at all to me. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely concur. I didn't watch the debate, and I certainly don't need a pundit or a poll telling me how she did. I'd rather read the boring transcript as it speaks to specific issues and decide myself whether I agree or not. If there are specific points that require more context, e.g. an inexplicable statement, I'm sure I can find outside sources to provide that context. Fcreid (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- The dispute here is not about keeping out the debate. It is not about axing the opinions of the subject, as long as her opinions are known, and it is a fact those are her opinions, then they belong in the article, of course. What is in dispute is including everybody else' opinion. No opinion about Palin should be included.Zaereth (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Wrong - what you just wrote is a call to violate NPOV. BLP and NPOV are not in conflict. As long as we have a notable view from a reliable source on what she said, NPOV demands that we include it. We can debate over whether viewpoint is notable, and we can argue over whether a source is reliable. But there is no arbument about including public discussion of things she has said -NPOV demands that! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- As long as it's not an interpretive view. By which I mean things like, "It seems Palin was trying to speak directly to Group XYZ with this statement" or, "If you couple her earlier statement of ABC with this later point on XYZ, you can conclude she supports Alphabet Soup" and the like. Fcreid (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Wrong - what you just wrote is a call to violate NPOV. BLP and NPOV are not in conflict. As long as we have a notable view from a reliable source on what she said, NPOV demands that we include it. We can debate over whether viewpoint is notable, and we can argue over whether a source is reliable. But there is no arbument about including public discussion of things she has said -NPOV demands that! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- The dispute here is not about keeping out the debate. It is not about axing the opinions of the subject, as long as her opinions are known, and it is a fact those are her opinions, then they belong in the article, of course. What is in dispute is including everybody else' opinion. No opinion about Palin should be included.Zaereth (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Respectfully, I disagree. "Viewpoint", "Opinion", "Point of View" ... These words are all synonymous. Directly interchangable. Since an opinion can not be wrong, how can you say that one source is more reliable than another?Zaereth (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry Fcreid, I did not see your statement before hitting send.Zaereth (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Right now the article mearly states that the debate occurred. Since there was much apprehension before and relief afterwards, we really do need to 'as Bobblehead suggested, work out an acceptable compromise here. I'll try but don't wait for me if you want to begin, be bold!.....--Buster7 (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Fully in agreement with Buster7. I do not have time to sit and work out something myself, but I'd love to see what the many good editors here can work out. (having given his own opinion, Zaereth departs ...)Zaereth (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Zaereth writes "Since an opinion can not be wrong, how can you say that one source is more reliable than another?" Zaereth, I do not say that one source is more reliable than another. Wikipedia policy says that one source is more reliable than another. With all due respect, I cannot imagine how you could have even asked this question, unless you are unfamiliar with our policies. I urge you to read WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Some views are more notable than others. Some sources are more reliable than others. Any notable view from a reliable source that is relevant to this topic ("Sarah Palin") has to go into the article in order to comply with our core policies. If this does not make sense to you I simply ask you to read our policies. NPOV is non-negotiable. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I see you're point, and respect your concerns. Wikipedia policy on NPOV, as I understood it, says "Assert facts, including facts about opinions - but do not assert opinions themselves." If you look to the previous discussion on this section, you'll note how the sourcing war over which opinion should be included escalated into dowm right name calling contest. In the interest of fairness, my position is to include all opinions, or none at all. If you disagree, I'm fine with that. Let's hear from some other editors on the subject. Buster7 here is trying diligently to come up with a compromiseZaereth (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Zaereth, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what WP:NPOV means. It does not mean No POV, it means Neutral POV, in that all significant points of view can and should be included in the article and that these POV should be included in the article as neutrally as possible. In the case of debates, the important POV is not what the participants said, but rather the reaction to those debates. This means we have to include opinions of some sort, be it the results of polling, or a representative group of pundits. I'm a little less excited about the pundits as they have a propensity to.. shall we say.. Exaggerate a bit.;) --Bobblehead (rants) 21:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- All right, I conceed. My concerns noted, I shall make no further comment on this section. Zaereth (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Personal life section addition
Should we add that Palin doesn't know what an achilles heel is? GrszX 16:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Personally, I couldn't care less if she is not as well versed in mythology as I am. But, I guess that's my Sigurd's Shoulder.Zaereth (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sure she knows what an Achilles heel is. That she (and, to some extent, Biden) evaded the question doesn't necessarily mean that she misunderstood it. MastCell Talk 17:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why moderators of these debates always have a "mea culpa" question, e.g. "tell me something bad about yourself." No one should be surprised when the debate participants sidestep such questions.--Paul (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- In job interviews it's standard to ask questions like, "what is your weakest area?" Debates between political candidates are a form of job interview, so it seems like a reasonable question. And, like in job interviews, it often gets a predictable answer, like "I'm too devoted to my job" or "I care too much." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, assumptions that she knows what an Achilles' heel is and that her evasion doesn't indicate ignorance. Occam's razor? — Writegeist (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, seriously. It never crossed my mind that she was misanswering the question out of ignorance. She'd been similarly avoiding direct answers all night. "Name something you'll have to cut back because of the economy." for example. "Name a position you've changed on." or "Name a Supreme Court decision you disagree with." Even if she didn't, it's absurdly easy to figure it out from context, "Palin, it's been said your Achilles' Heel is your lack of experience and Biden, yours is lack of discipline."--Loodog (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Times Online says "the Alaskan governor appeared to have no clue as to the meaning of 'Achilles' heel'."[11]. Guardian.co.uk [12] says she either didn't understand the question or chose to ignore it. National Post, Canada said [13] "Is it possible her real Achilles heel is her ability to process and respond to questions?" Atlantic Online [14] said she ignored or misheard the question. Edison (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, seriously. It never crossed my mind that she was misanswering the question out of ignorance. She'd been similarly avoiding direct answers all night. "Name something you'll have to cut back because of the economy." for example. "Name a position you've changed on." or "Name a Supreme Court decision you disagree with." Even if she didn't, it's absurdly easy to figure it out from context, "Palin, it's been said your Achilles' Heel is your lack of experience and Biden, yours is lack of discipline."--Loodog (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why moderators of these debates always have a "mea culpa" question, e.g. "tell me something bad about yourself." No one should be surprised when the debate participants sidestep such questions.--Paul (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- In the previous statement I see "appeared to", "either,or", and "possible". Does anyone have a statement of fact?Zaereth (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- See WP:V. The statement is verified, and from reliable sources. End of debate. •Jim62sch•dissera! 20:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- The possibility she did not know the meaning of "achilles' heel" is discussed in reliable sources, but it certainly is not verified. Edison (talk) 04:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
AP article on her personal life
This article is a solid piece on her personal life. It'd be a good additional reference for some material already included and has some details that actually belong in a *Personal life* section, for a change. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Eh, that's okay. I think the following are better sources: Sarah Palin and outsider who charms (NYT), Why John McCain's beauty queen running mate has a grizzly bear on her office wall (Daily Mail), Palin's strengths rooted in Alaska (Washington Post) and Sarah Baracuda tidbits (Anchorage Daily News). The problem is that whenever actual facts about her personal life are added to this article they are reverted (incorrectly in my opinion) as being 'non-notable'--Paul (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- We do have to be careful about BLP. BUT unless someone can provide a solid case for how an addition violates a specific provision of our BLP policy, anything that comes from a reliable source seems fair. Couldn't we agree on a standard that if a fact appears in two reliable sources it should go in? even if one source got it from the other, it means that the second source made an editorial judgement that the fact is notable. I think if it is notable enough to be in two reliable sources (and does not clearly violate our BLP policy) it should go in. Anyone who keeps removing it without demonstrating that it violates policy should be warned for disruptive behavior. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thus my confusion on what I referred to as the "Marathon Yardstick" several days ago. In 2005, Palin ran a marathon in under four hours. That is a significant accomplishment at any age and, no doubt, required extensive training, conditioning and dedicated focus. It is a well-documented event, yet every time it was added into her personal section, someone quickly came along and removed it (claiming it to be superfluous, inappropriate or just "puffy"). Some events speak volumes on the character of an individual, and that would be among them in my book. Fcreid (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Put it back in and insist that before anyone remove it they quote the policy that it violates. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks and concur. I think Paul was the one who most recently entered it (and had it removed). Paul? Fcreid (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- @ FcReid and SIr...Reports that I have read say that the Marathon that Gov Palin ran was ALL downhill, which would explain her above average time. The race began in Alaska but finished in Canada. Were it not for that she would have broken the state record for "Hockey Moms over 40"....:>)...--Buster7 (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Put it back in and insist that before anyone remove it they quote the policy that it violates. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thus my confusion on what I referred to as the "Marathon Yardstick" several days ago. In 2005, Palin ran a marathon in under four hours. That is a significant accomplishment at any age and, no doubt, required extensive training, conditioning and dedicated focus. It is a well-documented event, yet every time it was added into her personal section, someone quickly came along and removed it (claiming it to be superfluous, inappropriate or just "puffy"). Some events speak volumes on the character of an individual, and that would be among them in my book. Fcreid (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- We do have to be careful about BLP. BUT unless someone can provide a solid case for how an addition violates a specific provision of our BLP policy, anything that comes from a reliable source seems fair. Couldn't we agree on a standard that if a fact appears in two reliable sources it should go in? even if one source got it from the other, it means that the second source made an editorial judgement that the fact is notable. I think if it is notable enough to be in two reliable sources (and does not clearly violate our BLP policy) it should go in. Anyone who keeps removing it without demonstrating that it violates policy should be warned for disruptive behavior. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, this is helpful. here is what I think. (1) "notability" should not just be a subjective judgement on our part. If this story was reported in her home town paper, I would not consider it notable. If it was reported widely, especially if it was reported in any national news media, I would consider it notable enough to conclude regardless of the specifics. This is the first issue. (2) I think Buster7 is concerned people may misinterpret what the story means. So my suggestion is that if it is notable enough to have been widely reported, we also report other details that were widely reported that provide some context. If the same articles also report what the fastest time on thismarathon was, or the average time, or how this marathon differed from other marathon's, as long as this contextual information is in a reliable source, I think it should be included. That's what I think, "for the record." Now, a personal note: I am just speculating, but I would think that the "story" here is not how fit she is for a 40 year old woman (I am pretty sure I would lose any marathon even if it just involved jumping of a 23 mile high tower), the story could be about the Alaskan governor trying to set an example about the importance of physical fitness. My point is that we don't know what her running the marathon "means" until we read realiable sources and see how it was reported. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think Buster was yanking our chains, SLR. :) Fcreid (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, this is helpful. here is what I think. (1) "notability" should not just be a subjective judgement on our part. If this story was reported in her home town paper, I would not consider it notable. If it was reported widely, especially if it was reported in any national news media, I would consider it notable enough to conclude regardless of the specifics. This is the first issue. (2) I think Buster7 is concerned people may misinterpret what the story means. So my suggestion is that if it is notable enough to have been widely reported, we also report other details that were widely reported that provide some context. If the same articles also report what the fastest time on thismarathon was, or the average time, or how this marathon differed from other marathon's, as long as this contextual information is in a reliable source, I think it should be included. That's what I think, "for the record." Now, a personal note: I am just speculating, but I would think that the "story" here is not how fit she is for a 40 year old woman (I am pretty sure I would lose any marathon even if it just involved jumping of a 23 mile high tower), the story could be about the Alaskan governor trying to set an example about the importance of physical fitness. My point is that we don't know what her running the marathon "means" until we read realiable sources and see how it was reported. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Yank,,,yank,,,it's Saturday...the bosses are away!QQQQQQ
Binocular vision disorder
sourceless speculation |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Much has been made of her "Tina Fey glasses." But is there any MSM coverage of the reason why she wears highly-specialized corrective lenses? — Esotropic Flautist (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
She has stated that as Vice President she will be an advocate for special needs children. She herself has a vision problem which probably manifest at an early age and which can easily affect learning processes and cognitive development (particularly when it is not adequately addressed). Does Sarah Palin consider vision difficulties like hers a "special need"? How would an American child with Sarah Palin's condition fare under a McCain-Palin administration? The question is worth asking. — Esotropic Flautist (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The video of her playing the flute proves zero about her vision. No flautist would need glasses to play a memorized piece, since it is not necessary to look at the instrument while playing it. There is no basis at this point for any mention of the supposed esotropia based on a blurry video. If her wearing of Tina Fey glasses [16] brings people flocking to eyewear stores to copy it, like some people started wearing Goldwater glasses in 1964 [17], that would certainly be worth mentioning in the article. Edison (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
←Uh, folks: "A serious winking disorder"? "The Wasilla taxidermist who stuffs the moose heads for display on the walls of the Palin children's bedrooms"? Stephen Colbert, anyone? Tvoz/talk 00:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
|
VP debate
Do we want to mention anything she said in the debate? Mention of expanded Vice Presidency, emphasis on "cleaning-up" record?--Loodog (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- If it's done with the proper citations and in an NPOV way. •Jim62sch•dissera! 20:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
reporting one pundit would be POV... reporting all pundits would be a mess, and probably irrelevant and inaccurate anyway... picking choice quotes would also violate WP:Undue weight, especially if we reported quotes that might not actually be true. the only summary of the debate that would be appropriate are snap polls of how she performed against biden... theres a bunch out there and i'd trust any number of them... 99.251.171.248 (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- First we need to report on what she actually said. If Biden disagreed, it might be worth adding that. If reporters - not "pundits" but actul reporters - investigate anything she says and finds evidence that she was misrepresenting something, then we can add that as long as we have reliable sources and the reporter is notable. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- well we can't quote the whole debate... so someone has to choose which are the most important quotes... who chooses that? again this is an issue of WP:undue weight. we are better off finding a third party assessment of the debate that both sides can agree is fair or objective, rather than having wikipedians choose their favorite quote to bolster or slander her. i can't think of a more fair assessment than polls of actual voters... 99.251.171.248 (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I am glad you agree with me that we should not quote the whole debate, and that we should not just pick our favorite quotes. I have proposed some criteria for selection. I think they are reasonable but they need not be the only criteria. If you know of any notable polls of a diverse sample of the electorate that actually generated notable quotes that would be fine with me although I have neard of no such polls. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- well we can't quote the whole debate... so someone has to choose which are the most important quotes... who chooses that? again this is an issue of WP:undue weight. we are better off finding a third party assessment of the debate that both sides can agree is fair or objective, rather than having wikipedians choose their favorite quote to bolster or slander her. i can't think of a more fair assessment than polls of actual voters... 99.251.171.248 (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Folkes...look up....a paragraph has begun...under ---vice presidential debate-----Buster7 (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Buster, I just moved that section down here only because the most active threads are usually lower down. Here is the section Buster is refering to (Slrubenstein | Talk 20:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)):
- Testing, Testing, 1,2,3,....
-
- Senator Biden and Gov Palin met at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri in the only Vice Presidential debate of the 2008 campaign. The commentator, PBS's Gwen Ifill wrote and asked all the questions. Both candidates spoke to many issues, were friendly and cordial to each other, and defended the Presidential candidates of their respected parties....
- Just a starting point...feel free to chop away!!!--Buster7 (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- First two sentences are fine. Third sentence makes interpretive and evaluative claims that we can include only if they come from reliable sources - we cannot put in our own views, and while I agree this is how most people see it, it would be good (given the history of contention here) to have some sources. As I suggest above, I think there are some lines that we should just quote, directly, including Palin's declaration that she would not answer every question, statements where she and Biden agreed that they are in agreement, and statements where Biden explicitly stated his disagreement ... I am proposing these criteria because I think they indicate statements most salient to the campaign. Another criteria would be to quote directly whatever statements have been repeated or commented upon by notable reliable sources, my logic being that if a few reliable sources find those statements notable, then they are notable enough to quote in this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- While I see your point, Slr, and agree in principle, this para is about as white bread as you can get. If we did put it in (as it is) (which I don't suggest) I don't thnik it would require any sources at all. Of course debaters speak to the prevailing issues...most of the time they are cordial...and they speak well of the guy at the head of the ticket. IMHO, its the very least that can be said without verification! --Buster7 (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I see no reason to include anything more than the first sentence of the proposed paragraph. This is an encyclopedia biography, not a newspaper.--Paul (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
i think paul is right... we don't want to get into overcoverage of what happened at the debate and give it WP:undue weight... trying to cover every area of disagreement between her and biden would lead to one huge paragraph or even worse... and i don't think there's any fair or objective way to judge which areas of disagreement between the candidates were more important than others... but saying "they talked about a variety of issues" doesn't tell us anything either... we want to keep it short, neutral, but still offering some fair, reliable, and independent assessment of what happened... i suggest a paragraph like this:
- Senator Biden and Governor Palin met at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri in the only Vice Presidential debate of the 2008 campaign. Polling from CNN, Fox and CBS found that Palin exceeded many voters expectations, but more voters felt that Biden had won the debate.[18][19][20]
if people want to read about sarah palin's views, it's not like candidate introduce new ideas at debates... they defend what they've already been pushing for... so we're probably covering her views just fine so far... here's another focus group, but i don't know if other people feel they are reliable... 99.251.171.248 (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- The commentator is known for fairness and impartiality.
- Explaining that she, Ifill, composed the questions informs the reader as to the source :of the questions (not the audience, neither campaign, not the media, etc.)
- The last sentence is just a proposed starting point for other editors or newspaper moguls...:>)...--Buster7 (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I like 99's except for "...voters felt that...". Instead---viewers, observers, politicos, surveys, appraisers, critics, evaluators, etc.
- i guess if you were talking about a randomly sampled poll... you'd say "subjects"... i think it's fair to show that this is a poll using a sample of likely voters with a margin of error and so on... 99.251.171.248 (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- 99...its 22:30...lets add para around 24:00...your version unless more ed's come to change it in the meantime..OK? (Otherwise it"s headed for the bottom of the birdcage)--Buster7 (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- u can add it, i can't as an anonymous which i prefer to remain... i think it's the kind of thing that is close to the truth and would need only small tweaks not a total trashing... but we'll see... go ahead... and thanks... 99.251.171.248 (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
looks good! glad that group of editors were able to tweak it and find a new consensus too... i think this is a pretty fair and independent way to summarize the debate... 99.251.171.248 (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Picture
What's with the main picture? It was fine, this one is fuzzy.
- This has been addressed in lengthy discussions and consensus was reached. Please see archives. Thanks, IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Could Palin have canceled the Road to Nowhere?
The current article quotes a McCain-Palin spokesman via CNN saying "because the contract for the road was already signed before she got into office, the governor was left no viable alternative." However, the assertion that she had no viable alternative was subsequently contradicted by a spokesman for the Alaska Department of Transportation, via ProPublica:
But the governor did have a viable alternative. Gov. Frank Murkowski (R) signed the contract for the road on Dec. 1, 2006, three days before he left office. Palin could have cancelled that contract upon taking office, according to Alaska Department of Transportation spokesman Roger Wetherell. In such cases, contractors are reimbursed for any expenses incurred in association with the project.
So if she had cancelled it (as she did a road in Juneau) the federal government would have saved almost all the money (though it wouldn't have saved Alaska anything). Crust (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Have you studied Contract Law? 20:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs)
- Additionally, Palin didn't officially cancel the bridge itself until September 2007, several months after construction had started on the road. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's a good point, Crust, and I will add a shortened version of it to the article.GreekParadise (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- ..."HEY YOU KIDS!!!!! Get off that Bridge...someones gonna fall n' git hurt, darn it":>)--Buster7 (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Mom, they're playing on the bridge down below again! :) Fcreid (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- "say it ain't so, Joe...Gosh o' golly!...Iffin I had my way I'd blast dem dern bridges ta Kingdom Come. Dat 'uud be da end a dat!"--Buster7 (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Mom, they're playing on the bridge down below again! :) Fcreid (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- ..."HEY YOU KIDS!!!!! Get off that Bridge...someones gonna fall n' git hurt, darn it":>)--Buster7 (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's a good point, Crust, and I will add a shortened version of it to the article.GreekParadise (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Reinstating section from archive: 'Political positions' section - request comments
- The first paragraph of the section has been expanded and now reads like a campaign commercial that is comprised of her quotes from the Time magazine interview. I feel the paragraph needs to be edited to reflect the style of rest of the section/article.
- The sentence on Iraq has been removed from the section. It used to say something like: Palin generally supports the Bush Administration’s policies on the war in Iraq. The Political positions of Sarah Palin article contains the following sentence: “Palin supports the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq, but is concerned that "dependence on foreign energy" may be obstructing efforts to "have an exit plan in place".
- Two of Palin’s positions that were discussed during the Gibson interview are not mentioned in the section. Her opposition to a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons and her opposition to embryonic stem cell research. These can be included with a brief addition to the existing text.
IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
←I'm reinstating this section for comments- I missed it the first time as this page moves so quickly. I agree with IP75 that this summary section should include her political positions on Iraq, semi-automatic assault weapons and embryonic stem cell research. These are important issues, and her positions should be included. As for the first paragraph of the section - I generally agree with IP that it could be reworded in a more balanced manner, but at the moment I feel stronger about the content issues. Tvoz/talk 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- No issue with the first two items. I haven't seen the specific transcripts referenced in the third, but I would be reluctant to conclude and advertise a specific political position from a TV interview. Seems like we could source something like those a bit better. Fcreid (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- The Los Angeles Times published an article [[21]] with interview excerpts of Palin's position on assault weapons. If you search Google News using 'Palin' and 'stem cell' there are other sources in addition to the Gibson interview transcript. Here is one from the Washington Post: [[22]] IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 01:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- If you think it's sourced sufficiently to reflect her genuine position on those issues, go ahead and snag what's already there and weave those points into a proposed modification. I doubt it would be contentious, as both seems to be natural inferences of her gun control and pro-life platforms. Fcreid (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
In principle, this is the one section that I think needs the most work. Does anyone have access to press releases from her campaign office? Has she issued position papers? Transcripts of press conferences she gave as governor? We need to be careful to use reliable sources here - I think if we are claiming something is her political position, it needs to come from a source in which she is actually saying something to the effect of "this is my political position." I have two responses to the concern about sounding like a campaign commercial. First, this will sound less like a campaign commercial as it gets more specific. Second, once it has specifics, we can then reasonably and for NPOV reasons quote her opponents and critics who have challenged her stated position. But before we do the second, we need to do the first. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Alaska photo
Forgive me for not slogging through 30(!!) pages of archives, but has anyone tried contacting Alaska for permission to use this photo in Wikipedia? I'm sure this has come up, but I gotta make sure, because it would be a great improvement over what we've got. --JaGatalk 08:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I did, but no luck. We'll get a better pic soon, I'm sure. I'll go to Flickr now and see if they've got anything new.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'll see if I can contact someone from the Palin camp from here. (But don't hold your breath.)Zaereth (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
References
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
This is the first article I've seen where the references are longer than the article itself. I don't know about anyone else, but to me, that's an issue. Too many references, not enough comments to keep up. Colonel Marksman (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not paper. The average Wikipedia article already has far more citations and references than almost any other encyclopedia's article ... this is indeed one of Wikipedia's strength (it makes the research transparent, and provides a useful resource for other researchers). On top of this I think BLP means we need to be very careful about sources especially for current events. So i just do not see this as a problem. If it does not violate a policy - if it does no harm - why not? I think complex and contentious issues often call for bibliographies that are longer than the article itself. I think there is only one question your comment usefully raises: is there any important content NOT currently in the article? If you are proposing to add content to the article, especially if you feel the sources we cite provide important content that is not actually in the article, well, great! Start proposing specific content to add. If it comes from a source already in the references, we know there is no RS issue, so the only issues are NPOV and WEIGHT. If you propose ading content that complies with NPOV and WEIGHT I am all for it! Slrubenstein | Talk 13:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Tina Fey
Shouldn't mention be made of their resemblance, considering that Palin herself has remarked on it, as have many others? (there's also the almost word for word copy of part of the Couric interview on SNL last week - analyzed by the likes of MSNBC and CNN... ) 70.51.8.75 (talk) 13:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I am not so sure. You all know I feel strongly that part of this article has to be devoted to current events. And the Tina Fey parody was certainly big news last week. But I wonder - it is possible that in the aftermath of the debate, people will stop talking about the Fey parody. So I advise that we wait and see. If the Couric interview/Fey parody continues to haunt Palin, if critics of Palin keep referring to it in the coming weeks, then it is clearly notable enough to belong in this article. But if the chatter dies down I don't think it is worth it. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- What about the physical resemblance? Palin herself has noted it. 70.51.8.75 (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- A good place to start is the SNL article and the Tina Fey article. here, not. Hobartimus (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Every major politician has been parodied, some more effectively than others. We don't mention every single impression on the politicians' articles. The attention SNL and Tina Fey have gotten for the quality of this impression have been mentioned in great detail on their pages.--Loodog (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- A good place to start is the SNL article and the Tina Fey article. here, not. Hobartimus (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- What about the physical resemblance? Palin herself has noted it. 70.51.8.75 (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. To this article, its trivia at best. But definitely noteworthy in the Fey article.Zaereth (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Irrelevant to mention Tina Fey's SNL parody?
I don't know if it's already been brought up but if it has, please forgive me for not combing through the pile of archives to figure that out. But since Tina Fey's impersonation of Palin has caught national attention and even caused a considerable amount of controversy, would it go against the rules to include such a fact in the article? --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, it's hard to keep track of the comments when the page is so long in spite of it being constantly archived. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
"Bible-believer" internal link
Paul, I don't mean to press this issue too much, but I don't see why we shouldn't interpret her words to mean what they appear to mean. The phrase "bible-believing Christian" has a very specific meaning, why should we think she meant anything other than what she said? (And correspondingly link to the appropriate article?) --Quietly (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- What do you think they mean? That, for instance, she believes in "young Earth"? And what would be the appropriate article? Fcreid (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, I had (briefly) linked the words in her quote to the Bible believer article, so it read "Bible-believing Christian". Paul.h reverted the edit, saying "cannot wiki-link inside a direct quote; not at all clear that Palin's def and Wikipedia's def would be the same". Now I am wondering what other people think as well. I think making any claims about her actual beliefs regarding anything like creationism or young earth views would be completely inappropriate, but I don't think it is inappropriate to link her words to a matching article. --Quietly (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia Manual of Style cautions against wiki-linking inside of direct quotations as follows: "Unless there is a good reason to do so, Wikipedia avoids linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader."--Paul (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I actually do see Paul's point. To wiki-link her quote to a specific WP article that describes a series of beliefs in much greater detail than what she's actually provided in the quote is probably inaccurate. Fcreid (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, Since her Religion of choice is still not clear, to send the reader off to another page is a bit of a wild goose chase.--Buster7 (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I actually do see Paul's point. To wiki-link her quote to a specific WP article that describes a series of beliefs in much greater detail than what she's actually provided in the quote is probably inaccurate. Fcreid (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- The WP article doesn't specify a whole lot though, and the whole point is that this is as close as she has gotten to "her Religion of choice". It's not like the bible-believer article says much with certainty. And if she had used a word like fundamentalist would it be inappropriate to link? Linking the word Christian in her quote wouldn't be considered inaccurate would it? --Quietly (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- We shouldn't interpret her words for the simple reason that this violates WP:NOR. period. We can quote her words. And if there are notable views from reliable sources that interpret her words, we need to (for NPOV) include them. But we never put in our own interpretations. I do not see the need for linking, if we link her own words that is an interpretive act, and it is a fact that we cannot claim for sure that what she means by a word is what our linked articles describes. And really, be serious: you don't think if a reader wants to learn more about Christianity they can't just type it into the search box? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Slrubenstein, I am disagreeing with the idea that this is an interpretation of her words, and I apologize if I do not seem serious, I do not intend to be halfhearted. If she had used more common terminology, we would link it. For instance, if someone talks about a scientific theory by name, you would not object to linking to the article about that scientific theory, even within a direct quote. Nor would most people object to linking well established religious terminology. If she had mentioned by name an obscure religious sect, we would link to that as well. As for linking it to educate people about Christianity that isn't my intent, it is to clarify her beliefs as far as is allowable. What I don't understand is why it is okay to interpret her words as meaning anything other than what is established among Christians. --Quietly (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- We shouldn't interpret her words for the simple reason that this violates WP:NOR. period. We can quote her words. And if there are notable views from reliable sources that interpret her words, we need to (for NPOV) include them. But we never put in our own interpretations. I do not see the need for linking, if we link her own words that is an interpretive act, and it is a fact that we cannot claim for sure that what she means by a word is what our linked articles describes. And really, be serious: you don't think if a reader wants to learn more about Christianity they can't just type it into the search box? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- The WP article doesn't specify a whole lot though, and the whole point is that this is as close as she has gotten to "her Religion of choice". It's not like the bible-believer article says much with certainty. And if she had used a word like fundamentalist would it be inappropriate to link? Linking the word Christian in her quote wouldn't be considered inaccurate would it? --Quietly (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- That's the problem. I really don't know, and apparently no one else here does either. Maybe someone can snag a copy of her biography that's floating around to see if she's mentioned specific beliefs, but I gotta lay out my concern in advance... which is hard to do without offending anyone, but here goes. In the past month, every attempt to add "insight" into her specific religious beliefs has been a transparent attempt to elicit that "squirmy" feeling one gets right before getting proselytized after an unexpected knock on the front door. Now, one of the things we do know is that Palin "does not wear her religion on her sleeve", and that's reliably sourced from myriad people, including her arch-rival in Wasilla, Stein, and others who simply dislike her. So, I'm not so convinced that we need to itemize which specific elements of the Bible she takes literally on faith or those she simply integrates into her life figuratively. If she doesn't feel compelled to impress those beliefs upon others, I don't know why we should be doing so here. Fcreid (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I guess I can agree that if she seems so reluctant to clarify, we can omit it as well, so I will drop it. Thank you for your clarification Fcreid. --Quietly (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- My pleasure, and I appreciate your sincere participation in this. Fcreid (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- (ec)Quietly, I knoiw this is now a moot point and I appreciate the quick way you and Fcreid reached an agreement. Just to clarify my own statement, I want to add that I appreciate your comment and I know you are being serious. When it comes to "Christianity" all I can say is this: when I talk to evolutionary scientists, they all agree on all the major elements of evolutionary theory and the facts of evolution. When I talk to a lawyer, they all agree about the basic job description of a lawyer. But when i have talked to Christians, I have learned that many of them disagree, widely about what Christianity is, and even on who is a real Christian. This is why if you wanted to link the word "Alaska" in anything she said to the Alaska article, I would have no problem with it, but I think that linking it to the article on "Christianity" raises big issues about whether the linked article really is what she is talking about. And I have to admit, I just do not think it is necessary. I've read lots of articles with quotations and usually it is the words we editors write that are in blue and not words in the quotes. Quotes are bits of "primary sources" and I think we should write around them, but otherwise leave them alone. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I guess I can agree that if she seems so reluctant to clarify, we can omit it as well, so I will drop it. Thank you for your clarification Fcreid. --Quietly (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- That's the problem. I really don't know, and apparently no one else here does either. Maybe someone can snag a copy of her biography that's floating around to see if she's mentioned specific beliefs, but I gotta lay out my concern in advance... which is hard to do without offending anyone, but here goes. In the past month, every attempt to add "insight" into her specific religious beliefs has been a transparent attempt to elicit that "squirmy" feeling one gets right before getting proselytized after an unexpected knock on the front door. Now, one of the things we do know is that Palin "does not wear her religion on her sleeve", and that's reliably sourced from myriad people, including her arch-rival in Wasilla, Stein, and others who simply dislike her. So, I'm not so convinced that we need to itemize which specific elements of the Bible she takes literally on faith or those she simply integrates into her life figuratively. If she doesn't feel compelled to impress those beliefs upon others, I don't know why we should be doing so here. Fcreid (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
(unindent)...Another example of what we, as editors need to stay away from, happened just prior to the debate. Gov Palin was shown with her eyes closed and her hands folded in front of her. Granted, the appearance was of someone in prayer, and the commentator said as much. But just as possible was her calming her self with deep breaths and affirmations having nothing to do with religion or God. We need verifiable facts, not what our eyes tell us, so to speak. If anything, I would suggest we choose whatever religious designation the article had on, lets say, January 08.--Buster7 (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Westbrook Pegler
In her acceptance speech, Palin's line about small towns - "We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty and sincerity and dignity." - was a quote from fascist writer Westbrook Pegler, who in his columns called for bigotry against blacks and Jews and the assassination of RFK. see http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_spine/archive/2008/09/13/palin-and-pegler.aspx
The association between Palin and Pegler should be mentioned in the section on the 2008 vice-presidential campaign after the paragraph on the "bridge to nowhere."--DarthTaper (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- This has already been discussed at length here. Consensus was to not include.--Paul (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Discussion should be reopened - information about the origin of her quote is not an ad hominem attack on Palin or Pegler, and the information's relevance does not depend on the meaning of the "small town values" rhetoric. The Pegler association is informative because it tells us about the pedigree of her views and those of her handlers. It is not an ad hominem attack because it is a value-neutral fact about her intellectual pedigree.--DarthTaper (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, right. Fcreid (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest that DarthTaper look up the meaning of "ad hominem", if s/he can't see how this is almost a textbook example of one. In any case, none of her views, or those of her handlers, come from Pegler; a bon mot in a speech, given without attribution, says absolutely nothing about her views or her "intellectual pedigree", no matter who originally wrote it. -- Zsero (talk) 03:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- No one is attacking any claim or argument here, so nothing is "ad hominem." I care not at all whether small towns breed honest people, for example. Palin's bromides warrant no response, fallacious or otherwise. But it speaks volumes that she would quote Pegler in a major speech. Your influences are an important part of who you are. Just look at the Wikipedia information boxes for philosophers, for example Kant. Who he influenced and who he was influenced by are as basic as his dates of birth and death.--DarthTaper (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't speak even a very thin octavo volume, with wide margins and large print and lots of white space. It says nothing at all. The line is what it is, regardless of who wrote it; to pretend that it's not a good line because of who wrote it is the very definition of ad hominem. And there is no basis whatsoever for speculation that Palin has been influenced in any way by Pegler, or even that she'd ever heard of him before this latest smear attempt began. -- Zsero (talk) 04:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- You're right that the line is what it is regardless of who wrote it, but as I said above my argument for inclusion has nothing to do with the line itself. And yes, Palin may never have heard of Pegler, but the fact that his line was in her speech speaks to the milieu from whence she comes.--DarthTaper (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- If she, or Obama, had quoted
(plagiarised?)Marx, would you still say the same thing? In fairness, she probably didn't write that bit of her speech. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC) was not plagiarism - although the author wasn't named, the words were clearly flagged as a quote. Ben Aveling 22:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- If she, or Obama, had quoted
←Yes, Ben - I agree with that and made that point here a few days ago too. I think this should be discussed some more here. I think a short reference to Pegler is in orde. rSome places it's been raised: Washington Monthly, Martin Peretz in The New Republic, Frank Rich in The New York Times, Thomas Frank in The Wall Street Journal, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in Huffington Post. Tvoz/talk 08:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm in two minds about this. Is this guilt by association, or is this dog whistling? Given the liklihood that whoever wrote that line knew the author's politics, I'm leaning towards that later. And that makes it includable for me. One split the difference option would be to put it in Public reaction to Sarah Palin. So we talk about, not here, but as part of out discussion of the public discussion of her. Are any of her other quotes from the same guy, or similarly minded people? Regards, Ben Aveling 10:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- It can't even be guilt by association as there is no association here. We have the Obama-Ayers controversy a fully notable standalone article tested at Afd for full notability and it's still not mentioned in the Obama biography. I don't see how would this not even a blip in comparsion- could survive the test for inclusion in any article of Wikipedia nevermind high profile BLPs. Hobartimus (talk) 11:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- The association between Palin and Pegler is more profound in terms of the apparent influence on her views than anything between Obama and Ayers. Obama and Ayers were two Chicagoans who happened to cross paths as they worked on education issues. Palin, whose views we know little about, quoted Pegler without attribution, showing that this is someone whom she or her handlers read. I'd say that this is more analogous to the Obama-Jeremiah Wright controversy, in which there was reasonable suspicion that Wright influenced Obama. That controversy, which Obama specifically addressed, made it into his article. A short reference to the Palin-Pegler connection is warranted.--DarthTaper (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- The only problem with this argument is that there is no "association between Palin and Pegler." And given that, "apparent influence on her views" and "showing that this is someone whom she or her handlers read" are great examples of begging the question.--Paul (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- There is an association between Palin and Pegler - she quoted him in her speech. You can only quote things that you've read. Whoever wrote the speech read Pegler. No question begging there...--DarthTaper (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- The most likely source for this quote is from page 31 of "Right from the Beginning" by Patrick Buchanan (1988). The use of the quote in Palin's speech doesn't prove anything about her or her speechwriter reading Pegler, or even knowing who Pegler is. By the way, I read Buchanan's columns now and then. I suppose that makes me an anti-semite?--Paul (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Your source reinforces a bizarre connection to Truman, a Democrat who rose to the presidency because of the death of the president, that Palin herself made in her speech. You're right that her use of the quote doesn't prove that she subscribes to Pegler's views; it also doesn't prove that she thinks she's the next Truman. But it says something about her milieu and mindset regarding her place in history.--DarthTaper (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- The most likely source for this quote is from page 31 of "Right from the Beginning" by Patrick Buchanan (1988). The use of the quote in Palin's speech doesn't prove anything about her or her speechwriter reading Pegler, or even knowing who Pegler is. By the way, I read Buchanan's columns now and then. I suppose that makes me an anti-semite?--Paul (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- November 4 (2008) seems sooo far away. What's next, Palin herself shot RFK? GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- There is an association between Palin and Pegler - she quoted him in her speech. You can only quote things that you've read. Whoever wrote the speech read Pegler. No question begging there...--DarthTaper (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- The only problem with this argument is that there is no "association between Palin and Pegler." And given that, "apparent influence on her views" and "showing that this is someone whom she or her handlers read" are great examples of begging the question.--Paul (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- The association between Palin and Pegler is more profound in terms of the apparent influence on her views than anything between Obama and Ayers. Obama and Ayers were two Chicagoans who happened to cross paths as they worked on education issues. Palin, whose views we know little about, quoted Pegler without attribution, showing that this is someone whom she or her handlers read. I'd say that this is more analogous to the Obama-Jeremiah Wright controversy, in which there was reasonable suspicion that Wright influenced Obama. That controversy, which Obama specifically addressed, made it into his article. A short reference to the Palin-Pegler connection is warranted.--DarthTaper (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- It can't even be guilt by association as there is no association here. We have the Obama-Ayers controversy a fully notable standalone article tested at Afd for full notability and it's still not mentioned in the Obama biography. I don't see how would this not even a blip in comparsion- could survive the test for inclusion in any article of Wikipedia nevermind high profile BLPs. Hobartimus (talk) 11:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm in two minds about this. Is this guilt by association, or is this dog whistling? Given the liklihood that whoever wrote that line knew the author's politics, I'm leaning towards that later. And that makes it includable for me. One split the difference option would be to put it in Public reaction to Sarah Palin. So we talk about, not here, but as part of out discussion of the public discussion of her. Are any of her other quotes from the same guy, or similarly minded people? Regards, Ben Aveling 10:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- And here I thought it was a right-wing conspiracy. . . . Heyyyyy!?!?! --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
A person who quotes "Water, water everywhere" is quoting a drug addict. One who quotes Alice in Wonderland is quoting a probable pedophile. I would suggest that it is the quote which is important, not who was quoted, absent any mention of the author? Collect (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Both those men are mainly quoted by people with no awareness of the authors' work, let alone their personal lives and desires (alleged desires, in the case of Dodgson). The expression "ne any drop drink to drink" has been repeated so often by people who have not read Coleridge that when it is quoted, it's almost invariably misquoted. Those men are read for the quality of their writing, not because of their politics. You cannot say the same for Pegler or Buchanan. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- "Those men are read for the quality of their writing, not because of their politics." can you be any more off topic? What's that got to do with anything in the article? Let's say your unsupported claim is true that generally people read "Pegler or Buchanan for their politics" what is the relevance of that odd claim to the article? I propose to let this thread be archived as not reasonably directed at improving the article and move on. Hobartimus (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) You raised the example, I responded to it, and now I'm off-topic? :-) Your question was, how strong is the association between Palin and Pegler. My answer is: more than zero, which was your earlier claim; more than the association normally created by quoting popular, oft quoted authors such as in your more recent example; but most importantly, the association created is less than what would be needed to warrant including it in the article - if only slightly less. There's too much distance, so far. The possibility that the quote came via Buchanan, the probability that she probably didn't write the speech herself, the fact that it's just one line. Unless and until there are more examples of her speeches being crafted from the writings of fascists, I'd prefer to let this one slide. (I'm more worried about what the quote says of her opinions of people from large towns and cities.) Regards, Ben Aveling 21:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- There is still not the slightest indication that either Palin or her speech writer knew anything at all about Pegler, let alone that they were influenced by his politics. It says nothing at all about their "milieu", whatever that's supposed to mean. Theories about "dog whistles" are merely the paranoid speculation of left-wing commentators with nothing better to write about. And without that the origin of the quote is simply not at all notable, it's the ultimate in trivia, and doesn't belong in the article. Giving it even an extra word would be undue weight, and would appear to be endorsing these fantasies. The speech writer saw the line somewhere, memorised it, and on this occasion spat it out; the most obvious reason it wasn't attributed was that he couldn't remember the writer's name, and couldn't be bothered to google it. -- Zsero (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Saw the line somewhere, memorised the line word perfect, too forgetful to remember the writer's name, too lazy to google it? You're being harsher on her than I am... Regards, Ben Aveling 22:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Eh... I think several sources have found it... curious that the quote chosen to underline the Republicans' "small-town values" code phrase just happens to come from a notoriously rabid racist and anti-Semite who was too extreme-right for the John Birch Society. But yeah, it's probably below the notability horizon for this article. MastCell Talk 22:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- She does say writer, and identifies him as a contemporary of Truman's, so it's clear she's not talking about something from a politician in 1988. It's frustrating, you can see the nudge, nudge, wink, wink nature of it. But it's all sotto voce. As a stand-alone piece, it doesn't warrant inclusion. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, she's quite erudite, yet somehow above she doesn't understand the phrase "Achille's heel". She's a wily one. 75.148.1.26 (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- She does say writer, and identifies him as a contemporary of Truman's, so it's clear she's not talking about something from a politician in 1988. It's frustrating, you can see the nudge, nudge, wink, wink nature of it. But it's all sotto voce. As a stand-alone piece, it doesn't warrant inclusion. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- "Those men are read for the quality of their writing, not because of their politics." can you be any more off topic? What's that got to do with anything in the article? Let's say your unsupported claim is true that generally people read "Pegler or Buchanan for their politics" what is the relevance of that odd claim to the article? I propose to let this thread be archived as not reasonably directed at improving the article and move on. Hobartimus (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Road and Young
The section on the bridges keeps getting huge. See WP:Undue weight. Some people seem to be under the misimpression that they have a right to insert any factual material about the bridges that they like, regardless of consensus. Not so. One editor could insert a million factually accurate words about the bridges into that section, but not without a consensus to do so.
I've removed the info about the road. When the section was shorter, I tolerated the material about the road. But now the section has become huge. The $25 million road is trivial compared to the billion dollar bridges. Leave the road for the sub-article.
Likewise, I've removed "Don Young's Way" again. We don't need three names here for one bridge ("Knik Arm", "Bridge to Nowhere" and "Don Young's Bridge"). Leave Young for the sub-article.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, UNDUE weight abuses should be cut down and aggressively. Policies must be respected at some point. Hobartimus (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I see subjectivity at play in the invocation of WP:Undue weight: Why does it violate WP:Undue weight? Could it have been fixed rather than being removed? •Jim62sch•dissera! 20:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Did you read WP:Undue weight? Your "fixing" comment sounds a bit as if you were unfamiliar. What would this "fixing" that you mention possibly look like? Hobartimus (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I restored it. It is not trivial. Fixing means --"write it so it's shorter". This is not hard to comprehend. •Jim62sch•dissera! 20:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- It violates undue weight because a $25 million dollar road is much less notable than a billion dollar proposal for bridges. The latter are also getting massively more news media attention than the road. Likewise, the "Knik Arm Bridge" is known much more commonly by that name, and also much more commonly by the "Bridge to Nowhere" moniker, than the name "Don Young's Way". I was willing to leave the road and Young in the article, except that the section keeps getting bigger and bigger, so something should come out, and these are the most trivial things that I see.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- "write it so it's shorter" sounds very well and easy to comprehedn but unfortunately that's not what you really tried to do, as it finally turned out "fixing" had the real meaning of "reverting without discussion". Please don't do that. Hobartimus (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, when it comes to current events weight is a reflection of how much discussion there is in national news media. I agree with Jim62sch, who i am pretty sure from other experiences is quite familiar with undue weight principles. But I am betting he is also quite familiar with another longstanding principle at Wikipedia which is not to delete content that is compliant with our core policies (NPOV, V, and NOR) and accurate. There are a couple of ways to deal with the undue weight issue besides deletion. The most common way is to add more content bearing on weightier points of view. In this particular case I propose another quite common solution: create a spin-off article on the bridge, with as much NPOV, V, RS and NOR content as people care to add. Then we put a link to that article in this article, and have a section that summarizes what is in the linked article (if the linked article is relatively unstable, we just need to check it once or twice a week to see if the summary in this article needs to be updated). I bet we can reach an agreement as to what would be a reasonable length for the summary in this article (two or three paragraphs? Or just one? either way, let's discuss it.) Slrubenstein | Talk 20:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- "write it so it's shorter" sounds very well and easy to comprehedn but unfortunately that's not what you really tried to do, as it finally turned out "fixing" had the real meaning of "reverting without discussion". Please don't do that. Hobartimus (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- It violates undue weight because a $25 million dollar road is much less notable than a billion dollar proposal for bridges. The latter are also getting massively more news media attention than the road. Likewise, the "Knik Arm Bridge" is known much more commonly by that name, and also much more commonly by the "Bridge to Nowhere" moniker, than the name "Don Young's Way". I was willing to leave the road and Young in the article, except that the section keeps getting bigger and bigger, so something should come out, and these are the most trivial things that I see.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I see subjectivity at play in the invocation of WP:Undue weight: Why does it violate WP:Undue weight? Could it have been fixed rather than being removed? •Jim62sch•dissera! 20:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- In addition to WP:Undue weight, this material is part of a summary section. The main article is Governorship of Sarah Palin. Please see WP:Summary style. No one is suggesting eliminating material from Wikipedia, but rather using a summary procedure that will keep this section from overwhelming the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I misunderstood you - I though by "removed" you meant "deleted." If you moved it to the main article, no one should object to what you did. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- In addition to WP:Undue weight, this material is part of a summary section. The main article is Governorship of Sarah Palin. Please see WP:Summary style. No one is suggesting eliminating material from Wikipedia, but rather using a summary procedure that will keep this section from overwhelming the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- He did mean deleted. My guess is that FL is not familiar with the federal contract process: any contract can be cancelled without cause at a very minimal cost. Given that I've done this as a COTR, I think I know that of which I write. •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, Jim. I have no objection to the material I removed existing in the sub-article.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Then why did you not move it into a sub-article? I repeat what I wrote before: we should not delete any content that conforms with our core policies of NPOV, V, and NOR. Add to it, or move it, but do not delete it. Your deleting it just creates an antagonistic anti-consensus-building environment, and this puzzles me as it semms like this is unnecessary, given that you just said you wouldn't object to it being in the other article. if you really believe that, deleting it seems like a provocation! Slrubenstein | Talk 00:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, Jim. I have no objection to the material I removed existing in the sub-article.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- A summary should be a good summary, highlighting the main points and controversies if any. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- That's right, it should Jossi. We agree 100% on that.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly my point re fixing it rather than removing it. FL, the main point is the not the dosh amount, but the decision not to void a contract for a minimal cost. This is not difficult to understand as such decisions indicate the type of president she would be should anything happen to the president. That not a POV statement, just solid PoliSci. •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- What is your proposal that represents the "fixing" that would shorten the section that it could possibly come close to satisfying WP:UNDUE. Hobartimus (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Is there an UNDUE issue in that section? I do not see evidence of that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- This section I think was opened partly on the ever increasing nature of the material. It had about 5 times the material than the pipeline which costs tens of billions, or the VP debate that was watched by 70 million people just on the networks or could compare it with the whole personal life section etc. The "bridge" was ultimately a plan in the past that was abandoned, there is no actual bridge to show for the huge section. Hobartimus (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Is there an UNDUE issue in that section? I do not see evidence of that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- What is your proposal that represents the "fixing" that would shorten the section that it could possibly come close to satisfying WP:UNDUE. Hobartimus (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly my point re fixing it rather than removing it. FL, the main point is the not the dosh amount, but the decision not to void a contract for a minimal cost. This is not difficult to understand as such decisions indicate the type of president she would be should anything happen to the president. That not a POV statement, just solid PoliSci. •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't either, Jossi, but this is as much excision as I can see making it still be comprehensible.
- Palin spent $25 million in federal funds on a Gravina Island road to where the bridge would have gone, as the $25 million would have had to be returned to the Federal government.[10] A McCain-Palin spokesperson said that "because the contract for the road was already signed before she got into office, the governor was left no viable alternative."[11] The Alaska Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration dispute this assessment, saying the contract could have been cancelled at minimal cost and that the federal money could have been returned to Congress for other uses. [12] •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't either, Jossi, but this is as much excision as I can see making it still be comprehensible.
(undent) There are two guidelines at issue here: WP:Undue weight and WP:Summary style. The stuff about the road should come out according to either one of those guidelines.
As mentioned, it's a $25 million dollar project in the context of a billion dollar bridge proposal. There's been much much less media coverage about the road, and the road is covered adequately in the sub-article. It's a detail.
Jim thinks it's very significant because it shows Palin doesn't understand how to void a contract, which she could have voided the day she took office. However, the only cited source making this argument is "Propublica" which is not a neutral organization.[23] Additionally, this obscure accusation from this obscure organization overlooks a few things. First, Palin did not cancel the Gravina Bridge itself until well into her term, so it doesn't really make much sense that she should have cancelled the road on the first day; Palin didn't officially cancel the bridge itself until September 2007, several months after construction had started on the road. Second, Palin had reason to proceed with the road even if the bridge was cancelled; her spokesperson said that the island road would open territory for development even without the bridge.[24]
I still think that including the road in this main article is a detail that ought to be covered in the sub-article and not here. Ferrylodge (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- FL, I've voided contracts: it's not hard. •Jim62sch•dissera! 22:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Jim, that's fascinating the way you've now made the material much more concise.[25] You've accomplished that by removing every single fact that would support Palin's side of it. Well done! Now the article does not mention that she wanted to open areas for development. And you still use Propublica as a RS when it is not, including their absurd argument that disregards that she did not cancel the Gravina Bridge until well into her term after road construction had already begun. Very impressive. Good chutzpa.
- This whole issue is relatively non-notable, and should come out of the article. If it stays in the article, it ought to be converted from anti-Palin propaganda into something resembling neutrality.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- This is not like taking a $500 penalty for canceling a bathroom upgrade, Joe. There were undoubtedly huge liabilities that, without knowing the exact terms of proposal and bidding process, could actually have cost as much as or even more(!) than the original amount. Do you know if it was fixed-cost? Whether government buyer was responsible for all pre-purchased materials, or worse that material were government-furnished? While it seems easy to conjecture, there is just no way anyone could determine the scope of liability without a significant legal review. And this is Alaska! When I left Adak (in the Aleutians) they were still paving an access road to military facilities that had already been vacation a year earlier. Does government contracting need to be fixed? Probably so, but not in a way that would leave private industry "holding the bag" for poor government planning. And this will be the last I speak of bridges and roads! :) Fcreid (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Wanna bet?--Buster7 (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'd made a solemn oath to myself! :) Fcreid (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Wanna bet?--Buster7 (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- This is not like taking a $500 penalty for canceling a bathroom upgrade, Joe. There were undoubtedly huge liabilities that, without knowing the exact terms of proposal and bidding process, could actually have cost as much as or even more(!) than the original amount. Do you know if it was fixed-cost? Whether government buyer was responsible for all pre-purchased materials, or worse that material were government-furnished? While it seems easy to conjecture, there is just no way anyone could determine the scope of liability without a significant legal review. And this is Alaska! When I left Adak (in the Aleutians) they were still paving an access road to military facilities that had already been vacation a year earlier. Does government contracting need to be fixed? Probably so, but not in a way that would leave private industry "holding the bag" for poor government planning. And this will be the last I speak of bridges and roads! :) Fcreid (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Ferrylodge, I do not understand your reaction to jim's version. There is one statement of fact, then a statement from the McCain/Palin point of view, then a statement from the opposite point of view. Isn't this how NPOV should work? Look, there is only one way that we will make progress on this article: if we stop making assumptions or inferences about one another's motives, and also stop caring about whether the finished product makes us happy or angry - given the stakes of the election, one might predict that ANY sentence or passage will make at least half of everyone unhappy - and instead just ask: which sentence gives undue weight to a non-notable view, or is from an unreliable source, and should be removed, and what notable view from a reliable source needs to be added. Let's focus on our policies. Instead of criticizing one another we should just be saying: I do/do not think this view is notable because ... And, I do/do not think this source is notable because ... If we all worked this way, we could work together regardless of our emotions. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- "...caring about whether the finished product makes us happy or angry'...reminds me of a question posed to Mrs. Eisenhower, "But why don't you just become a Democrat and enjoy politics?"\\:>)--Buster7 (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Slrubenstein. The last paragraph has three sentences: description of issue, Palin view, opposite view. Seems both concise and neutral to me. How would you change it Ferrylodge to make it "more neutral" without deleting it?GreekParadise (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Archiving
Does anyone know if a bot is automatically archiving, or if we have to do it? This page is getting unmanagably long and something needs to be archived. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, MiszaBot is configured to auto-archive. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Miszabot is currently archiving any discussion that hasn't had a comment in 48 hours. Last night/this morning it archived about 150k of discussions. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Bias
I have taken a 2 week break from the article in hopes that someone would try to bance the article. I still find it too far slanted as Pro-Palin--Lambchop2008 (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Where to start... Your assertion that she neglected the welfare of an unborn child by flying home from Texas (or is Trig really even her child?) Her religious beliefs could be interpreted to support that she called dinosaurs Jesus Ponies? How about ritualistic spiritual behavior with an African Witch Doctor? Fcreid (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Lambchop, you came here two weeks ago spouting about comparing "baby bumps" on Palin and her daughter and demanding the article reflect Trig as her grandson and not her son. You now have the audacity to waltz in here two weeks later, without any contribution whatsoever, and place a demand for review of neutrality? Crawl back into whatever hole you just left, will you? There is no "good faith" to be assumed here. Fcreid (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Again, generalized concerns about the bias of the article are not useful. If you could pick particular things to be changed, we could discuss those.--Loodog (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with Loodog, disagree with Fcreid. Specific complaints are useful, random abuse is not. Fcreid, we know you feel strongly about Sarah Palin, but try to keep some perspective. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, Fcreid does not feel strongly about Sarah Palin, but does feel strongly about bias and libel. My style is usually to avoid direct confrontation, but in Lambchop's case he/she has only tried to insert the most absurd and libelous material here and made no positive contributions to this article. An editor's actions either adds to their goodwill and presumption of good faith, or it subtracts from it. It's fine for Lampchop to use the talk page to make suggestions for improving the article, but given his/her history, tagging the article with a {{bias}} tag is simply harassment of other editors.--Paul (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- My feelings have nothing to do with anything, Ben, but I oppose turning this article into some trashy tabloid. Lambchop used up all of its "Good Faith" tokens within hours of its first appearance here. It has nothing of value to contribute. 75.148.1.26 (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Nonetheless, words like 'spouting', 'audacity' and 'crawl back into whatever hole you left' are unhelpful. Regards, Ben Aveling 19:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Placing a bias tag on the article without stating any specifics is useless. Please remove tag ASAP. IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with Loodog, disagree with Fcreid. Specific complaints are useful, random abuse is not. Fcreid, we know you feel strongly about Sarah Palin, but try to keep some perspective. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Hustler movie
unencyclopedic tangent |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hustler is making a movie with a Sarah Palin look alike. Shambalala (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
|
Grammatical Error in Sarah Palin article
I pretty new to Wikipedia. I'm studying changes in the article about Sarah Palin for a class and I read a sentence that didn't make sense:
"The Knik Arm Bridge, is a $600 million project to open up development and provide an alternate link from Anchorage to Wasilla;[102] the bridge is being evaluated by officials as a possible threat to nearby beluga whales. [102]
This is in the "Bridge to Nowhere" and Knik Arm Bridge section. It looks like when "officially named 'Don Young's Way' after Alaska Congressman Don Young in the original legislation" was taken out of the sentence the comma before it was not. I know this is minor but...
Amandatrpt (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Criticism of Obama section
I recently started a section on Palin's criticisms of Obama under the campaign section here. Specifically I included info from the New York Times that Palin accused Obama of palling around with terrorists. Predictably, my edit was immediately reverted by another editor, Eric the Red, who claimed it violated WP:UNDUE. I reverted his edit because I do not believe it does. Palin's criticisms of Obama have real weight and relevance to her campaign, far more than her ties to churches or her positions on bridges while she was still Mayor of Wasilla and the section on her campaign is virtually silent regarding any substantial policy issues. There is a section devoted to her poltical positions on the page but I don't think this would fit there as well. In any event, I think it belongs in the article. It relates directly to the style and the substance of her vice presidential campaign.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I would also note that according to the NYT article, the increase in the criticism of Obama marks a shift in the McCain campaigns tactics.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Here's the BBC's version of the story with a nice video.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- The NYT article is here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- 1. Having a whole section about criticism of Obama is dubious whether it should ever be included.
- 2. Having this recent criticism of Obama's involvement with Ayers as the only sentence in this section makes it definitely not worth inclusion at the moment. Both campaigns criticize each other every day, single criticisms are not noteworthy. This section is not noteworthy enough to be included at the present in my opinion. LonelyMarble (talk) 04:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Cdog- A dedicated criticism section of Obama does not belong in the main bio of Sarah Palin. No other candidate has a 'criticism section' of another candidate in their main bio. IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe that's because none of the other candidates are accusing each other of "palling around with terrorists". LonelyMarble, I'm afraid I don't really understand your first point. Why shouldn't there be a section on how Palin criticizes her opponent? It's what she's saying. It's the point she's making to distinguish the two sides. That seems important to me. As far as your second point, just because there isn't a lot of info in the section is not a good reason to erase the info that is currently there. It's a reason to merge it into another section, but not to erase it. When people erase info on this article that's well sourced and relevant to the topic, it looks like one of two things to me: (1) sloppy editing, or (2) like you are trying to prove a political point. Both are unacceptable.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- If you don't like the term criticism, why not "Soundbites" or "Campaign message". I'm just concerned that the campaign section is woefully inadequate in describing what techniques Palin is using and the messages she is conveying.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- My original thinking was that if it is decided to include info about that criticism, it should probably just be in the "2008 Vice-presidential campaign" section. I'm still not sure it's noteworthy enough to include though. If you can get others to agree it's important enough to include then I'm okay with it being merged into that section. I'd have to agree having an own section about anything like criticism or campaign message will end up being undue weight because everything in that section could probably be trimmed down and just put in the main 2008 Vice-presidential campaign section. LonelyMarble (talk) 04:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- They are all accusing each other of something 24/7. It's called politics and it belongs in a campaign article IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- As opposed to the campaign section?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Next, we will include Obama's camp saying that what she said are '"desperate and false attacks" intended to change the subject from the economy.' The fact is, Cdogsimmons, it's over, McCain has lost, and you can't help him on Wikipedia. Stop trying. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- As opposed to the campaign section?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- They are all accusing each other of something 24/7. It's called politics and it belongs in a campaign article IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- My original thinking was that if it is decided to include info about that criticism, it should probably just be in the "2008 Vice-presidential campaign" section. I'm still not sure it's noteworthy enough to include though. If you can get others to agree it's important enough to include then I'm okay with it being merged into that section. I'd have to agree having an own section about anything like criticism or campaign message will end up being undue weight because everything in that section could probably be trimmed down and just put in the main 2008 Vice-presidential campaign section. LonelyMarble (talk) 04:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- If you don't like the term criticism, why not "Soundbites" or "Campaign message". I'm just concerned that the campaign section is woefully inadequate in describing what techniques Palin is using and the messages she is conveying.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe that's because none of the other candidates are accusing each other of "palling around with terrorists". LonelyMarble, I'm afraid I don't really understand your first point. Why shouldn't there be a section on how Palin criticizes her opponent? It's what she's saying. It's the point she's making to distinguish the two sides. That seems important to me. As far as your second point, just because there isn't a lot of info in the section is not a good reason to erase the info that is currently there. It's a reason to merge it into another section, but not to erase it. When people erase info on this article that's well sourced and relevant to the topic, it looks like one of two things to me: (1) sloppy editing, or (2) like you are trying to prove a political point. Both are unacceptable.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Cdog- A dedicated criticism section of Obama does not belong in the main bio of Sarah Palin. No other candidate has a 'criticism section' of another candidate in their main bio. IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- 1. Having a whole section about criticism of Obama is dubious whether it should ever be included.
Fee Fi Foe Fum doesn't have a clue what he's talking about and should keep his allegations to himself. The info was well sourced, relevant and informative. I know that some people don't think the NYT is as fair and balanced as other news sources, but NPOV? Really. I'm not going to edit war with you. I just think this info is interesting. Palin accusing Obama of associating with terrorists is the nastiest thing I've heard said so far this campaign (it almost sounds tantamount to aiding a terrorist which is a serious crime in the United States) and it is reflective of a stated policy shift by the McCain campaign to up the attacks. I think it passes the WP:UNDUE test if included in the campaign section, though I admit it may not deserve it's own sub-section, so why not keep the info in?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think mostly this needs more time to see if it is worthy to be included or not. Maybe wait a couple days and see how much impact this story has? As of right now it doesn't seem to be important enough to include yet, that may change in a few days though. Political jabs like this happen every day, it's hard to tell what is memorable and what is not. LonelyMarble (talk) 05:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
WP:RECENT, WP:UNDUE. It belongs at John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, if anywhere. --Evb-wiki (talk) 05:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Questioning other editors' motives or political affiliations is unhelpful. I agree with Onlymarble that we simply do not know whether today's talking point is very relevant to her campaign, much less her life story. Probably not. Whether she becomes Vice President or not, it seems unlikely a year from now that anyone will define Palin by her being the mouthpiece of a particular campaign attack. Further, to describe this in an NPOV way we would have to mention what some of the reliable sources conclude, that this is part of the McCain campaign's announced efforts to go negative because they are losing momentum, and that her claim is misleading and misrepresents her sources. We don't need to do that here in a biography.Wikidemon (talk) 05:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- The same NYT article mentions that Todd Palin has refused to testify before the Alaskan State Legislature investigating his wifes abuse of power. Should we include that in the article? The Ayers connection is not new or newsworthy. It is an obvious ploy to confuse the voting public and we should certainly not be involved in helping to perpetrate fraud on our readers. Not every utterance that Gov Palin will be making for the next few weeks is worthy of inclusion. BTW, FFFF did not make any allegations. And no one mentioned having any problem with the source. The problem is with the Palin criticism re:Ayers (whom she doesnt mention by name BTW)--Buster7 (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- The subpoena issue is in the article on the trooper investigation. It certainly doesn't belong on this article. Maybe on Todd's, but probably not. He got a subpoena, took legal advice, and followed it - it will only be notable if the subpoena is upheld and enforced. -- Zsero (talk) 05:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- The same NYT article mentions that Todd Palin has refused to testify before the Alaskan State Legislature investigating his wifes abuse of power. Should we include that in the article? The Ayers connection is not new or newsworthy. It is an obvious ploy to confuse the voting public and we should certainly not be involved in helping to perpetrate fraud on our readers. Not every utterance that Gov Palin will be making for the next few weeks is worthy of inclusion. BTW, FFFF did not make any allegations. And no one mentioned having any problem with the source. The problem is with the Palin criticism re:Ayers (whom she doesnt mention by name BTW)--Buster7 (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Questioning other editors' motives or political affiliations is unhelpful. I agree with Onlymarble that we simply do not know whether today's talking point is very relevant to her campaign, much less her life story. Probably not. Whether she becomes Vice President or not, it seems unlikely a year from now that anyone will define Palin by her being the mouthpiece of a particular campaign attack. Further, to describe this in an NPOV way we would have to mention what some of the reliable sources conclude, that this is part of the McCain campaign's announced efforts to go negative because they are losing momentum, and that her claim is misleading and misrepresents her sources. We don't need to do that here in a biography.Wikidemon (talk) 05:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- "Nasty"? It's just the undisputed truth. He does have a close personal connection with terrorists Ayers and Dohrn, and their terrorist past was clearly not enough to make him shun them. How is it "nasty" to say so? Still, it's not a notable thing about Palin that she attacked him for it. Of course she did - she's the VP candidate in an election against him, so attacking him is her job, and this is an obvious flaw that he has. It's notable on his article, not hers. -- Zsero (talk) 05:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Forty years ago I was on a Mens bowling team with a guy that later became Child molester. Should My picture be circulated to my neighbors? Obama had nothing more than a cursory relationship with a person that May have been remotely involved in bombings in the "60's. And his relationship was many, many years later. Palin makes it sound like Obama helped to make the bombs. Typical Political Obfuscation. --Buster7 (talk) 06:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- 1. There's a difference between "later" and "before". Obama knew who Ayers and Dohrn were when he became close to them. And his relationship was not in any way "cursory", it was very close. Why does it matter how many years later it was? Did they become better people in the interim? More fit for civilised company? If McCain was friends with a rapist we'd never hear the end of it, but somehow being friends with anti-American terrorists is OK? -- Zsero (talk) 06:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Forty years ago I was on a Mens bowling team with a guy that later became Child molester. Should My picture be circulated to my neighbors? Obama had nothing more than a cursory relationship with a person that May have been remotely involved in bombings in the "60's. And his relationship was many, many years later. Palin makes it sound like Obama helped to make the bombs. Typical Political Obfuscation. --Buster7 (talk) 06:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Rrrrright, we're off-topic here. It's absurd to write a criticism of Obama section into an article about Palin. I don't think any significant portion of her life is defined by criticizing Obama. Politicians criticize each other in a heated race, that's it. When she does criticize Obama, it's on the McCain platform, not as a consequence of her experience in Alaska or otherwise. The VP candidate is more or less obligated to perpetuate his/her principal's message.--Loodog (talk) 06:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- In no way was their relationship close. No more than my relationship with Zsero is close. They worked toward some of the same Neighborhood objectives in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago (Ayers was an educator at the University of Chicago which is located in...Hyde Park). Like Palin you attempt to confuse the facts with your own imagination. The bomber and Obama are un-related. Even tho Palin hinted that they are, it really has nothing to do with her BLP and can not be included. It is just campaign, swift boat type, rhetoric. Not worth any more time.--Buster7 (talk) 07:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Come on, you know better than that. Or if you don't you shouldn't comment. Ayers and Obama go way back to before he even went to law school. And then there's the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which Ayers founded and put Obama in as chairman, and where they worked closely together spending over $100M to radicalise school children. Ayers and Dohrn even launched Obama's political career at their house. This is about as close as allies get. And it didn't bother Obama one bit that Ayers and Dohrn are unrepentant terrorists who hate America. You're right that it's swift-boat type rhetoric; it tells the truth, exactly as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth did about Kerry. But the fact that Palin is telling the truth about Obama doesn't belong in the article, because it's not a notable fact about her. -- Zsero (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Reliable sources extensively covered Palin's comment that Obama is "palling around with terrorists" AP AFP WSJ NYT and several hundred others. Now a single statement hardly makes a "section" so that's a little premature first the discussion should focus on the extensively covered "palling around with terrorists" comment. Hobartimus (talk) 09:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Another reliable source claims its 'no big deal" [26]...--Buster7 (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Reliable sources extensively covered Palin's comment that Obama is "palling around with terrorists" AP AFP WSJ NYT and several hundred others. Now a single statement hardly makes a "section" so that's a little premature first the discussion should focus on the extensively covered "palling around with terrorists" comment. Hobartimus (talk) 09:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Come on, you know better than that. Or if you don't you shouldn't comment. Ayers and Obama go way back to before he even went to law school. And then there's the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which Ayers founded and put Obama in as chairman, and where they worked closely together spending over $100M to radicalise school children. Ayers and Dohrn even launched Obama's political career at their house. This is about as close as allies get. And it didn't bother Obama one bit that Ayers and Dohrn are unrepentant terrorists who hate America. You're right that it's swift-boat type rhetoric; it tells the truth, exactly as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth did about Kerry. But the fact that Palin is telling the truth about Obama doesn't belong in the article, because it's not a notable fact about her. -- Zsero (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- In no way was their relationship close. No more than my relationship with Zsero is close. They worked toward some of the same Neighborhood objectives in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago (Ayers was an educator at the University of Chicago which is located in...Hyde Park). Like Palin you attempt to confuse the facts with your own imagination. The bomber and Obama are un-related. Even tho Palin hinted that they are, it really has nothing to do with her BLP and can not be included. It is just campaign, swift boat type, rhetoric. Not worth any more time.--Buster7 (talk) 07:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
WARNING Ok, I tried to archive this section and roll it up, and that was promptly undone by someone who isn't done arguing about the candidates - I will say this one more time: This page is for discussing improving the article, not for discussing the subject, or having political arguments which are more suited to a forum. Just as examples:
- Fee Fi Foe Fum: it's over, McCain has lost - take it to a forum. Do NOT place that kind of post here
- Cdogsimmons: Fee Fi Foe Fum doesn't have a clue what he's talking about - personal attack
- Zsero: multiple posts about Obama , not Palin - take it to a forum. Do NOT argue about Obama on Palin's talk page or indeed on Wikipedia at all.
Failure to follow the above advice may lead to being encouraged to take a break from this article, from political topics, or from Wikipedia all-together. For those who wish to be dense, I'm talking about possible article, subject, and site blocks and bans. So step away from the keyboard long enough to focus, and next post, make it something which directly addresses this article without insulting any of your fellow editors. You may wish to read WP:Writing for the enemy while you take your break, or WP:TIGER or WP:MASTADON. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- (ec)There is too much discussion here of what editors think are valid criticisms of Obama or not. What we should be discussing is, what criticisms, by Palin and of Obama or Biden, have been notable enough to gain considerable public discussion by the news media or Obama or Biden. If it is notable and from reliable sources, it goes in. If it is not notable enough to be in a couple of major newspapers over a couple of days, then it should not go in. Whether an editor thinks mcCain will win or loose, or thinks the criticism is valid or not valid, is simply irrelevant. KC is of course right. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- As I tried to point out above, this is recentism and carries undue wieght. It belongs at John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, if anywhere. Wikipedia is not a newspaper.--Evb-wiki (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- This article is about a woman who is notable largely because of current events, so relevant current events are ... relevant. Moreover, statements Palin makes belong in the article on Palin, not McCain. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree. This isn't Palin on Obama; it's pure presidential caimpagn rhetoric. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- You have raised two issues: recentism, and whether material belongs in this article or the article on McCain. As for the latter issue, it is not for us to decide whether something Plin says expresses her own views or something spoon-fed her by the McCain operatives. All we know is that palin said it. If she said it, and if wht she said is notble in the context of current events, it belongs in this article, period. If there is a notable controversy in the public sphere - persistent accusations from Obama or Biden, for example, or continued argument in the national news media, that Palin was not really expressing her own viw but McCain, we should summarize that view, provide references to reliable sources, and add it to the article. But if palin expresses a view, what is important is that it was Palin, the object of this article, who said it.
- This article is about a woman who is notable largely because of current events, so relevant current events are ... relevant. Moreover, statements Palin makes belong in the article on Palin, not McCain. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- As I tried to point out above, this is recentism and carries undue wieght. It belongs at John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, if anywhere. Wikipedia is not a newspaper.--Evb-wiki (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- As for recentism, well, that is an essay expressing the personal view of another editor. it is not Wikipedia policy. But that aid, even the recentism essay you invoke says the following:
- The second sense of recentism—the creation of a glut of new articles on a recent event—is not entirely a negative. Inter-article relative emphasis may be skewed and a particular topic inflated (2006 Lebanon War is longer than George Washington, for example), but these new additions also have definite benefits explained below.
- As for recentism, well, that is an essay expressing the personal view of another editor. it is not Wikipedia policy. But that aid, even the recentism essay you invoke says the following:
- Experience has shown that collaborative editing on wikipedia has resulted in the ability of Wikipedians to compile a (long tail) set of comprehensive and well-balanced articles on the many varied current events of the mid-to-late 2000s. This ability of Wikipedia to record and synthesize the events of the day may be valuable to those in the future who seek to understand the history of this time period. In other words: "if we don't make sense of it today, someone else will struggle to make sense of it tomorrow."
- It is widely regarded as one of Wikipedia's strengths that it is able to collate and sift through vast amounts of reporting on current events, producing encyclopedia-quality articles in real time about ongoing events or developing stories: natural disasters, political campaigns and elections, wars, product releases, assassinations. It would greatly weaken the encyclopedia project if article development about ongoing events were discouraged in a campaign against so-called "recentism".
- This last sentence seems to speak directly to your comment. In short, if it is notable and verifiable, it should go in. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Now that Gov Palin has found her voice, and improved her confidence, she may begin to produce daily soundbites for the press and the voters to quibble over. Should we, for the sake of future readers, begin to include everything she says? Maybe we should create a daily calendar-type section with her thought for the day? We need to stay calm and non-partisan. Palin's comment about Obama is current but the Ayers/Obama relationship (as a current story) is not. Slr, you present a strong support for inclusion of what she might say tommorrow but what she said yesterday is already fading into the distance.--Buster7 (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
For G*d's sake folks, this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper! Are editors suggesting that every time Sarah Palin makes a political speech that its contents should be reported here? And if that isn't the argument, and folks are arguing for including material which is "notable" to the life of Sarah Palin, how can we possibly know if a statement made in speech 12 hours ago is significant? A little perspective is needed, and perspective takes time. By inserting every statement that gets folks' blood boiling, editors are turning this article into a political blog. My take is adding a section on Palin's criticism of Obama at this time is absurd, and it clearly violates the WP:BLP strictures against undue weight.--Paul (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Are editors suggesting that every time Sarah Palin makes a political speech that its contents should be reported here Given the fact that Palin was relatively unknown just a few weeks ago, the answer to your questions is yes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Such actions would conflict with WP:Not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--Paul (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- It seems as tho we are setting ourselves up to have daily, long-winded, contentious discussions about whatever Gov Palin says. We would probably best serve Wikipedia and our visitors to come to some general agreement as to what is in and what is not (regarding what Palin says from hereon). I defer to veteran editors to provide some guidance. I think we are on the verge of creating a "hornets nest". --Buster7 (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Paul, I would like to take your comments in good faith but I just do not understand how I can interpret your bringing up "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Of course Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information! Why on earth would you think anyone here is suggesting otherwise? First of all we, made a cllective act of discrimination in choosing out of all the human beings on earth to have an article on Sarah Palin - and we made this choice for specific reasons, one of which that she is running for Vice President of th US. We should also discriminate among information to go into this article: first, we should discriminate between those things Palin says, those things others say about her, and those things that people say about oysters and gravity. I propose that only stuff Palin says or that people say about her goes into this article, not oysters and gravity, how is that for discrimination. In fact, I propose we be more discriminating: since she is only notable as a politican, I think we should exclude stuff she has said, or stuff people have said about her, that have no connection to her political career. Moreover, since she is most notable because she is currently running for vice-president, we should discriminat further and give more weight to things she says as part of her campaign to be elected vice-president and to defeat the Obama-Biden ticket. I know other people are running for president but let's be honest, Obama and Biden are the only real competition. I suggest we discriminate between things she says about Obama or Bidan, and things she might say about, well, for example, Bob Avakian, I think what she says about Obama and Biden meet the threshold of notability but we should discriminate against comments about any other candidates like Avakian. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Paul writes that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Sorry Paul, of you go to WP:NOT you will see that the word "newspaper" does not appear. It is true that we are not a newspaper, but we are the only encyclopedia in the world that is updated constantly. This is one of the most important things that distinguishes us from other encyclopedias like Brittanica, even once they have gone on-line they are up-dated only every several years. The point is not that we are not a newspaper, the point is that technology has enabled us to overcome the most serious constraint on all prior encyclopedias, the fact that physical requirements prevented them from having articles on current topics. Now, Paul, since NOT says nothing about newspapers, let's see what Wikipedia policy really is, shall we? The main page, for as long as I can remember, has had an "in the news" section prominently on display, with links to many articles, so it is evident to me on its face tht Wikipedia has articles on current events. And that policy, what Wikipedia is not? The first thing it says, practically, is:
- Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia
- Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page. However, there is an important distinction between what technically can be done, and what reasonably should be done, which is covered in the Content section below.
- This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must still abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars.
The five pillars emphasize NPOV, NOR, V, free content and, oh yeah, this one:
- Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles.
I see nothing in policy that suggests we should not include public statements Palin has said in her position as vice-presidential candidate about her political agenda or about her opponents. Paul, you are welcome to your opinion but if you want to prevent someone from adding content to this article, you had better demonstrate that it violates policy. Anything relevant to the campaign and verifiable should go in. Jossi is right. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- It violates WP:UNDUE. Statements that Palin makes criticizing Obama are those of the McCain-Palin campaign. She was not a vocal Obama critic before she was tapped as VP, which makes this an artifact of her presence on the ticket. As such, any criticism by Palin of Obama or the Obama-Biden ticket is more appropriately placed in John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. Palin is not defined by her criticism of Obama; the McCain presidential campaign is.--Loodog (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- One candidate for election criticizing another? Unheard of!!! GrszX 17:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Loodog writes "She was not a vocal Obama critic before she was tapped as VP." True. Before she became a candidate for vice-president, she was not campaigning for vice president. is this your point? Are you saying we should remove all reference to her running for vice president, because before she ran for vice president she was not a vice presidetial candidate, Loodog? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, but thanks for refuting an argument I didn't make.--Loodog (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, if we include her vice-presidential candidacy, then material that is relavent to her candidacy by definition is relevant to this article. If she says something about Obama or Biden, it should go in this article. It definitely does not belong in an article on john McCain. If you ever find an actual policy that supports your view please share it with us but there is nothing in the undue weight provision that suggests that material directly relevant to precisely what makes her most notable is somehow inappropriate for this article - nothing. Palin's vice-presidential candidacy is highly notable, so things she says as a vice-presidential candidate belong in this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sure. WP:STRUCTURE: "'Segregation' of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself.".--Loodog (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Loodog states that the Palin statement violates WP:UNDUE. That really is a judgment call, because the only relevant thing WP:UNDUE says with regard to facts in an article is, An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. That can be interpreted so broadly as to be almost meaningless. It's a judgment call whether or not to include a particular bit of information in an article. Unless you've got some overwhelming evidence you can point to, either way, it's better not to bring up WP:UNDUE because it just clouds the issue. Make the judgment call by consensus and be done with it. This seems to be one of the most prominent (probably the most prominent) attacks Palin has made as a VP candidate so far. It can easily be eclipsed in upcoming weeks by other, more prominent attacks. (As we know, attacks are a traditional thing for VP candidates to do.) One thing to think about is whether this page will need yet another discussion thread to remove this bit of information if editors want to make room for some statement that becomes even more prominent. Seems like too much work, to me, but if editors are up for it, go for it. -- Noroton (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- What would the proposed section even say? Palin has criticized Obama for "palling with terrorists" as well as raise attacks as to the consistency of his running mate. Perhaps if specific sentences were proposed we're have more to debate on than doing it in the abstract.--Loodog (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
WP:structure? Loodog, this section does not prohibit the inclusion of anything, it just warns about a possible concern, for which there are solutions. Loodog now seems to be appealing to sophistry. Keep looking for some rule to prove your point, loodog, but this is not rational. We do not start with conclusions and look for rules to support them. We start with policies which themselves are flexible and look for ways to write good articles. Your reasoning does not hold up. Any statement by Palin is by definition going to represent Palin's POV. Are you seriously suggesting that we have an article on Palin without any account of her views? That is just absurd reasoning and unless you are so dogmatically committed to your position that you simply refuse to change your mind - that you have already decided that no argument will change your mind - you would acknowledge this. Having an article on Sarah Palin is not a POV fork, it is a content fork. Once we have decided that the article contents is "stuff relevant to Palin" Palin's views become relevant. It is as simple as that. Keep coming up with different a postoriori justifcations for your position, but the fact is, you are actually opposed to Wikipedia policy in this particular matter. Palin's political views, including views about her opponents, are relevant to the article on Palin. The way to avoid a POV fork is simple: if she expresses a view about Obama or Biden, and Oboma or Biden have responded, or some other notable person (a notable politician or notable policy expert or notable reporter) has provided a different view, NPOV requires we add that to this article. No POV fork at all. WP:STRUCTURE does not prohibit adding views (e.g. Palin's views). it only makes clear that if there are alternate or opposing views they should go in the same section. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- This has gone past WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I'm not going to continue.--Loodog (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I guess I was right, no reasoning or reference to Wikipedia policy will change your mind, so there really is no point discussing this. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
From the BLP Noticeboard on "Don Young's Way"
See [27]
This was the only comment made thus far by an editor not involved in this article:
- Here goes: there aren't different rules for evaluating due weight in BLP articles and non-BLP articles. The burden is normally on the editor that wishes to include information to demonstrate that it is both verifiable and appropriate. Once that's accomplished, you should generate consensus (not necessarily unanimity) among editors on the article about the method of inclusion. One editor never really achieves veto power. As to the issue of the bridge name, I can't see a valid objection to the inclusion of the fact, especially if including the fact is key to allowing people to get effective results from search engines. Given the circumstances as to how it became known as "Don Young's Way", I can see weight and BLP considerations in terms of how the fact is introduced. As long as it is neutral (i.e, write the first mention of "Knik Arm Bridge" as Knik Arm Bridge (a.k.a. "Don Young's Way"), with no other commentary in the sentence) I have a hard time seeing a reasonable objection.—Kww(talk) 03:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
The important things here, as I see them are:
- -- no different rules for evaluating due weight in BLP and non-BLP
- -- burden on editor to show verifiability and appropriateness (both of which we have easily shown with "Don Young's Way")
- -- no editor has veto power
- -- can't see valid objection to inclusion of fact, especially as key to getting it from search engines
Based on this, I will re-add the short parenthetical on Don Young's Way, which all agree is verified fact. If you are opposed to this addition, please state precisely why. Based on the comment by KWW and my own understanding of WP:BLP, BLP is not an appropriate objection to any verifiable, non-private fact, but other objections may be.GreekParadise (talk) 04:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Small point: when you start by asking people to see this, I think that you actually want them to see this. (Perhaps the section has been renamed since you last looked at it.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- You're right. Thanks for fixing the link!GreekParadise (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I would add to the above abstract of important points the following: once it has been established that the claim is verifiable and relevant, "consensus" refers to how it should be written into the article, not whether or not it should be written into the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I couldn't agree more.GreekParadise (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I would add to the above abstract of important points the following: once it has been established that the claim is verifiable and relevant, "consensus" refers to how it should be written into the article, not whether or not it should be written into the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Overwhelming infobox
The current infobox is too packed with information about positions help by Palin. Shouldn't this kind of information be put at the bottom along with the Political Office template? Eklipse (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- The AGC chaiperson section, could be removed. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I moved it to the bottom, but I won't remove it from the infobox; the refs don't seem to work. Eklipse (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Pic Overload
Is there a reason why there are so many pics? One should suffice. •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, IMO two of them actually significantly add to the article: the infobox one and the Nowhere t-shirt one. However, we currently have one per section, which is image-rich but within boundries, and so long as none of them are of Tina Fey or a pig I'm not going to object. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Garance
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "Proposed bridge faces questions". Juneau Empire (2008-06-10). Retrieved 2008-09-29: "Palin, a former Wasilla mayor, has said she supports the idea of a Knik arm bridge. But she also said the authority's plans must be reviewed."
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
APbridge
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Hulse, Carl (November 17, 2005). "Two 'Bridges to Nowhere' Tumble Down in Congress". The New York Times.
- ^ "Ketchikan airport and ferry statistics for December 2006" (PDF).
- ^ "Ketchikan Gravina Island Access Project". Alaska DOT. Retrieved 2008-08-31.
- ^ a b Posted by Alaska_Politics. "adn.com | Alaska Politics Blog : Palin and the Knik Arm bridge". Community.adn.com. Retrieved 2008-09-29.
- ^ Rowland, Kara (2008-09-19). "Hacker wanted to 'derail' Palin". The Washingon Times. Retrieved 2008-09-23.
- ^ Jordan, Lara Jakes (September 22, 2008). "FBI searches apartment in Palin hacking case". Associated Press. Retrieved 2008-09-22.
- ^ Kizzia, Tom. "Palin touts stance on 'Bridge to Nowhere,' doesn't note flip-flop", Anchorage Daily News (2008-08-31)
- ^ “Bailout Negotiations Continue; FBI Targets Wall Street Firms” (Transcipt), CNN (2008-09-23).
- ^ http://www.propublica.org/article/palin-defends-construction-of-road-to-nowhere-925/. Citation contains CNN's photograph of the terminal point of the Gravina Island Highway, nicknamed the "Road to Nowhere"
- Former good article nominees
- Biography articles of living people
- Active politicians
- 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
- Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press