Talk:Sarah Palin

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

Palin's Church

Sarah Palins church is not recognized by the Assembly of God Denomination. her congregation is a end times apocalypse styled church not a pentecostal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamkrattkc (talk • contribs) 21:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin's Assembly of God church is a New Apostolic Reformation, of "Third Wave". This movement is NOT the same as Pentecostalism of the Asssemblies of God —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.62.200.20 (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Does this, by any chance, mean that she'll launch nuclear weapons as soon as she gets control of them, in an attempt to bring about the Apocalypse? I am very concerned about this. Kelly ^hi! 21:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The comments preceeding Kelly's sarcastic response might be more credible if they didn't directly contradict the facts. [1] GRBerry 21:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Abstinence only AND contraception education

72.86.7.161 (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC) I'm not authorized to edit, so I'll put it here.

This line contains a mistake.

Palin opposes sex education and endorses the teaching of abstinence-only sex education in schools.

This would be correct:

Palin supports contraception education, and also endorses the teaching of abstinence-only sex education in schools.

Here is the reference:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-sexed6-2008sep06,0,3119305.story

I am not so sure that is a mistake. The current GOP platform, which she has endorsed as a whole, makes clear opposition to teaching about contraception.--Dstern1 (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I would think anything she says on her own overrides anything in the platform. I made this change but retained the current well-source claim that she opposed explicit sex-education in schools.--Paul (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Reading the GOP Platform does not support the claim that it opposes contraception. http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Values.htm "We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. " It does oppose school based _clinics_ which provide abortion and contraception services. Also it opposes schools recommending or requiring psychotropic medications for children. If one were to include the entire GOP platform material on this isse, that would be fine. Making statements which are not 100% accurate is not fine. Collect (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand - it said clearly that she supported contraception (though in a different word order conveying less of a focus on 'support,' 'support', 'support') prior to your edit. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

She made her comment "supporting contraception," which is far from clear, in 2006. Is there anything current which clarifies her position?Jimintheatl (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Do statements have a "sell by" date? Absent contradictory statements from Palin, why would a 2 year old statement be invalid? Surely many of the quotes in this article are far older. Collect (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the "sell by" date is at issue here. What's at issue, to me at any rate, is what the heck she means by "support," specifically. FangedFaerie (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The article now says and she is supportive of "abstinence-only" sex education, although in 2006 said she supported contraception. This is factually incorrect. Palin has never publicy repudiated her statement supporting conceptration being discussed in sex-ed education. The Squicks (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that two very reliable sources-- [2] and [3]-- say that she supports comphrehensive sex education, I changed the article to reflect that. The Squicks (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There are, however, other reliable sources that conflict with those above (see [4]). Perhaps a safer route would be to just remove her stance on this issue until it is more definitively known? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.222.134 (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus edits

I take issue with the recent edits by Hobartimus, some of which seem heavy-handed and involved the removal of large sections of well-cited information. I won't defend all of the material -- some of it needed a major haircut -- but removing all material on her policy positions on foreign policy and the environment, for example, is excessive. (Again I do agree that these sections should be kept trim.) I also argue that the material on her religious views is relevant, but the summary as Hobartimus presented it is probably sufficient. Arjuna (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The religious aspect is discussed above [5] in several threads [6], it involves adding a huge religious section on top of the religion discussed as part of "personal life section" as I read the relevant policy, BLP in light of the above talk discussions especially [7] this should stay out per BLP until consensus for inclusion. I have no extra reservations for any other part of my edit (I did change some smaller other things, feel free tweak/change anything there). My comments were specific to the presence of the religious section.Hobartimus (talk) 10:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

@Hobartimus. It is surprising that you have changed the image which accompanies the lead without any discussion with the many editors that are here (or will be here). Please revert your own edit and open a discussion before you take it upon yourself to make MAJOR changes to THE MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLE AT WIKIPEDIA. Also, regarding your changes to what was the religion section. Since the campaign of John Fitzgerald Kennedy (you remember him), a candidates religion has been of the utmost importance for the general public. There was no consensus to change what was. Editors were asked to give their opinion and there was an even split. No consensus was reached and yet you changed it. I know you have your reasons but my ability to assume good faith is starting to wain. Kennedy's Catholicism was one of the major discussion points in the media and on Main Street America PRIOR to his election. People want to know and we are obligated to give them pertinent information in a format that is obvious...not hidden.--Buster7 (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Buster, her religious beliefs are described very adequately in her own words in the Personal section of the biography. That is as much as we know with respect to Palin. I would be anxious to include manifestations of her beliefs as demonstrated by her personal and professional conduct, but everything thus far as been thinly veiled attempts to categorize her based on religious ideology and not actions. For example, find some reliably sourced information that she proselytized others in her community, spoke in tongues at a local supermarket, etc. Even more informative would be reliably sourced information that she governed based on her beliefs, e.g. she enacted statutes to close liquor stores on Sunday, initiated legislation introducing creationism in schools, etc. In other words, keep the religious crap in context of a person's biographical story. Fcreid (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Religious crap??????--Buster7 (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

FCreid, you are welcome to your opinion. Other people differed, which is why there was a discussion, and an effort to find consensus underway. The section was precisely for what you indicated. Information that was not true to her own words and actions are not allowed by BLP. The section was constantly changing, but several editors were working to keep any material that properly met wikipedia polices remained in the section. It referenced her viewpoints on teaching creationism in her own words. HOw can that be "thinly veiled attempts to categorize her based on religious ideology and not actions"? It refences her actions as Governor to " proclaim "Christian Heritage Week" and "Bible Week" in Alaska. How is that an attempt to categorize her ideology? Some people seem to asume that knowledge of those things would be considered to be negative by the American people, and yet, those opinions and values are what got her elected as Governor. Large numbers of Americans would view those as positive things. They would, in your own words, "be anxious to include manifestations of her beliefs as demonstrated by her personal and professional conduct". Atom (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Atom, all of those things you described are welcome in the article. Include her quoted words on allowing debate between creationism and evolution in the classroom while not desiring it be part of the curriculum and properly referenced material related to this "Bible Week" and whatever in her political history section. Include her decision to bring her Down Syndrome child to term as a manifestation of her anti-abortion beliefs in Personal section. Just resist the urge to include the speculative and intentionally fear-mongering when no evidence exists. Fcreid (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think you are understanding what I have been saying all along. Hobartimus apparently disagrees with you and I. (Could you give me a diff of where I have included any speculative or intentionally fear-mongering content? I am unaware of having done that.) Atom (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've never edited the main article, so I don't know who did what. I can tell you the majority of the new section on religion was gross exaggeration, but I have no idea who added what pieces, and the part about "dispensationalism" that made it into her Personal section yesterday was nonsensical. I don't think there's a consensus for creating a whole section on religion, though. Those salient points above would be better situated in the Personal (re: her Down Syndrome child) or political portions (under accomplishments as governer, mayor, etc.) Simply creating an entire section creates undue weight on the topic. Fcreid (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, people keep adding unsourced opinion all over the article. Just because someone adds an unsourced opinion to the polital views section, we don't decide to delete the whole political views section, some editor just removes the opinion. I don't see how the religious perspective section should have been any different. I respect your opinion that there may not have been a need for a seperate section. I disagree, and discussed it in talk many times as to why it made sense (IMO). Regardless, other people had opinions either way about it too, and were discussing it to find a consensus (See Talk:Sarah_Palin#Brief_Survey_--_Religious_Perspective We were scheduled to end the discussion at midnight, and then would have taken action based on the prevailing consensus. Perhaps your opinion would have been part of that consensus -- Hobartimus interrupted the process and decided for all of us though. Atom (talk)

Hobartimus, why was your opinion more important than the fifteen editors working to find a consensus on the issue? If someone had inserted information in violation of BLP into that section, couldn't you have just deleted the innapropriate material and wait another 16 hours to finish finding consensus on the appropriate material? Or are you saying that anything religious in nature is in violation of BLP? Atom (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I note that the section discussing her political opinions about teaching Creationism in schools seems to be gone from the article now. Even though we had minimized it to a direct quote to avoid bias in any direction as much as possible. Atom (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Let us not leave the photo change in the underbrush of prior discussions. This was a MAJOR change to the article. The picture should not have been changed without discussion. I have made a pledge not to revert anything in the article but I would hope that some other editor can revert.--Buster7 (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the new picture. Fcreid (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Endorse the changes made by Hobartimus. Contentious material in BLPs needs to be removed until there is consensus for inclusion. All the Dominionism garbage was, frankly, apparently some kind of attempt to make her look like the Martin Sheen character in The Dead Zone and needed to go. The editors at Barack Obama have been extremely sensible about applying WP:UNDUE to the theology espoused by some members of Obama's church, and we need to emulate their example. Kelly ^hi! 14:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"@Hobartimus. It is surprising that you have changed the image which accompanies the lead" Yes it's very surprising as I didn't change the photo in the lead at all. It was [user:Zizi-EU] who changed the main photo in this edit [8] he used one of the photos from the body of the article and moved it up. Then Kelly replaced the good old picture that we always had in this edit [9] but we lost that picture from the body of the article this way, since Zizi used it to replace the main. So with all this we have 1 less picture in the article, please reinsert that photo that was lost. Hobartimus (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Explain to me how this violates BLP "Palin supports teaching creationism in public schools. "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum...Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."[173] She has also stated, "I won't have religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism."[154]" or this "In October of 2007, she signed the "Christian Heritage Week" Proclamation[174] which "reminds Alaskans of the role Christianity has played in our rich heritage."[175] in conjunction she declared the week of November 18-25, 2007 as Bible Week in Alaska. "the National Bible Association reminds Alaskans and people of all faiths of the Bible's unique place in American life."[176]" Or anything else that had been in that section. Anything that had been added that violated BLP, had been consistently removed. Atom (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it violations BLP, but it is inaccurate. This section from the political positions article is accurate and neutral:

Palin supports allowing the discussion of creationism in public schools, but says it does not have to be part of the curriculum.[6] She has said: "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum...Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."[7] She has also stated, "I won't have religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism."[7]

Note that it doesn't claim she wants creationism taught in school, as your version does.--Paul (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a version. I did quote the most recent incarnation of that above. I have seen a number of different versions. Whatever ends up in that section should be accurate. The version that I most recently quoted is accurate. The version you quoted, and the one I quoted say "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information." I don't know who characterized her words to mean "teach Creationism in the schools" But I think when she says "teach both" she is advocating allowing the teaching of Creationism, isn't she? Regardless, the next edit could just as easily change that to "advocates allowing teaching of Creationism in the school also" or "advocates allowing both Evolution and Creationism to be taught". Whatever it changes to, it needs to remain true to the citation, and the full context of her words. Atom (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is she's talking out of both sides of her mouth. Either evolution is taught in public schools or not. The sources give conflicting accounts on whether she says it should or should not be, and I think this is from inconsistent and deliberately ambiguous statements so she can have it both ways. If teachers are told they can, or must, teach creationism alongside evolution it is part of the curriculum (and thereby illegal). If they are not, it is not. Perhaps there is someone here who knows more about state education policy than me, but I don't think it means anything to tell a school that they should be allowed to "discuss" something if it comes up. Of course they are. If something comes up in the classroom then of course the teacher may discuss it - saying this obvious fact is not a policy position. Although I had initially supported including the material because it is an important hot-button issue, I simply don't see that we can say anything meaningful about her position based on the sources. If all that we can determine is that she's not really taking a position, that's not notable enough to include. Wikidemon (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Let us ALL listen to one of the Leaders of America,...."You know, don't be afraid of information". I'M OFF TO CHURCH! lol...--Buster7 (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

From WP:BLP "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." This makes it clear that there must be consensus in order to include highly disputed material into a BLP, after reading the above talk page and threads [10] [11] I determined that there was no consensus for inclusion of a huge religion section and that religion be discussed multiple times (personal life section and other section) and the "burden of proof" demanded by WP:BLP was not met. Thus I removed the material until consensus is reached. Concurerntly BLP makes it quite clear in order to "Restore" or "Undelete" this disputed material you must be able to show valid consensus. If someone "Restores" or "undeletes" this disputed material without showing consensus that's a direct conflict with the above quoted passage from WP:BLP. Hobartimus (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No, editors should respect consensus, and not act unilaterally in the middle of a productive discussion. It's clearly not a BLP issue to state a candidate's political positions. I think WP:WELLKNOWN is the section you're looking for. However, the addition of any disputed content (or deletion of any long-standing comment) needs to be done with consensus. I re-added the creationism and abstinence material, but later self-reverted due to the number of edits I've done today and also a concern that her favoring of teaching creationism in schools (which is well-sourced) is either equivocal and/or does not translate into a policy position (sources do not agree on this). Overall the edits were far too bold and run a bit of roughshod over consensus and orderly editing process. If people delete or add large sections of material at a time the article is going to degrade in format as well as content.Wikidemon (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You should really read the relevant part of BLP. Hobartimus (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Palin waving-RNC-20080903.jpg The image that was LOST after the edit of user:Zizi-EU please reinsert somewhere

Hobartimus -- here is what the section looked like immediatly before you took action to remove it based on WP:BLP[12] It is quite different than when I went to bed last night. It looks like numerous edits have been made to add material, and then have that material removed, etc as well as the section being renamed, moved around, etc. It looks like you are not the only person who did not respect the attempt to build consensus. However, looking at that section as you must have seen it, I see a number of things that concern me as not being appropriate per BLP, or meeting other standards. For instance, "Palin’s former pastor believes that her religious beliefs will affect her political positions, for example by encouraging her to be a caretaker of the environment, but Palin has stated that she would not allow her personal beliefs to dictate public policy" I would have reverted. Other peoples opinions, including her pastors, are not appropriate. Pretty much that whole first paragraph also is not appropriate and I myself would have cut (if I had been given the opportunity). The other sections though, for instance discussing her views on creationism, using her own words, and her actions to proclaim Christan Heritage Week, and Bible week in Alaska. The correct edit would have been to do what myself, or Ferrylodge (who seems to have very different views than my own) would have just removed the sections that had been recently added that violated BLP. The section, as well as the other content, had seemed to be there with consensus for some time.

Now, you know that many editors were discussing this at Talk:Sarah_Palin#Brief_Survey_--_Religious_Perspective IMO the consensus would likely have ended up in determining to not have such a section. The survey would have ended at midnight tonight. You could have merely removed the select material that violated the BLP, and then added your opinion to the consensus, and then (with consensus, instead of discord) taken action upon completion of the consensus. Your action to do that unilaterally rather than waiting a few hours was essentially a slap in the face of all of those people participating, including people who had the same viewpoint on the topic as yourself.

IMO opinion, your rationale that the section was deleted because it violated BLP is specious and lame. Your actions disrupting a process underway involving many editors was disrespectful and uncivil. My recommendation is to, in the future, think first, and then act, rather than taking action -- and then thinking about it. I mean that respectfully, as it is a lesson that I had to learn at one time. Atom (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP is clear. During the discussion material stays out. What if discussion determines that a piece of material is defamatory, libelous or undue? This is why it cannot stay in the article for the duration of the discussion. Once discussion is over you have consensus you put it back, and not before when it's potentially undue or inappropriate. There was no consensus to include it and it was highly disputed, so it had to go per BLP. Hobartimus (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

For the most part it is not a BLP issue. The fact that so many people are objecting, even those who favor deleting the material as you did, ought to tell you something. Please work with other editors rather than waving the BLP flag to justify controversial nonconsensus edits. You can see, from just a few minutes ago, what happens when an editor thinks that their personal viewpoint is more important than consensus.[13][14][15][16][17] - [18]

BLP "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."

Show me a thread with consensus and I will restore the material. However BLP is clear that you can not undelete or restore controversial material without consensus. Hobartimus (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

We aren't discussing any particular content here. Removing unnaceptable content is fine. You removed a whole section that included acceptable content AND recently added content that might violate BLP. You should have just removed the content that vilated BLP. Atom (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion underway was not about specific material or content. The discussion was related to having a section on Religious Perspective. No one was trying to propose any particulare text or content, just that the section, generally, be a place for appropriate religious perspective. I brought this into talk and found what I believed to be a consensus for that section being included. I included it. The next morning, people who had not participated in the discussion disputed the consensus, and wanted it removed. Rather than giving my opinion again, or removing it against consensus based on two or three other peoples opinion, or arguing about it, I started a survey to add clarity to whether the section should be removed or not. You interrupted that process. Even if there had not been prior consensus, the BLP policy applies to content related to the person that BLP applied to. Using the BLP to limit what section titles were appropriate, an editorial descision, not a content decision, would have been innapropriate use of that policy for something other than the concerns about the reputation of the person involved -- the purpose of BLP.

The section did have prior consensus to be there, and by your words quoting BLP, it met that. I saw some content in the section that had been recently added. You, I or anyone seeing content that violated BLP should have immediately removed that content. Your removal of the section and all of the material in it did NOT meet BLP. The section itself had prior consensus and was being discussed, and anyway, BLP policies do not apply to whether a section should be there or not, only content. (perhaps it would aply to a biased section title). I think you would have a hard time justifying that a section titled "Religious perspective" violated BLP. A majority of the content in that section had been around for some time, did not violate BLP, and had consensus for being in the article. Also, looking through the talk page, I don't see where anyone discussed or was disputing the content in that section (either the content that BLP did apply to, or the content that BLP did not apply to.) Your action to remove the entire section was heavy handed and did NOT meet the standards of BLP. Your BLP concerns (if that had been the motivation) should have been directed at merely removing the content that did not meet BLP, like any other editor would have done, and like other editors had done before you.

Also, I note, should you want to say that you moved the good content elsewhere, that I don't see her viewpoint on teaching of Creationism in the article anymore. Atom (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I qouted the section of BLP that was being violated at least three times now so I will not quote it again, but it's pretty clear what was going on. Many editors felt that a whole section dedicated to religion alone would be grossly undue and would misrepresent Palin to be some sort of religious figure. At the point I edited the religion related material was overwhelming had it been in the article about a Bishop. Editing on BLP articles is set up a different way "In order to ensure that biographical material of living people is always policy-compliant" this does not mean "only BLP policy compliant". BLP articles must be compliant with all other policies and guidelines such as WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:SUMMARY and all the others. Compliance can be ensured with the BLP policy setting the standard of inclusion very high. Those who seek to include massive changes such as an establishment of a whole new section MUST achieve consensus. It's not good enough to jam several pages worth of content into a BLP without consensus and hope it's compliant with WP:UNDUE and all the others. Therefore BLP put the burden of proof on those who wish to include massive changes such as a new massive section on religion. If this burden of proof was not met enforcing BLP demands that the content be removed until consensus is reached. BLP policies apply to the whole article the sections included. A biography of a living person is not the best place for leaving potentially undue, and/or inappropriate material in the article not for days not for hours not for the duration of the discussion. You lost nothing by my edit, no process was "interrupted" as you claim. Once there is consensus the section can be put back in. The only possible harm here is keeping inappropriate material in the article. There is no possible harm from not having controversial and highly disputed material in the article. And once again I must point out that this is for the duration until the religious section gains consensus. Hobartimus (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, and it is important. Other people seem to share your concerns. I certainly share some of them. The addition of a new section was not a massive change, and had already taken place. BLP does not apply to that, that is an editorial discussion. BLP could apply to the content, and you are right to remove the kind of content that you describe that violated BLP. If there was not a section for religion in the article, those people still would have added the innapropriate material -- just someplace else. If your concern was innapropriate content that violated BLP, you should have removed the innapropriate content that violated BLP. That is what I have consistently been doing. The fact is that there is a religious perspective to Sarah Palin, and as a Biography, that is on topic. Her religious upbringing, stated opinions about religious issues that affect us, and actions that are related to religion are an important part of who she is and what she has done. Readers and editors want to know those things, and they are within the purpose and purview of Wikipedia.

What you are essentially trying to enforce is that appropriate and good content that is related to her religious side is being drowned out because of your fear that someone will put something that is not approproate to BLP in that section. Of course anything in that section should meet WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:SUMMARY, and all other policies. No one has suggested otherwise.

The article is not a platform for the 2008 election, it is a biography. It is not our concern about whether information included is favorable to getting her elected, or not. It has to be facts that are cited from reliable sources, and balanced according to NPOV. If someone makes a decision about how to vote based on that she declared a week in November to be "Bible Week" in Alaska, or that she has supported allowing discussion of Creationism in the schools, then so be it. Given thay she was elected to Governor based on some of those positions, I think there are large numbers of people that would look on that as favorable, not unfavorable. Regardless of how they might look on it, we are trying to state facts here. It is not our job to determine whether her stance on Creationism should be included, or not, on the basis of how it might influence voters. It is our job to explain that position accurately. Atom (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. There are no substantive arguments for excluding well sourced and neutral presentation of material. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a sufficient argument. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The primary substantive argument is WP:SS. We should not be repeating everything that's in the sub-articles here in this article. We need to summarize. Jossi, almost all the material that you're referring to is already in Political positions of Sarah Palin (not to mention the new article Cultural and political image of Sarah Palin).Ferrylodge (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Comparison to other candidates' "Religious views"

I think we should be looking to the model of the other candidates' articles as a model for the weight on religion in this article. John McCain and Joe Biden contain only brief mentions of their denominations. Barack Obama, a featured article, contains the following paragraph in the "Family and personal life" section:

In The Audacity of Hope, Obama writes that he "was not raised in a religious household." He describes his mother, raised by non-religious parents (whom Obama has specified elsewhere as "non-practicing Methodists and Baptists") to be detached from religion, yet "in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I have ever known." He describes his Kenyan father as "raised a Muslim," but a "confirmed atheist" by the time his parents met, and his Indonesian stepfather as "a man who saw religion as not particularly useful." In the book, Obama explains how, through working with black churches as a community organizer while in his twenties, he came to understand "the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change."[160][161]

I believe we should be striving similar neutrality and weighting in this article. Kelly ^hi! 18:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is dynamic, and I think that a Biography of these individuals should fairy address all aspects of their life, including their religious upbringing and values. Just becasue those article do not have sections on that now, does not mean that they may not. Suggesting that biographical information regarding religion should not be in an article about Palin because it is not in an article about Biden makes no sense. Do we strive to make all Biographies the same? They are different individuals, and if there is a significant religious component to the life of Biden, or any other person we make a biographical article about, it should be included within the balance of NPOV and UNDUE. Atom (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the material presented is really trying to build a psychological bio which is fundamentally a POV biography on the person. Inclusion of these references is an attempt to have the read make correlations between their religious beliefs and political motives. The whole issue is best avoided and dropped from all living and political bio's. If someone says in their political advert on t.v., "I'm running in this campaign because God says I should and he gave me a list of things to do." that is something else altogether. The politician is giving us a hard cold fact of their political motive based on religious belief and interjected it in the public sphere. These references we are talking about with Palin aren't even remotely like that. Theosis4u (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the way you spin that -- "Psychological bio". *chuckles* Of course, this is Wikipedia -- it is a biography -- not a political advertisement. In a biography we talk about a number of aspects and attributes of a person and their life experience and history. Of course religious information is part of that. For Sarah Palin, it is, in fact pervasive throughout her life, not some unrelated and unimportant trivia. Perhaps some people will try to make some correlation between her religious experience and whether they want to vote for her or not. That is not our problem. It is our job to provide the information as accurately and fairly as possible in a non-biased way, or if there are strong, varying (but citable) views, to express those views in a balanced way. It is natural and normal that people want to know about other people. Religious people want to know the religious experience that other people, especially notable people, have had. If they choose to use the biolgraphy on Wikipedia as a source of information to help them learn more about Palin, they often want to know if she is like them, if she has similar life experiences, values and attitudes.

Trying to suggest that anything religious in nature should be removed from all biographies of living people, and all politicians is outrageously silly. If we should decide to have a section that is primarily about Palin's religious nature in this article, the content needs to meet all of the standards that we always apply to all other articles, especially BLP policies. NO one has suggested differently. It is not our job to spin the article to Palin's benefit, nor to make her look bad. It is our job to find information that is notable, has reliable sources and meets our other guidelines and present it in an organized fashion for our reader. Not to try and guess the intent of the reader and how they might use that data. And certainly not to spin the data so that it leads our readers in a particular direction. If one of our readers is looking to build there own "psychological Bio" in order to determine who they want to vote for, that is their business. Atom (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Apples and Oranges... There is no other candidate (McCain, Biden, or Obama) with profound (or extremist, depending on your POV) religious views, and that wear their religion as Palin does, therefore it is appropriate to have substantial coverage in her bio. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head. While I find nothing in her behavior indicating "extremist" religious views, and most firsthand accounts I've read indicated entirely otherwise, you have apparently labeled her as an extremist kook and are intent to prove that despite the lack of fact supporting it. The solution is simple -- stop making crap up and cite tangible reliable sources, but not in this disparate fashion that reads like a ransom note of out-of-context nonsense strung together to sound ominous. And I have to ask -- where you as critical of the other candidates in this manner? Fcreid (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed your recent inclusion until it's correctly sourced and placed into a proper chronology, including the dates of these alleged events as well as Palin's own explanation. For example, I will not allow any inclusion of the extemporaneous "task from God" statement she made to her theology students unless it's accompanied by her own explanation of the statement in her recent interview with Gibon. For what it's worth, this is my first actual edit to the article. It won't be my last if you keep this crap up. Fcreid (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you're obviously struggling with the exact quote (as indicated in the selective bits you used), so here it is verbatim: "Pray for our military. He's [Palin's son Track] going to be deployed in September to Iraq. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do also what is right for this country – that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan." Fcreid (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"I will not allow any inclusion..." sounds like you have issues. Grsz^talk 22:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I do. I'm very frustrated to see someone with a clear (and self-admitted) axe to grind distorting words to paint an erroneous picture of a person in his/her biography. Read the quote above? Does it really sound that out-of-mainstream, particularly given she was speaking to a group of theology students? Should she have used football analogs to get a point across to them? Fcreid (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter...you've made it clear you have an agenda as well. "A task that is from God"...I don't think that's being distorted, it is what it is. Grsz^talk 22:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Context doesn't matter? I heard an Obama snippet somewhere the other day where he stated "my Muslim faith"--his exact words. Would it be fair to take those completely out-of-context for inclusion in his article? Of course not! Fcreid (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The only agenda I've seen from Fcreid is one of fairness. He has never pushed a POV, only tried to keep POV-pushing insinuations and distortions out of the article. Inserting the "Task from God" quote without the proper context is misleading POV-pushing.--Paul (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I put the Iraq quote in in full, so there should be no issue, unless someone deleted the rest of it, again.....LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I added the fact that it occurred inside the church for more complete context. Fcreid (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's not a big deal what she said, why are you fighting for it to be there? Grsz^talk 23:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not fighting for it to be there. I don't think these incidental snippets are representative of this person based on all other more tangible examples of governance and person. In fact, if you scroll back to the talk history beginning on 8/29, you'll find this has been my consistent position with regards to including these quotes. Yes, I would like to think of myself as an objective person, but I'm not oblivious to the fact that one side of the political spectrum desperately hopes to paint this person as outside the mainstream in her religious beliefs. No data I've seen presented yet indicates that. To me, this particular quote represents nothing more than generic platitudes given the context (in a church speaking to a theology class). Despite, if consensus feels these are important enough to include in the article, they should be given full context and explanation and not deliberately seeded to lead a reader to an erroneous conclusion. Fcreid (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I dont know what I was trying to say there. Anyways, I went ahead and added some quotes to the personal life section.

(ec)It's important to some people that her every public mention of God be highlighted and magnified to perpetuate a meme that she's some kind of wacky Apocalypse-believing Kristianist, I think. I'm not sure why this standard applies for her and not other politicians - for example, Joe Biden recently mentioned God when he said to a person in a wheelchair "Stand up, Chuck, let 'em see ya...God love ya, what am I talking about?"[19] However, we don't take that mention of God to have any deeper meaning than what it is on the surface, a typical political appearance by that politician. Kelly ^hi! 23:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, hopefully what's there now clearly establishes that damning testimonial that Palin uses religious platitudes liberally in a church when speaking to churchgoers. Can anyone dredge up any salient quotes about makeup and beauty tips from backstage at the Miss Wasilla pageant. Fcreid (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Does the WSJ source support that these quotes were all said in the church? I can't find it. Grsz^talk 00:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The locale is documented as being inside the Wasilla Assembly of God in the AP piece regarding the pipeline comments. The Iraq comments are from a video taken of her at the pulpit. Fcreid (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Does the fact that these quotes were gleaned inside her church give you pause on the merit of their inclusion, Grsz? It does me. Fcreid (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I know you weren't addressing me, but on the contrary, from my POV, I like it there, in context, and the fact that it was said in church tells me that she is attempting to show and/or receive support from that church audience. I know an argument can be made for apples and oranges, but do we have any knowledge of the other candidates speaking at a pulpit? That alone is worth attention, in my opinion. FangedFaerie (talk) 04:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's common for local politicians to be asked to speak to a congregation. This would be particularly true in a small town like Wasilla. In fact, according to his own website [20], Obama himself spoke from the pulpit of the United Church of Christ and spewed such inciteful, divisive and hateful words like "Doing the Lord's work is a thread that's run through our politics since the very beginning". Fcreid (talk) 09:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he was reminding us of the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria. But that's just my guess. Our country is built upon Puritan values. Puritan values are built on religion. But, I trust your judgement as to inciteful, divisive and hateful words and your ability to "ferret' them out.--Buster7 (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Buster - [21] 138.145.4.3 (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

@ 138.145.4.3 - [22]---America has been a religious country from the very beginning. The sarcasm should only be construied regarding Fcreid's misinterpretattion of Senator Obama's comment. My sarcasm may have been off-base for which I apologize.--Buster7 (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

While on a state-funded trip to speak at a graduation ceremony, Palin urged the students to pray that God's will be done in unifying people to get a gas pipeline built. Does anyone believe that this is "mainstream" for the U.S. in 2008? This article should have considerably more space devoted to her religion than bios of other politicians, because she is out of the mainstream and that fact is important. God help us.--Appraiser (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"Out of the mainstream"? Guess who said this - Let us teach our children that the God of comfort is also the God of righteousness. Those who trouble their own house will inherit the wind. Justice will Prevail. It was Bill Clinton.[23] Is he out of the mainstream in 2008? That quote was far more extreme than anything Palin said, and his comments were intended for a general audience. Kelly ^hi! 16:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who doesn't recognize how specious this argument is based on the current evidence is either predisposed to the conclusion based on their political persuasion or has become overly complacent with the media and is foregoing critical thought. If this were a court case, it would have been tossed out eons ago. One might accuse Palin of pandering to a church audience or even of a weekend boondoggle from Juneau to Wasilla at the taxpayer's expense, but that's about all. Fcreid (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What an insidious POV article. The "graduation" was a class of ministry students, and the venue was her former church in Wasilla. What would you expect her to say to such a group in such a venue? Any other examples of her doing this in a non-church forum? No? Fcreid (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you believe that the Anchorage Daily News is biased, whether Bill Clinton's religious views are mainstream, or whether Alaska should have paid $640 for her to speak at the church school's graduation, how many people are so arrogant as to believe that they know what God's will is with respect to a gas pipeline? As far as I know, the facts stated in the ADN article have not been disputed, including the quotation attributed to Palin. I would expect her to say, "Go into the world and do God's will." I wouldn't expect her to say, "I think God's will has to be done, in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that." Someone suggested that some of us are "foregoing critical thought." yep...some of us are.--Appraiser (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Your above comment seems like your intent is to use this article, a BLP to malign and defame Palin. You state that Palin's comments in your view are extremely "arrogant" and then argue for their inclusion on that basis, not for relevance to Palin's life, not for other reason but to expose her "arrogance" to show the whole world, how arrogant she is. I hope I'm completely wrong here since this would be somewhat contradictory with BLP as an editing attitude. Hobartimus (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because I have an opinion of the woman and I shared it with you here does not mean that I want to interject my opinion in Main Space. But I do want to write in Main Space accurate and well-sourced facts that give the reader an accurate overview of the topic of the article—in this case Ms. Palin. My suggested wording is, "While on a state-funded trip to speak at a graduation ceremony, Palin urged the students to pray that God's will be done in unifying people to get a gas pipeline built." Some readers will be endeared to her based on that fact; others will not. In Main Space, I am happy to leave out commentary and let the facts carry her where they will. Apparently others are afraid of doing so.--Appraiser (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not a wikipedia expert, and I don't know the proper protocol for making changes, but it seems that this portion of the Personal Life section of the article is not an accurate characterization of Palin's comments:

In a 2008 speech, Palin urged a group of graduating ministry students at her former church to pray for the military and to consider the military's job as a task from God.[200] In the same remarks Palin asserted that "God's will" coincides with the building of the Alaskan national gas pipeline project.[199][201]

The full speech is here but basically, when talking about growing up in the Wasilla Assembly of God Church, Palin made these extemporaneous comments:

My oldest, my son Track, he's a soldier in the United States Army now. He's an infantryman ... and Track -- pray for our Military -- he's gonna be deployed in September to Iraq. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God -- that's what we have to make sure that we're praying for -- that there is a plan, and that plan is God's plan. So bless them with your prayers....

So she is not asking people to consider the war to be "a task from God," but merely asking people to pray "that there is a plan, and that plan is God's plan." That seems similar in nature to John Kerry's remarks in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention (July 29, 2004):

"I don't want to claim that God is on our side. As Abraham Lincoln told us, I want to pray humbly that we are on God's side."

Same goes for the pipeline comment; these are merely prayers, not statements of fact or belief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.228.36 (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the Obama wiki has anything about his oh-so-mainstream prayer, you know, the one where he asked to "be an instrument of God's will".66.190.29.150 (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Creationism redux

Not sure if a mention should be made here, but Palin's views on creationism in education are apparently shared by the Director of Education for the Royal Society.[24] Is this a common position among education policy professionals? Is Palin's position even remarkable? Kelly ^hi! 01:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Palins views do not appear to be remarkable unless you spin what she has said to distort them into something they are not.WTucker (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As a politician, unless she has put forth an act, a law, a measure, etc, that directly mentions something (and is directly labeled as part of a movement, group, etc), then I think it has very little place. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Unbelievable, folks. Absolutely unbelievable. According to LexisNexis, over 400 articles have been published in reliable sources discussing Sarah Palin's political statements regarding the introduction of creationism into the school curriculum. Another 20 articles have been published in magazines. Another 59 articles have been published in newswires and press releases. Another 14 in aggregate news sources. Currently, her statement (such as it is) occupies one sentence in the Sarah Palin article, hardly undue weight, and three of you would like to remove it because of a unrelated BBC article that does not even discuss Sarah Palin. "Is Sarah Palin's position even remarkable?" Apparently, the mass media think it is. For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone would want to complain about this one sentence. J Readings (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, the problem with your statement above is that she never advocated, or implemented, placing creationism in the school curriculum. She advocated allowing student-initiated discussion. Kelly ^hi! 02:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, this is not an exercise in semantics for me. The point stands: reliable sources reported on it. Our job is very simple: we accurately reflect what the sources say. We don't "interpret" them. We don't spin them. And we certainly don't censor them for political purposes. It's not our job. If anything, I'm sure you'll agree on that last point. If not, we have seriously problem with how this article is being edited. J Readings (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Calm down. And please don't put words in my mouth. I never advocated removing this well sourced info from her bio. The sentence in question has been spun and respun so many times, I am dizzy -- and all from reliable sources.WTucker (talk) 02:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite calm, WTucker. I didn't mention you or your statements in reply to Kelly. But I'm thankfully relieved you also agree that it isn't our job to remove sourced material from multiple independent reliable sources. J Readings (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for removal either - I'm asking if we should include the view that her opinion on this is a mainstream one. To speak in a more general way, though, we do have a serious problem with how this article is being edited in regards to anti-religious POV. Kelly ^hi! 02:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, if a reliable source (preferably multiple reliable sources) connect the idea that Palin's political position on creationism in education is "mainstream", then I have no problem at all with that addition provided that we accurately reflect what the sources say. I leave my political positions at the door. I *do* have a serious problem, however, with original synthesis being introduced to an article. Obviously, that applies to all articles not just this one. FWIW, J Readings (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Anti religious POV? Is there a problem in being a Pentecontalist, a Jew, a zoroastrian, or a Muslim? Is there a problem in a person describing her religious views and opinions? I don't think so. I would further argue that Palin is proud of her beliefs, so what is the problem? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No, but there is a problem in giving specific aspects of religious beliefs undue weight, or repeatedly mentioning the same things repeatedly throughout the article, or in multiple articles, as you continue to do with the prayer thing. Kelly ^hi! 03:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

read WP:SUMMARY. And what is wrong about a prayer? Are you anti-religious? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the aspects of weight is to justify it in relationship to the individual. Do these sources say that it is the main focus of her life? Do they say it is the most important focus? If not, then there is little argument to be made. Every source could say Abraham Lincoln's hair is brown, but that doesn't necessitate a paragraph devoted to it. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

she never advocated, or implemented, placing creationism in the school curriculum. So what? Are people here asserting that her views are not notable? A VP candidate's views are notable, by default, regardless if in their short career they did not implement policy as is the case here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read the conversation - it's over whether we should mention that her views here are in the mainstream. Kelly ^hi! 03:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Who decides what is mainstream and what is not? And how that argument is relevant to this material? Palin's views on anything related to politics, religion, economy, hobbies, etc can be included in her biography, in particular if covered extensively in published sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) :: Mentioning that her views are on the mainstream, or mentioning that her views are not, would be a violation of WP:NOR, unless we have a source that makes that assertion, that is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

But especially religion, right, Jossi? Lots and lots of religion? Kelly ^hi! 03:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, why not. It seems that Palin is very proud and outspoken about her religious beliefs. AIs there anything wrong with that? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Very outspoken? And there is a problem with giving undue weight, or repeating the same thing over and over in different sections of the article, which makes the weighting problem even worse. Kelly ^hi! 03:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward jossi somewhat, insofar as Palin is proud of her beliefs, and arguably is using them to garner support. I haven't analyzed the article, but if the sources repeatedly reference Palin's religious views, it's hard to avoid them in the article itself. The idea is to reflect the facts that are out there, yes? (Please don't bite me.) FangedFaerie (talk) 04:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the assertion is coming from that she's using religious beliefs to garner support. I don't remember a single mention in her speech at the Convention, for instance, or in any of her stump speeches that I've read about. I recall only a very brief, somewhat generic mention, of faith in the Gibson interview, in response to his "Crusader" questions. In fact, she seems to keep her religious beliefs private. What am I missing? Kelly ^hi! 04:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly, the convention speech was pretty low-key on religion, with only a mention of a prayer and the grace of God. Her state of the state address for 2008 included the bit "Proverbs tell us there is no strength without unity. So, Alaska, let us be united to be strong."

But on other issues: soldiers in the Middle East on a task from God; the gas line being God's will. Her other opinions are often argued by others from a religious standpoint (murky thoughts on sex ed. and Creationism in school; abortion: "faith that every baby is created for a good purpose" and strongly pro-life; opposed to stem cell research as being related to abortion; same-sex marriage about preserving family structure; against physician-assisted suicide according to a few sources), though admittedly we haven't heard her speak extensively about them yet. My point is that what little we do know about her tends to have at least a tinge of religion attached, but I'm not trying to argue for any content changes one way or the other.

I'm fairly amused by the "Thank the Lord that we do have that freedom of speech" when discussing the separation of church and state.

Um, by the way, "any of her stump speeches"? I'm not aware that she's made more than one, yet, at least as a VP candidate. [25] Regards. FangedFaerie (talk) 05:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Separation of Church and State is an issue of "Freedom of Religion", not "Freedom of Speech". There is a strong difference between the two. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. FangedFaerie (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A VP candidate's views are "notable by default?" Seems overreaching at that point. If a VP says she like blue nightgowns, then that is therefore "notable by default?" Nope. Unless there is some semblance of reasoning behind referring to views of a perso, I would suggest that no views are "notable by default." Collect (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Bush doctrine?

Regarding foreign policy, Palin generally supports the Bush doctrine of preemptive military action in the face of an imminent threat. Really? My recollection of the ABC interview and many sources published on the subject point to a very different situation. I will find sources to make this sentence more accurate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, according to the Washington Post, Palin got it right, and Gibson got it wrong. Kelly ^hi! 03:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different. He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?" She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?" In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine. Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush doctrine. Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine. It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world." This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy's pledge in his inaugural address that the United States "shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson's 14 points. If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume -- unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise -- that he was speaking about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration. Not the Gibson doctrine of preemption. Not the "with us or against us" no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days. Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration. Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents. Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HSED (talk • contribs) 20:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

But at the end of last week we were granted an audience with the Princess of Alaska. It was painful. She had no idea what the Bush Doctrine was – the central and most controversial foreign policy innovation of the past eight years: the doctrine of preemption against states with WMDs. Moreover, in her speech the same day, she described the war in Iraq. She said her eldest son, who has just enlisted, would “defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans”. "Sarah Palin: the most underqualified vice-president ever? - Times Online". Retrieved 2009-09-14.

Jossi, you really need to learn the difference between an opinion piece and straight news. Also, presumably you know that there are such people as Al Qaeda in Iraq. Not many of them left, though, thanks to Petraeus and the Iraqis. Kelly ^hi! 03:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(Ahem) No need to get into polemics, but there was not Al Qaeda in Iraq before 9/11. In any case, there is obviously an enormous amount of sources that describe the Palin;s gaffe (or the wit, depending on who you ask) and we should include this in the article, sans spin. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically, there wasn't even al qaeda in Iraq After 9/11. They didn't exist in Iraq until a year after America's 2003 ocupation of Iraq. Duuude007 (talk) 04:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)No polemics, the pre 9/11 situation is pretty much irrelevant in this context. Al Qaeda carried out 9/11. Al Qaeda is now getting its ass handed to it in Iraq, where Palin's son has deployed to. Charles Gibson didn't know there are multiple interpretations of the Bush Doctrine, whereas Palin did. Even Charles Krauthammer, who invented the term, says that Gibson screwed the pooch.[26] Kelly ^hi! 04:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Guys. This isn't a blog. Take it outside. What is the specific content issue here, again? MastCell ^Talk 05:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue is any objective person who saw the interview with Gibson knows that it's obvious Palin had no idea what Gibson was talking about when he mentioned the Bush Doctrine. Even if other doctrines could also be considered, Bush "doctrines," according to the Wasington Post, it was painfully obvious that Palin didn't know any of them. (I guess the McCain crammers trying to teach her all of foreign policy in a week hadn't thought of this one...)GreekParadise (talk) 07:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Our article includes the sentence "In the interview, Palin answered questions about her experience, national security, Iraq and the Bush Doctrine.[150]"

The source cited for this says:

"Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about."

The sentence in the article is a flat contradiction of the source, IMO. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh, not really. See the Post article I linked above. Apparently it was Gibson who was confused. Kelly ^hi! 16:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kelly: My point is that IMO the article contradicts the source that is cited in the article. We are not supposed to backup a statement with a source that does not support it. That some other source is different is not the point. Wanderer57 (talk) 12:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Approx. transcript:

Gibson: Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?

Palin: (pause) In what respect, Charlie?

Gibson: What do you interpret it to be?

Palin: His world view?

G: No, the Bush Doctrine, enunciated on [date] 2002.

P: I believe [vague statements about Bush's intentions in foreign policy]

G: The Bush Doctrine as I understand it, is the right to preemptive strike. Do you agree with it?

P: Charlie, yes, if there is legitimate evidence against a country.

I don't see many ways that can be interpreted. --Loodog (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Interpreted by who? The Post interprets it as a Gibson screwup, as does Krauthammer, the coiner of the Bush Doctrine term. And Krauthammer is no Palin fan. Kelly ^hi! 17:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see why Gibson was wrong on this. Can comeone please clarify? Duuude007 (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's not quite what the Post article says; it merely quotes some Republicans as saying that there are multiple Bush doctrines, and James Fallows as saying that the issue wasn't Palin's inability to precisely define the "Bush Doctrine", but her failure to recognize even the term or general concept. Charles Krauthammer is a partisan figure, to put it very mildly. But I'm sure he'd offer the same principled semantic defense if Obama had been the one to flub a question about the "Bush Doctrine" :)

In any case, reams have already been written about this particular question/answer. Perhaps the best we can say is that "Palin's response to a question on the 'Bush Doctrine' provoked criticism from those who saw her as unfamiliar with the term, though some Republicans defended her by pointing to multiple 'Bush doctrines'." MastCell ^Talk 17:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear, MastCell! FangedFaerie (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Krauthammer's editorial is rather clear that the idea of the "Bush Doctrine" has four definitions, and that Gibson screwed it up by choosing the wrong one. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, to be fair, while Gibson didn't do his homework on the question, Palin's answer was iffy as well - the response she came back with didn't precisely fit any of the four "Bush Doctrines". That whole interview was just odd...the weird camera angles, the choppy editing (sometimes in mid-sentence), and Gibson's sighing and white-knuckle demeanor. I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like it, and I'm a huge politics junkie. It's a little puzzling that Gibson's interview with Obama earlier this year was Oprah softball-style, but Obama has had a few tough interviews, such as the one with O'Reilly last week. Overall, I don't think either Gibson or Palin came out covered with glory here. But, my amateur punditry aside, when using that interview as a source, we should stick to the quotes and the definitive policy statements, and leave the interpretation aside. There will be more interviews and I'm sure the secondary sources will have wildly varying interpretations of them, just as they did with this one. Over time a picture will build up. Kelly ^hi! 22:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Krauthammer does say that she didn't know what it was. Regardless of what Gibson said that he should or shouldn't have said, she didn't know what he was talking about when he asked her. Grsz^talk 22:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What kind of text did you have in mind? I do think that any mention, if included, should include the muddled nature of Gibson's question, since we have plenty of sources that discuss that. Kelly ^hi! 22:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

How and why? Palin screwed up before Gibson went into detail. Grsz^talk 23:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It was not a quiz, so saying she was "wrong" is inappropriate. Also, since the term is vague and unscholarly, I don't know how to you can really begin to discuss it, especially when it has four various ideas with little overlap. She asked what he meant, and he basically refused to answer at first, which was quite strange. Even in Spelling Bees you have the right to ask what a word means. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:FA nomination

Perhaps it's time to nominate Sarah Palin for featured article status WP:FA. There has been a lot of bumping and trading paint to get the article to the status it is today. I, for one, think it has gotten to a pretty refined state. I would encourage an editor with more history on this page to make the nomination. Mytwocents (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been paying too close attention, but one qualification for FA status is stability. This article is still getting heavy editing on pretty big article aspects.--Loodog (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Don't you think you are skipping a few steps? This article hasn't even qualified for A-class rating, let alone featured. Plus, with over 50-100+ edits a day, and the frequent bickering and edit warring, I don't see it qualifying for A-rating anytime soon. Duuude007 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Article has a long way to go for any consideration like that. I would wait until after the election at the very least before raising that issue. Ronnotel (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Not that Wikipedia is beholden to the same rules as other media, but in the interest of fairness, equal time practices should be given consideration until after the November election. Robert K S (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The main reason I think we should start the WP:FA is that Barack Obama and Joe Biden are FA's. Admittedly, the Palin article is new, and in flux, but I think we could achieve an A-class rating and FA status if a group of editors work with those goals in mind. Mytwocents (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't pass due to stability. See 1 (e) stability: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. The sheer volume of edits precludes this from FA/A/GA. Stability is a criteria for FA/GA processes, and A is not really used by many projects. Regards. Woody (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The Obama, McCain, and Biden articles have been in existence for much longer than the Palin article (well, at least to a degree in which they had substantial information about the subject), while Palin's article existed as little more than a stub until two-three weeks ago. It should also be noted that Biden's article is not a featured article. It is currently B-class, but has been nominated as a good article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, wait for this thing to simmer down and then nom for GA. It may take until October. It may have to wait until post-election, just because of the stability issue.--Loodog (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: both McCain and Obama are FAs. Obama's achieved FA in 2004 before becoming very high profile. McCain's became FA in mid-August during a considerable lull in McCain news. It will take a while for Palin's article to calm down.--Loodog (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually Obama was quite high profile at the time he was FAed - it was within weeks of the keynote address and during a high profile Senate race/walkover (which was getting noticed even in international news coverage). Mind you at a glance the 2004 incarnation of that article looks very B class by today's standards. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's possible to be high-profile and get FA, but this article is the subject of a new edit war with each passing news cycle. FA nomination would be instant fail. Coemgenus 21:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

ZOMG - TANNING BED!!!11!1!

Politico is reporting[27] that Palin installed a tanning bed in the Governor's Mansion in defiance of the American Cancer Society! This needs to go into the article immediately, preferably in the lead! Palin is pro-cancer!

Seriously, could this election get any more inane and tabloidy? :) Kelly ^hi! 01:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And if Politico says it, it must be important and true. I had an argument with an IP a couple days ago about how just because Politico says Obama got a discount on home loans 10 years ago, there is no reason to insert it into the "Early life and career" sections. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but Wikipedia is not a chat forum. If this sourced fact was raised in order to consider its inclusion into the article that would be one thing. But apparently, the issue is being raised for the sole purposes of ridicule and sarcasm. It's not really appropriate to bring this kind of stuff up on the talk pages. In fact, the whole section should be removed. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 02:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's just commentary on the sources we have to filter here. Lighten up, Francis. Kelly ^hi! 02:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is Francis? And again, how does it help us to edit an encyclopedia entry? *sigh* J Readings (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"Francis" is from this film and is meant in a light-hearted way. Very well, I formally propose that we add the fact that Palin installed a tanning bed in the Governor's Mansion, based on Politico's hard-hitting reporting. :) Kelly ^hi! 02:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Pvt. Francis "Psycho" Sawyer. That's the character's name apparently, right? I see. J Readings (talk) 02:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't seen the film, I guess you wouldn't understand. But honestly, no offense intended. With respect - Kelly ^hi! 02:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The press has gone insane on both sides in this election. Since we have to rely on them for sources, it sucks to be us. I wish some of the editors who have successfully kept out garbage on the Obama article would help us out here. Maybe they will trickle over here eventually, but for now the insanity continues. Kelly ^hi! 02:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'll try to slow the garbage, although it might be challenging. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks - we need all the good editors we can get here. Kelly ^hi! 02:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll jump in too, though my schedule is tight at the moment. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 02:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The press is doing OK. They're actually calling out some of the more blatant untruths in campaign ads, which is more than they usually do. What do you expect from them? Everyone wants to know more about Sarah Palin, she has virtually no record on issues of national significance, and the campaign has her avoid unscripted encounters like a vampire avoids holy water. Reportage on tanning beds is the natural, and perhaps intended, result. MastCell ^Talk 05:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Mastcell, there are may other sources that are not frivolous, such as this: "Palin's Project List Totals $453 Million - WSJ.com". Retrieved 2009-09-15. - Better focus on these sources... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Yeah, you've got a point there. You can't really blame the campaign for being a little skittish, though, given all the garbage the press threw out there about the family, and some of the frankly vicious stuff in the op-ed columns. I'm happy to see the press getting punished, after being forced to deal with their trashy reporting here at this article. :) If the McCain campaign is smart, they'll just bypass any hostile press and talk directly to the American people. Kelly ^hi! 05:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Or this one from The Sydney Morning Herald: "Press picks over litter of lies on the Palin trail - US Election - smh.com.au". Retrieved 2009-09-15. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for an irrelevant, non-original news source. The article is a rehash of articles and columns from the US, including the NYT story, and editorial columns. It would make a really bad example of a source in WP. Collect (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's a good source because it speaks directly to the issue: summarizing editorial reaction to the ads. The applicable policy states:

Material published by reliable sources can be put together in a way that constitutes original research. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. (from Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material which advances a position)

If a Wikipedian had produced a meta-analysis of this type, it would arguably violate the policy. It's not original research, however, if the newspaper reviews several sources and synthesizes them to come to a conclusion, and we then quote the newspaper. JamesMLane t c 15:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. By your argument, any news release from a campaign which cites genuine sources then becomes citable in itself. Reductio ad absurdam. In the past such agglomerations of precis from other sources were regarded as less than cites for the original sources. In this case, the SMH iterates material already given in other cites in the article, and then is counted as a new source. It isn't. Collect (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

An international news source is indeed reliable, in partiular because it does summarize the collective sources on the subject from US news media. Please re-read WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue is "source." This "source" is being used to reintroduce material already discussed, from sources which have alrready been discussed. It offers, in fact, absolutely nothing new. Where the actual original source has already been discussed, and the material either allowed in or ruled out by consensus, it is disingenuous to use the back door argument of the source being "international" to get around the discussions already found on this Talk page. Collect (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(1) A campaign's release is indeed citeable, whether or not it cites sources, because it's an expression of a notable opinion, and we report facts about opinions, per WP:NPOV. Of course, we don't cite every campaign release; we cite very few, but they're just about all eligible for inclusion if important enough (and if properly attributed). The newspaper article is obviously more reliable, though. (2) If a new source is offered, its availability can change a previous consensus. Some editors who thought that the material had to be excluded under WP:RS might now think it could be presented in accordance with our policies. (3) In any event, no alleged consensus on Wikipedia is cast in stone. Individual editors (and hence the community as a whole) are allowed to change their minds even without new evidence. I don't know if there actually was a consensus before, because I can't claim to have mastered every nook and cranny of this page's voluminous archives. (As an aside, it would help if anyone claiming a consensus, on this or any other issue, would provide a link.) Even assuming your assertion to be correct, though, it doesn't end the issue. Defenders of the status quo need to address the merits of the proposed change. JamesMLane t c 00:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

In short, as long as proponents keep bringing it up, it is up to those who were here before to keep demurring, otherwise the folks who keep bringing it up, win? If you aver that it is standard and customary practice to have biassed "campaign" material placed in each BLP, I would suggest rather that it is up to you to show that this is the practice, and not have the onus fall on those who believe the status quo was correct. Can anyone show me where it is current practice to include "campaign releases" because they are a "notable opinion"? Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You might consider reading the link I already provided. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is a "fundamental principle" of this project. It states, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. ... When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion." (emphasis in original) Of course, there's generally no reason to make statements of fact, even if accurate, about the opinion of some random blogger, which is why the policy also refers to "prominent adherents" (emphasis in original). So, let's suppose, hypothetically, that the Obama campaign put out a press release that ssid "Sarah Palin is lying about the Bridge to Nowhere." Obviously, we could not, on that basis, include in the Wikipedia article the statement "Palin lied about the Bridge to Nowhere." We could, however, say "The Obama campaign accused Palin of lying about the Bridge to Nowhere" or the like. That wouldn't violate WP:RS or WP:NPOV. Usually, however, we'd have no reason to go out of our way to tell the readers that political opponents disagreed with each other, so we seldom quote such criticisms. (Please note that this entire discussion is a tangent, in response to your reference to a "news release from a campaign". The Sydney Morning Herald article is not a campaign news release and is on a different footing.) JamesMLane t c 04:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Might you give me an actual example, say, in the Obama article where a statement is attributed to the McCain campaign? I trust the SMH precis has been discussed enough, and, at this point, I see no consensus that that specific source ought be included. BTW, I did not initiate the comments about news releases. The subject of news releases was raised on 15 September, a day before I used the term. I trust you will note this fact. Collect (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)I've quoted for you the relevant provision from a cornerstone policy of Wikipedia. The policy establishes that certain types of material don't violate NPOV. As I've repeatedly said, though, that doesn't mean that all such material must be quoted -- far from it. Whether a specific instantiation of the policy (a factual report about a McCain press release) occurs in a specific article that I scarcely edit (Barack Obama) is information that's not readily available to me and wouldn't prove anything anyway. If your belief is that we should never quote a campaign press release, or that the circumstances under which we do so should be significantly limited, you should propose a policy change at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). As a practical matter, if you first raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view you might get some help working out proposed new language. JamesMLane t c 00:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Public Safety Commissioner: Kopp resignation (resolved)

A notable event in Palin's administration was the turmoil concering Charles Kopp, Monegan's replacement. Suppose there had never been a Troopergate re Monegan -- he uneventfully retired for health reasons, for example. The Governor appointed a new Public Safety Commissioner who, after two weeks, resigned under circumstances like these (i.e., criticism based on a prior letter of repriimand for sexual harassment (information that was available on any minimal background check), plus a $10k severance payment). Would such an event be notable in reporting on the administration of a governor? Of course it would be. The question shouldn't be distorted just because the circumstances of Monegan's departure were even more notable. The bigger story (about Monegan) creates a subsection in our article that's the most obvious place for reporting on Kopp, but if there were no Monegan story, we'd still have to find a home for a short (two sentences) description of the high-profile resignation of a cabinet member. I've restored those two sentences. I've added a third about Kopp's successor, just so no one thinks the post is still vacant, but I think that sentence is much less important and could well be dropped. If people don't want the Kopp affair in the same section as Monegan, we can put it elsewhere, but it deserves a brief mention somewhere here. Of course, the full details concerning Kopp are left to the daughter article. JamesMLane t c 07:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

James, this summary section mentioned that "Monegan's replacement resigned on July 25 due to unrelated misconduct." That is more than enough. Kopp is a very very peripheral figure to the dismissal of Monegan. Kopp does not help to explain why Monegan was dismissed. This is a frigging summary for Christ's sake. (It's late and I'm irritable.) You want to insert a little novella about Kopp in this SUMMARY of the Monegan dismissal: "To replace Monegan, Palin appointed Charles M. Kopp, chief of the Kenai police department, on July 11, 2008. He resigned on July 25 after it was revealed that he had received a letter of reprimand for sexual harassment in his previous position. After the tenure of an acting commissioner, Palin appointed Joseph Masters to the post on September 12."

Can't you humor me just this once, PLEASE? All of this stuff can go in the subarticle. People resign in disgrace all the time. People get replaced all the time. Why do we have to feature Kopp here? Geez. Putting in this kind of excessive detail is just a flaming invitation for people to jam in all kinds of other details. You won't even let me put info related to the dismissal into the subarticle, and yet you want to put all this into the main article summary, even though it bears NO RELATION WHATSOEVER to the dismissal of Monegan. Can't you please STOP, so we don't have to go round and round and round here?Ferrylodge (talk) 08:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind your being irritable. I have a thick skin. What I do mind, however, is your failure to pay attention to my arguments. You harp on how Kopp's dismissal is unrelated to Monegan's. Please read what I wrote above -- I'm not arguing for inclusion on the basis that it enlightens the reader about Monegan, so you needn't refute that straw man.

• I'm arguing for inclusion in the article on the basis that, when an important commissioner resigns after two weeks under scandalous circumstances, that's a notable event in a governor's administration. It deserves mention somewhere in the governorship section. Your ES says that people are hired and resign all the time -- yes, but not under circumstances like this. If you have evidence that a $10k severance payment for a two-week stint was typical of the Palin administration, or that several other commissioners resigned because of issues relating to sexual harassment, I'd be interested in seeing it. This wasn't business as usual. (You even say, "People resign in disgrace all the time." If other Palin commissioners resigned in disgrace, we should consider those events for inclusion, but I'd guess that the Kopp resignation was unusually dramatic even as resignations in disgrace go.)
• I'm arguing for inclusion in the "dismissal" section because the Kopp affair was an indirect consequence of the Monegan affair and that section is where people would logically look for it. As I said above, if people are going to go into hysterics (or even just get irritable) about including it here, I'm not averse to putting it somewhere else. I think the "dismissal" section is the best place but putting it in the second-best place would be better than bickering about it.

You describe my insert as a "novella". C'mon, the discussion of Kopp is a mere two sentences. As I stated above, the third sentence was just so that no one could accuse me of trying to imply that the position was still unfilled. Drop that one if you want to.

As for going round and round and round, the two-sentence "novella" was in this version at the end of September 15. I think it had been in there for several days, but I'm not going to wade through the history to compile a chronology. As far as I can tell, it was deleted without talk-page discussion. If you want us to stop going round and round and round, stop deleting it.

Finally, as to what I allegedly won't let you put into the daughter article, you're being disingenuous (which is also far less excusable than being irritable). You refer to "info related to the dismissal". As you know perfectly well, I contend that the information from 1993 is not related to the dismissal. That issue is being hashed out at Talk:Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal#2nd death threat? and at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal. Let's leave it to those fora; it doesn't affect whether we should include Kopp's resignation here. JamesMLane t c 08:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

How does it enlighten anything with monehgan, as the only connection seems to be one you are trying to arbitrarily pencil in yourself. further, you assert a background check was not done(Or was ignored), but could you cite me the Alskan state laws that allow such inquiries to even occur? My state has certain laws agains such things, and you have posited the claim this search is simplistic to do-- where's your proof a state employer can do such? It may not have been the case at all, but it's interesting that you come from that angle. You also suggest there is something odd with severance pay, but do you have any evidence it's odd for police chief in alaska or anywhere else for that matter to not have such a contract? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.29.150 (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You ask how this enlightens anything with Monegan. I'll say to you what I said to Ferrylodge: Please read what I actually wrote. "I'm not arguing for inclusion on the basis that it enlightens the reader about Monegan...." (emphasis added) As for the background check issue, Palin says she knew of the Kenai Police Department investigation of Kopp. She somehow had the impression that he'd been cleared. She faulted him for not telling her about the letter of reprimand, he said she never asked, blah blah blah. We don't need to get into that level of detail here. The point -- pardon me for repeating myself yet again but it's apparently necessary -- is that a commissioner was appointed and then resigned two weeks later under extraordinary circumstances. The severance payment was certainly odd at least to the extent that Monegan didn't get one after his much longer service. Please note also that I'm not suggesting we include, in this main article, any information about the severance payment or any of the back-and-forth about why Palin didn't know of Kopp's record in Kenai before she appointed him. JamesMLane t c 09:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

James, because I'm such a nice guy, I just unilaterally dropped my request to mention the extremely relevant San Fransico Chronicle article in our Wikipedia sub-article. So now that's moot, as a favor to you. As far as Kopp is concerned, I've extended a nice big fat olive branch to you by maintaining a mention of it in the main article, with a footnote for people who are interested in learning more ("Monegan's replacement resigned on July 25 due to unrelated misconduct"). That seems like plenty. It's just not very notable. I get 92 Google News hits for "Kopp" and "Palin".[28] In contrast, I get 6957 Google News hits for "Monegan" and "Palin".[29] As far as failed appointments and people resigning in disgrace are concerned, Bernie Kerik is not mentioned in our George W. Bush article, Bert Lance is not mentioned in our Jimmy Carter article, John Tower is not mentioned in our article about George H.W. Bush, Webb Hubbell is not mentioned in our Bill Clinton article etc., etc., etc. I know it must pain you to contemplate not describing Palin's appointment of an alleged sex fiend in the main article, but really we must stick to the most notable things.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we do need to get into those kind of details because you've asserted things that are merely assumptions on your part to include material that may be in violation of the rules of biographies. If Palin could not access the record on what reprimands he received, then his hiring is no fault of her own. The woman in question that was allegedly sexually harrassed never filed anything that would mark a permanent record that I know she could access, such as a lawsuit. So I have no evidence she was privy to this infromation of any kind of a reprimand, and form the sounds of it, nor are you. I just did my own investigation. Palin had no access to this information. Further, no reprimand EVEN EXISTS anymore because of an agreement made by Kopp with the city. Additionally, Kopp contends that he never sexually harrassed anyone and no actual judicial proceeding was every initiated to prove or disprove the allegations and never brought any formal suit whatsoever. He resigned because of media attention to this incident in his past, as it was interfering with his current position to perform his duties.66.190.29.150 (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, thanks for unilaterally dropping your request, after everyone who responded to the thread you started (well, all three editors who responded) disagreed with you. If you make one more post here arguing that Kopp is less important than Monegan (true), and concluding that Kopp is therefore unimportant (a complete non sequitur), then I myself may get a little irritable. Did any other top-level Palin appointees resign after two weeks? It's also apples-and-oranges to make comparisons to articles about presidents. A four- or eight-year stint as President of the United States generates more notable events than twenty-some months as Governor of a state with fewer people than Austin, Texas. As a result, the standard for inclusion in an article about a President is higher. Is this really a contentious point? (As an aside, however, I would include Lance's resignation in the Carter article, along with the article's current references to him. His resignation was a fairly big deal. Kerik and Tower never took office. Hubbell was in between and I could go either way on that one.) Putting aside Presidents, a better comparison would be to some other state or local official. The first one that occurred to me was Rudy Giuliani, who spent eight years overseeing more than ten times as many employees as Palin has managed for less than two years. Giuliani's article does indeed include the noteworthy troubles of some of his appointed commissioners.

To the anon: You seem to be responding to a proposal that this article include a full-fledged flaying of Palin for her inadequate vetting of Kopp. No one has made such a proposal. My actual proposal is to state that Kopp resigned "after it was revealed that he had received a letter of reprimand", a phrasing perfectly consistent with your point of view that the revelation came only after his appointment. My proposal does not include what I believe to be an undisputed fact, namely that Palin knew before she appointed him that he'd been accused of sexual harassment. That fact certainly supports a criticism that Palin should've checked more carefully into the disposition of the accusation. Nevertheless, my two-sentence novella omits that fact. We can go into it in the daughter article, along with any well-sourced information that says the Kenai Police Department would've refused to tell the Governor what happened. For purposes of this article, though, the issue isn't whether the incident shows fault on the part of Palin, but whether it was a notable event in her governorship. Conceivably we could say: "On July 25, after it was revealed that he had received a letter of reprimand for sexual harassment in his previous position, he resigned, stating that the resulting media firestorm was interfering with his performance of his duties." I'm inclined to see that as too much detail here, though. The reader can infer that, if the state's newly appointed top cop is found to have been reprimanded for sexual harassment, the media would be all over it. JamesMLane t c 10:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

James, regarding my unilaterally dropped request, I assure you that I would not ordinarily drop a request like that at such an early stage. But this Palin article desperately needs editors to be more cooperative so that some of the zillions of disputes can be settled. As you know, this is a BLP, and so consensus is required to insert stuff, not to remove stuff. I do not anticipate budging one inch on this Kopp matter. You can put as much about him as you like in the subarticle, but it is not sufficiently notable for the main Palin article. The brief sentence in the article now should be more than enough, and I'm apprently not the only one who thinks so. I could cite other analogies to you besides presidential ones, but I'm sure you'd find some reason to discount them too. For example, there is nothing in the Frank Murkowski article about Tom Irwin ("Supporters of an all-Alaska gas pipeline, including Republican and Democratic candidates for governor, reacted with outrage Friday to what is being called the Thursday Afternoon Massacre, Gov. Frank Murkowski's dismissal of the state Department of Natural Resources commissioner Tom Irwin, followed immediately by the resignation of six Irwin aides.") There is also nothing in the Murkowski article about Renkes or Blatchford ("two members of his cabinet, Attorney General Gregg Renkes and Commerce Commissioner Edgar Blatchford, resigned under ethical clouds").

I am not arguing that Kopp is less important than Monegan, I am arguing that he is VASTLY less important than Monegan in the grand Palin scheme. Did any other top-level Palin appointees resign after two weeks? Probably not, I don't know. It doesn't really matter, IMHO.

In any event, is there any chance that you might let this drop now? Please?Ferrylodge (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see much relvance to the discussion of whether to include completely different information (the 1993 incident) in the daughter article, when no one is arguing that it belongs in this article. Because you raise it, though, I'll note that you said, "When I get a chance, I may bring it up at the BLP noticeboard for their opinion. Will that convince you, James?" I responded that I would abide by a consensus on the BLP noticeboard. You did bring it up there and no one agreed with you. If your implication is that dropping the point in the face of such opposition shows you to be a nice person, and that you're owed a favor in return on the main article, then, sorry, I just don't see it that way.

Turning to the real issues, your interpretation of WP:BLP doesn't seem to be supported by the policy. "New material should generally be discussed in order to arrive at a consensus concerning relevance, availability of sources, and reliability of sources." As I pointed out, this isn't new material. Beyond that, there seems to be no serious contest on these points -- the material is relevant to Palin and it's confirmed by reliable sources. The issue is rather one of editorial judgment, specifically whether it's important enough to expand your favored one-sentence version into two sentences. I don't read the BLP policy as giving automatic preference to either side in a dispute of that sort.

I'm completely ignorant about Murkowski's sacking of Irwin. Your quotation about it gives me the initial impression that it should be mentioned in the Murkowski article. I see no discussion of this subject on Talk:Frank Murkowski. Thus, my reaction is: First, it appears that the people editing Frank Murkowski have not reached a considered decision that this should be omitted; rather, it seems simply not to have been brought up. Second, even if they had considered and rejected it, that wouldn't be binding as to other articles. Certainly there is no blanket policy that the resignation or firing of an executive's appointee must be omitted from the executive's bio article.

As to your concluding request, I believe there are several respects in which this article reflects an improper pro-Palin POV. The attempt to suppress information about Kopp, an incident that obviously could lead many people to question her executive ability, is not an isolated example. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to devote nearly so much time to this corner of Wikipedia as would've been necessary to even try to correct all the problems. In this instance, I thought that turning one sentence back into two, undoing an undiscussed deletion of information, would be a comparatively easy fix to accomplish. The length of this thread shows that my powers of Wikiprognostication are minimal.

So, where do we go from here? In light of your statement, I'll stop trying to reason with you. For the moment, I won't get in a revert war with you, although I regard your unilateral deletion of the information as clearly wrong. Instead, when I have time I'll work with the open-minded editors to craft appropriate language. If there's a passage that has broad support, but you continue to try to keep it out, then I suppose we'll have to go to RfC over it. The short-term result will be, as it too often is on Wikipedia, that obstinacy is far more important in shaping the articles than is reason. For the longer term, if your goal is for editors to be more cooperative, then I respectfully suggest that deleting properly sourced material that's been in for several days, and making this deletion with no talk page discussion, and announcing that you will not budge on your deletion, is not an approach that is likely to generate a spirit of cooperation. JamesMLane t c 15:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If your goal is to disparage others for not agreeing with your decided POV, then I must respectfully (and tersely) demur. If your goal is, instead, to imply that you and your friends will be obstinate in your own turn, then I sincerely regret ever trying to make this page truly NPOV. Collect (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be ignorant of the facts in this situation, and you have continually asserted things that you don't know are true, and are, in fact, demonstrably untrue. The reprimand does not exist. Read that again. The reprimand does not exist. Kopp had always asserted he was innocent in any wrong doing and he maintain his part of an agreement with the city that ensured the reprimand no longer existed. Assume he had cancer and was in remission and given a clean bill of health, yet then he died after appointment to the position, of a return of cancer, would you still aggitate so readily for inclusion?? You really have made no compelling argument whatsoever, instead you continue to let your agenda slip out in your psuedo-arguments for inclusion. This is not despotic communist country and Palin is not omniprescent. You might as well fault her for any wrong doing anyone from a trooper to a garbage man did during her ternure are governor. 66.190.29.150 (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

James, I'm disappointed here. It is not true that no one agreed with me regarding the BLP issue.[30] Additionally, I have not differed with you about Kopp due to "obstinacy" on my part. I have differed with you for a variety of different reasons that I fully explained. I provided link after link after link, for four different Wikipedia presidential articles, and for multiple resignations during the Murkowski administration, to support my position, in addition to providing you with contrasting search results from Google News. In response, you have provided nothing. I gave you plenty of reasons for saying that "I do not anticipate budging one inch on this Kopp matter." I am not refusing to budge if you provide compelling reasons in response to my objections, but I do not anticipate you doing so.

And I note that others have provided some additional reasoning in this talk page section why the Kopp matter is already adequately addressed in this Wikipedia article. It is not being suppressed. This Wikipedia article mentions the matter, and provides a footnote with link. And I already invited you to write as much about it as you would like in the sub-article.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Several points in response to Collect, Ferrylodge, and the anon:

• Collect's first comment, with two "If" clauses that are both divorced from reality, hardly merits mention. What I actually said was that I would not re-insert the material unilaterally deleted by Ferrylodge, but would instead work with others to develop language that would, if necessary, be put to RfC. That's pretty much the opposite of obstinacy.
• The anon continues to assert that no reprimand even exists, allegedly because of a subsequent agreement between Kopp and Kenai. No such agreement can change history. I believe these facts to be undisputed: Kopp was reprimanded at some point in the past; the reprimand was not public knowledge at the time Palin appointed him Commissioner; the reprimand became public knowledge during his tenure as Commissioner (I think it was on or about July 22); the report of the past reprimand generated much media attention and criticism of Kopp (and if you think that was all an outrage because the reprimand "didn't exist", you're entitled to your opinion, but the fact of the public criticism is not a matter of opinion and cannot reasonably be disputed); soon after the media firestorm broke, Kopp resigned. The daughter article can go into this detail, including whatever well-sourced information supports a contention that the reprimand had become nonexistent and, even more dubiously, that everyone was morally obligated to ignore it because of subsequent dealings between Kopp and Kenai. For the Palin article, the point is simply that saying that Kopp resigned "after it was revealed that he had received a letter of reprimand for sexual harassment in his previous position" is completely accurate. It's an important aspect of Palin's administration, and it's reasonable for us to use a few extra words to state the cause, which received widespread public attention, instead of leaving the reader hanging as the current version does by coyly saying he "resigned...due to unrelated misconduct".
• In fact, the current version asserts that Kopp engaged in misconduct, which is arguably a BLP and NPOV violation given that Kopp denies it. By contrast, the statement that he had received a letter of reprimand is an objective fact. BLP protects Palin but it also protects people like Kopp. The BLP violation could be cured by changing "unrelated misconduct" to "unrelated issues", leaving the reader to wonder if Kopp had a heart attack or some such, and further obscuring any inconvenient facts that might sully Palin's desired image as a skilled government reformer.
• Contrary to the anon's implication, the issue isn't whether we can "fault" Palin in the Kopp affair. This is neither a campaign puff piece nor a hit job. In fact, it isn't even a balanced consideration of whether or not she should be VP. It's a biography of her life, and the issue is whether the Kopp affair was notable enough to be mentioned in that context. It doesn't have to be relevant to her qualifications for national office, any more than her high-school role as a point guard is.
• Ferrylodge, you should check the timestamps. When I wrote my comment, it was true that no one at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal agreed with you. Thereafter, almost ten hours after you said you would drop it, and some hours after I wrote, one editor did chime in on your side. Please consider my comment updated accordingly.
• You write, "I have not differed with you about Kopp due to 'obstinacy' on my part." I agree. "James, I disagree with you" could not be characterized as obstinacy. "I do not anticipate budging one inch on this Kopp matter" can be so characterized, and the latter is what you wrote.
• You're entitled to your opinion that I have provided "nothing" in response to your arguments. To my mind, I distinguished the presidential examples and the Murkowski example, and I provided the Giuliani counterexample. Your Google searches compared Kopp with Monegan, and I have written again and again that "Monegan-level notability" is not the standard for inclusion here. Most aspects of Palin's life would have fewer Google hits than would Monegan. I continue to believe that if Monegan had resigned for health reasons, it would be obvious to every unbiased editor that the resignation of an appointed Commissioner, after two weeks in office, under circumstances of public scandal or controversy or outcry or whatever you want to call it, was a significant enough event to merit two sentences in the main article.
• Finally, you state that "others have provided some additional reasoning" here. Except for Collect's comment, which provides no reasoning about the substance, this thread has consisted of you, me, and an anon who implausibly asserts, "The reprimand does not exist." I've answered the anon above. If you, as a lawyer, agree with that position, that is of course your prerogative.

This thread hasn't attracted wide participation, so when I'm ready to devote time to restoring the information to the article, I'll start a new thread. JamesMLane t c 01:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point about the word "misconduct" in the current article. I'll fix it to clarify that it was just an allegation. Also, in view of the timestamps, you're correct that no one was supporting me at the BLP Noticeboard when I dropped the matter. However, I intend to leave the matter dropped, even though there is now support for my position there, because I want to encourage some give and take here. I do not look forward to going through this Kopp matter again and again. But I do apologize for my recent irritability; I usually try to be sweeter than that.  :-) Anyway, you're free to revise and extend this debate as long as you would like, though I wish you would not. I hope you will keep in mind that this section of the present article also omits details that I wish could be included, such as the fact that Wooten had been disciplined for making a death threat, and that the state Senator overseeing the investigation predicted it would be damaging and called for impeachment long before the report was due to be issued. So, you're not the only one unhappy with the present summary.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If we mention the alleged death threat, then, to be fair to Wooten, we have to mention that he denies it; to be fair to Monegan, we have to mention that Wooten had been disciplined over the matter before Monegan took office (so that we don't give the misleading impression that Monegan didn't care about the death threat and wanted to let it slide). The issue is whether going into that much detail about the specifics of the charges against Wooten is appropriate in the Palin bio. Do you want to do that, or do you want to "save space" by mentioning only the death threat, without that other information?

I'm struck by the contrast in your approaches to Wooten and Kopp. In each case, we have an accusation of misconduct, denied by the person involved but adjudicated against him in any agency proceeding of some level of formality, resulting in an official disciplinary action. In the Palin bio article, you want to tell the reader the specific nature of the alleged misconduct by Wooten, a lowly state trooper whom none of us would ever have heard of if he hadn't married Molly McCann; but you want to conceal from the reader the analogous fact about Kopp, whom Palin appointed to her cabinet, and specifically to the state's highest law enforcement position. To me, it seems obvious that the priorities should be the other way around. JamesMLane t c 15:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The onus is on you to provide compelling reasons why this is material which should be included in a biography. You have yet to support that position. Despite wrting much, you say little. The fact Kopp was appointed by Palin and he later resigned is not satisfactory. If there was something more here, then perhaps so. But if there is, you sure haven't provided it thus far. The reprimand does not exist. The reprimand did not exist on his record. There was no error in his background check, as yu erronously asserted. Even you tried to add the "Extra" bit required to make it something even remotely worth considering for the wki, too bad it was a complete lie.66.190.29.150 (talk) 04:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

@66.190.29.150...Please use some method of specifying which "you" you are responding to. It's hard enough to follow. You may get an edit-conflict and your response will not directly fall in place where you had intended, leading to confusion...Thanks...--Buster7 (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Buster,I believe that the indentation is sufficient to determine whom I am speaking to. It really does not matter if someone else also replies, assuming they do not modify the identation of the person we both responded to.

Dear 66...For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.--Buster7 (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, please do not discuss unrelated "concessions" - while they are clear reasons for us to continue to assume your good faith, they are irrelevant to the point at hand. There are way too many irrelevant issues being raised here.

We all agree that this is notable for at least one sentence. The question is only, should this sentence read "unrelated alegations", or "after it was revealed that he had been reprimanded for alleged sexual harassment". I find it hard to see how anyone can argue that the latter is not an important part of this subplot. "Unrelated allegations" is just a weasel, a compromise that nobody would suggest in its own right, and as such it (infinitesimally) reduces the quality of this article. I will add the "after" verbiage. Homunq (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

...and it was swiftly removed, leaving the bare fact of the resignation. I'm not going to flirt with 3RR here, but I think that the removal does not respect this discussion, and I would encourage others to add the language such as I suggest above. Homunq (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Homunq, the suggestion initially in this section was to have not one sentence bu three: "To replace Monegan, Palin appointed Charles M. Kopp, chief of the Kenai police department, on July 11, 2008. He resigned on July 25 after it was revealed that he had received a letter of reprimand for sexual harassment in his previous position. After the tenure of an acting commissioner, Palin appointed Joseph Masters to the post on September 12." Then there was an offer to omit the last, still leaving two sentences. The very small number of Google News hits for Kopp would have been even smaller if the media spotlight had not already been on the Public Safety Commissioner due to the Monegan situation. Additinoally, there was no "unrelated concession" on my part. I made a related concession intended to encourage a compromise. The material in the article right now about Kopp's resignation is plenty, IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

re: concessions: Sorry, I skimmed here, did not understand. Enough said.

Let's not get into couterfactuals - I think there would be MORE articles if it weren't overshadowed, but no proof.

Regardless of how this discussion started out, we are now debating between one short sentence, and one somewhat longer sentence. You say short is enough. Why? It seems to me that the short sentence is useless. If the resignation is notable, it is only BECAUSE of the specific reason. Noting one but not the other is worse than nothing. I'm not going to edit this again today, anyway, but I reiterate the invitation for others to restore the extra clause. Homunq (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added back in that Kopp resigned amid allegations of sexual harassment, and that Wooten's custody battle involved an alleged death threat.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Great! It's great to get consensus, thanks. Homunq (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, if we include the allegation of the death threat we must include the undisputed fact that there had been a disciplinary proceeding involving this issue. It's inaccurate to give the impression that Monegan was shrugging off such an accusation against a trooper, when his actual stance was that the matter had been dealt with and couldn't be reopened. I've now added this. Alas, Homunq, I must say that, even with this change, we don't have perfect consensus. I reserve my right to return to this later, because the current version limits the information about Kopp to "accusations" without disclosing that he'd already been officially reprimanded and without making clear that the letter of reprimand wasn't generally known as of the time of his appointment. The version that Ferrylodge called a "novella" was a few words longer and far more informative. JamesMLane t c 03:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I oppose turning the summary into a detailed analysis. Kopp may have been reprimanded, but he was not proven guilty in a court of law, and the nature of the reprimand is disputed. If you want to include this info about Kopp, then we wouild have to also detail the fact that Wooten was also reprimanded, a fact which was never disclosed to the Palins until after Monegan's dismissal. I oppose trying to put more details into this article on this subject. If any more detail is put in , then I'm sure someone will come along and chop the whole section down to a few sentences, and rightly so. Look James, the article says Kopp was accused of sexual harassment in his previous job. That is enough. People can get all the details in the sub-article.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my post, and demur on attacks of being "divorced from reality." Cordially, Collect (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

accent

Her accent is very notable, especially as it adds to her folksy-ness. I was going to add a note on this in the article, but I realized many people are probably more knowledgable about this than me. Her accent rings very similar to one I heard when living in Minnesota, but I've heard people call it an Idaho or Alaska accent as well:

• "flat prairie accent"
• "strange Northern accent"
• "charming quasi Minnesotan / Canadian accent"
• "chirpy Matanuska Valley girl accent"
• "nouveaux-"Fargo" accent"
• "Fargo-meets-"Northern Exposure" accent"
• "grand Pacific Northwest/Alaska variant on the Midwestern accent"

Thoughts?--Loodog (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe for Public_image_of_Sarah_Palin? I'm not sure. FangedFaerie (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting and semi-amusing, but in my opinion a color detail like that should only be included in an important article as a throw-away if it's generally understood to be an uncontroversial way of setting up context rather than a sly insult or put-down. The sources so far are not terribly reliable, and do not mention it in such a major way that we can conclude that it is a significant biographical detail. In fact, it might say more about people's reaction to her accent, particularly for light-hearted entertainment, than her accent itself. Also, on matters like this even serious journalists are prone to make unreliable statements because for many, neither they nor their editors seems to think normal journalistic standards apply. This is one of those things like saying something happened "in droves", repeating aphorisms, anthropomorphizing animals, writing hook lines, saying that "Freud would have a field day" or that some other scientist is spinning in his grave, etc., where you can't necessarily trust an otherwise reliable source.Wikidemon (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not meant as a commentary on her. It's an interesting and notable piece of information like Giuliani's lateral lisp.--Loodog (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that mentioned in his bio? If not, I would argue that this thread be removed as this is not a forum. --Tom 19:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. So is Churchill's stutter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

[31]. It's a blog, but very detailed with regard to her speech patterns, says it has "classic western/northwestern features" as well as Upper Midwestern (e.g. Minnesota, Wisconsin)examples.--Loodog (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone object to a note calling her accent "Upper Midwestern"?--Loodog (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Got it. She speaks North Central American English. I'm including a note on this in the article.--Loodog (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyone has an accent. The only reason you may think of it as very noticable is because --you-- are not accustomed to it. To people from the upper-midwest, it's surely not noticable, nor does it convey anything "folsky", which itself is a strange term being applied here. 66.190.29.150 (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for stating the obvious. She does not speak "standard" American English like Obama, McCain, Biden, newscasters, movie stars, sports commentators, sitcom actors. Maybe if you read some of the links I provided, you could say something useful.--Loodog (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

She doesn't speak "standard" english? Oh really? I think you should actually understand the terms you use, particulalry when you take such condescending tone. Michelle Obama is the one who does not use standard English, "my babies' daddy" for instance. Let me go take a look over at the Bill Clinton wiki and see if his accent is mentioned Oh, isn't that interesting. Not only is his characteristic, er, "folksy" accent not mentioned, but you happen to be a patron editor of the Bill Clinton wiki. Quite interesting given the running political joke of his accent becoming more and more pronounced the further south he was during his many times on the campaign trail. Do you have an excuse for your double standards or is this where you slink away in hypocrisy?(Looks like he wants to try and delete my points instead of addressing them. What a shock.)66.190.29.150 (talk) 08:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, you are way off topic, not saying anything useful, and borderline trolling. Do you have anything constructive and non-obvious to say abot Palin's accent?--Loodog (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not way off topic. You are the one veering off of it, because you've lost the debate. And instead of conceding you were wrong, you continue to try to derail the points. Try answering my questions. Why have you not argued for the inclusion of this accent thing in the Clinton wiki? Why have you argued for its inclusion here? How do you explain the hypocrisy that between the two positions, or lackthereof.66.190.29.150 (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Since any discussion of Bill Clinton or of me is off-topic, I've moved it to your talk page.--Loodog (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Charging for post-rape medical exams - second term in wasilla

The following content was removed a while ago:

In 2000, the fact that rape victims in Wasilla were being billed for post-incident medical examinations caught the attention of Alaska legislators. The Legislature banned the practice state-wide that year. Sources say Palin was probably aware of the situation and did nothing to change it. Palin's campaign supporters have said that Palin "does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test." [32]

Apparently this "has been discussed on the talk page" here, and it was decided that the well sourced information should not be kept up. I disagree. While I agree that we should not report that Palin definately knew about the practice (as no source confirms that), I think we should put up the fact that it happened, and the fact that it has caused controversy. It is well sourced and notable information.

Comments? Fresheneesz (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I very much disagree with including this material. The issue is already dealt with in Mayoralty of Sarah Palin. This summary is not accurate, and much of it is not supported by the cited source.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The material is less likely to be noticed in a subarticle; I trust this is not Ferrylodge's intention. We should at least mention a few words on the subject, so that the reader will know which subarticle to look at, and future editors will know it is somewhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with including this in the biography article. The source does not provide any evidence that Palin knew of or approved of the practice. A biography should not be a collection of rumors and charges. Besides, this is hardly a matter for a biography at all!--Paul (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed - see here. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 23:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is permissible in a BLP, one sentence is pure speculation for example. Even using the word "probably" outright which should be a HUGE red flag. Hobartimus (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The "probably" sentence should go. In its place, after the quotation from the Palin spokeswoman, should be the additional information, as reported by USA Today, that the spokeswoman did not answer the question whether Palin knew about the practice. The current state of our knowledge about her knowledge is that her own spokeswoman won't say, so that's what we report. This subject has received attention in the media. Some people would say that if Palin knew, that's interesting, and if she didn't know, that's also interesting. (They argue that it shouldn't be hard to keep track of stuff like this in a town of 6,000. With these changes, the material should be restored. JamesMLane t c 01:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It would still be POV rubbish. "Palin's campaign supporters have said...." Come on. Try her spokesperson. Additionally, this doesn't mention that insurance companies may well have picked up the tab, or that the Police Chief wanted to make the rapists pay for it rather than having taxpayers pay. This matter is already adequately addressed in the sub-article and it is not significant enough to mention here. Rape is obviously a very sensitive subject, and we would need to take up too much space in this article to address the matter neutrally. There is no evidence that Palin had any role here.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

According to Wasilla, the city has never charged for these exams (" City Documents - Recently Requested - Former Mayor Palin" → "Billing of sexual assault victims for forensic exams" PDF). Grsz^talk 04:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Your link does not seem to work, Grsz.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Instructions given. Grsz^talk 04:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"A review of files and case reports within the Wasilla Police Department has found no record of sexual assault victims billed for forensic exams." Straight from the city itself. It's just more of the tabloid-esque hit pieces/lies the leftist media has beenpumping out the last couple weeks as Obama slips further and further downin the polls. Desperate times require desperate measures.66.190.29.150 (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

http://pushingrope.blogspot.com/2008/09/more-on-sarah-palin-rape-controversy.html links to http://www.cityofwasilla.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=544 which states no one was billed for such exams from the beginning of fiscal year 2000 up to August 14 when such billings would have become illegal. This appears to be a source which should be included, as it appears to negate some other statements found here. Collect (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"Tabloids" like the local newspaper[33]. If Palin did not read or was not made aware of what her own police chief was quoted as saying in a local paper, that fact is just as scary as if she did know, and didn't renounce the chief. If the city never charged for them, how do you explain this quote from the paper? "Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon does not agree with the new legislation, saying the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams."--Appraiser (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

In a letter released by (current mayor and Palin's cousin) Dianne Keller, she said no victims were charged in Fiscal Year 2000, 2001, or 2002.[34] Does anyone know when FY 2000 began in Wasilla? By August of 2000, the practice was illegal in Alaska, so it would be more telling to see the figures for the several years prior to that. Approximately 10 reported sexual assaults occurred in Wasilla in each of those years.[35]--Appraiser (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep it short, including the fact that her knowledge is in dispute and the number of charged victims may be zero. How about: "In 2000, the fact that Wasilla police had a policy of billing rape victims for post-incident medical examinations caught the attention of Alaska legislators, who banned such billing state-wide. This policy was not instituted by Palin, and no victims had actually been billed during that fiscal year." Homunq (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC) Multiple sources indicate that Wasilla operates on a 1 July start of the fiscal year. http://www.matsugov.us/Assembly/minutes/2001/050801spc.htm Collect (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't even the exact policy, at least not according the police chief in question, he did argue against the idea of the government having to pickup the tab, but he intendted to charge the perps for the cost of the exams during sentencing as a form of restitution. And the police department has no record of ever charging a victim for the testings.66.190.29.150 (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? In 2000, the fact that Wasilla police would not pay for "rape kits", which include both post-incident medical examinations and emergency contraception, caught the attention of Alaska legislators, who passed a state law forbidding cities from billing victims. This policy was not instituted by Palin, and there have been no documented reports that victims were actually billed. 216.106.170.103 (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible Misquote

"In a 2008 speech, Palin urged a group of graduating ministry students at her former church to pray for the military and to consider the military's job as a task from God.[204] In the same remarks Palin asserted that "God's will" coincides with the building of the Alaskan national gas pipeline project,[205][206]"

I'm not sure if it's considered a misquote or not, but at the very least, this can be misleading. The section is referenced, but it seems that some of the information in the second sentence, is taken from two different sources in order to misconstrue her words.

Also, it seems that the first sentence is paraphrased incorrectly. Palin's original words are:

"Pray for our military men and women who are, striving to do what is right also for our country, that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That is what we have to make sure we are praying for: that there is a plan, and that that plan is God's Plan... So bless them with your prayers..."

I transcribed that from the video that was cited in [204] [36]

I don't see (and didn't hear) her tell the graduates that they should consider the war a "task from God" --[[User:Mr.Vanker| Mr.Vanker]] (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You won't succeed in making this neutral. Some here are bent on erroneously painting her as a religious zealot based on this singular commencement speech to a graduating class of ministry students just finishing a year in a Pentacostal church program. Unfortunately, their position is bolstered by the others who are simply afraid of anyone who exhibits religious beliefs, even when those happen in the church. Our suppose our next generation of leaders must be atheist to succeed. Fcreid (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

At least it's refreshing to see we've moved beyond race and gender and are focusing on those prejudices that count! Fcreid (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, such prejudice! I have a dream... a dream that someday we might see a Christian President of the United States. Or even 43 of them. Consecutively. :) In all seriousness, religion is probably a notable topic here, since it has both been a focus of Palin's public persona and of reliably-sourced coverage of her, but I do agree that it's being pushed a bit too hard. It's hardly exceptional or remarkable that an American prays for the safety of the troops or for wise leadership, or for the success of a personal venture; I suspect hundreds of millions of Americans do that. We don't need to catalog every time Palin has mentioned the word "God" in this article. MastCell ^Talk 18:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Questioning the content

Why did Wikidemon archive #18 and #36. I thought the subject of the discussion was how to improve the Palin page. Both questioned the biased tone of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.135.56.32 (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Any discussions that are not active are up for archiving. General complaints about tone do not tend to spark useful discussion as much as specific points. Homunq (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There are three ARTICLE POLICIES, one of them being Neutral Point of View. It is relevant to the validity of the entire site. The topic is still being addressed in several other posts. Some people only like to read or post half of a sentence from a source. Archiving is one way they promote their political agenda on this site. I believe Wikidemon said that the IP was "vandalising" the Obama site by contributing to the discussion. Demon has a clear political agenda here.

Redirects, what?

Why is there a link specifically to Palin's Endangered Species policy in her Governorship page under her Political positions on this main page? If we must cross-link, why not to her Governorship page in general? That's kinda confusing to me. Regards. FangedFaerie (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Because the animal "rights" activist that Palin pissed off have been on her page since the second day of her nomination and only one admin (so it seems) has had the backbone to challenge them on their extreme POV entries. Example - the use of the word "gunning" rather than the term culling. Theosis4u (talk) 06:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I don't think "culling" is neutral, either, though I do think it reflects the intentions of the parties involved better than "gunning" does. Maybe shooting? I dunno, hard to find a neutral word there. At any rate, I don't think that link belongs there. :/ FangedFaerie (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Note, I would add that we should use culling but also use Culling and allow that article to reflect the politics of the word. This way articles can use the word correctly but at the sametime easily inform readers about it's use and politics. Theosis4u (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 17:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I hereby declare my intention to remove the link. I'll wait a day to see if anyone disagrees. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 01:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Done, and with no controversy! Hurray! :) FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 21:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Caribou Barbie?

Where did "Nickname(s) Caribou Barbie" in the InfoBox come from? Any source for this or is that someone's idea of a joke?WTucker (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. Pending a reliable source, of course. Right now, it felt very "recentism-ish" Emphasis on the "ish".... Keeper ǀ 76 23:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be both, a sourced joke. According to David Freddoso (author of The Case Against Barack Obama), leftists used the word to describe her supposed ditsiness, and commentators picked up the word.[37] Sourced or not it seems too frivolous for the article. I find it kind of sweet and disarming, and fail to see why Barbie is such a bad thing. But nevertheless it does demean her unless and until they call Obama "Sasquatch Ken" or something - that's a joke! - I support its removal.Wikidemon (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Source is Liberal talker Stephanie Miller, later picked up by Liberal talker Mike Malloy. Would a cite to a specific show date be sufficient? --BenBurch (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the removal. Hobartimus (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There was a poll on Democratic Underground to pick a nickname. "Caribou Barbie" won overwhelmingly. Nicknames generally need to achieve a lot of use in the general media before we include them. I don't think this one is yet close to that level of currency. JamesMLane t c 00:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

And here I thought it was a reference to her action figure. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Frankly this is inappropriate to include regardless of the usage. Hobartimus (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The article about Richard Nixon mentions "Tricky Dick". A nickname that reaches that level of usage is appropriate for inclusion. Obviously, though, that's not common. JamesMLane t c 01:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

'Caribou Barbie' is a common name for her? This is the only place I've ever that term mentioned ever. The Squicks (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Nixon is not a living person, it's not comparable in Wikipedia terms. Hobartimus (talk) 10:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, Hobartimus. If everyone were calling her that, it would still be inappropriate, unless her own response were in itself notable. Homunq (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

VP Selection Process

I think the following sentence is WP:OR and also has the wrong ref.: "Palin had been under consideration since a private meeting with McCain in a February National Governors Association meeting at which Palin made a favorable impression on McCain."

The source only says she made a favorable impression on McCain during their 15 minute private meeting in February. The selection process did not begin until March. None of the sources state she was "under consideration" at that time IP75 75.36.70.205 (talk) 02:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a source for that assertion? If this is a disputed fact we can simple attribute the assertion to the person(s) that made it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This Washington Post article is the correct citation for the sentence.[[38]] The text in the article has been edited and is now fine. IP75 75.36.70.205 (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridge to Nowhere - Redux REDUX

A week ago, this section was short and, dare I say, elegant. It said:

"Bridge(s) to Nowhere"

See also: Gravina Island Bridge and Knik Arm Bridge (Don Young's Way)

Two Alaskan bridge construction proposals supported by Palin in her 2006 gubernatorial race have been derided as a symbol of pork barrel spending: a proposed bridge connecting Ketchikan to Gravina Island (population 50) where its airport lies;[91] and a proposed bridge ("Don Young's Way", named after Alaska's Congressman) crossing Knik Arm to provide an alternate route from Anchorage to Wasilla.[92] The nickname "Bridge(s) to Nowhere" has been used for the Gravina Island Bridge alone[93] or, more rarely, both bridges.[94]

In 2005, Congress earmarked $442 million to build the two bridges but later reversed itself under strong criticism and gave the transportation money to Alaska with no strings attached.[95] In 2006, Palin ran for governor on a "build-the-bridge" platform,[96] attacking "spinmeisters"[97] for insulting local residents by calling them "nowhere"[96] and urging speed "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."[98] About two years after the introduction of the bridge proposals, a month after the bridge received sharp criticism from John McCain,[99] and nine months into Palin's term as governor, Palin canceled the Gravina Bridge, blaming Congress for not providing enough funding.[100] Alaska will not return any of the $442 million to the federal government[101] and is spending a portion of the funding, $25 million, on a Gravina Island road to the place where the bridge would have gone, expressly so that none of the money will have to be returned.[96] Palin continues to support funding Don Young's Way, estimated as more than twice as expensive as the Gravina Bridge would have been.[102]

In her nomination acceptance speech and on the campaign trail, Palin has often said: "I told the Congress 'thanks, but no thanks,' for that Bridge to Nowhere."[103][104] Although Palin was originally a main proponent of the bridge, McCain-Palin television advertisements claim Palin "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere".[105] These claims have been widely questioned or described as misleading in several newspapers across the political spectrum.[106][107][108][109] Newsweek, commenting on Palin's "astonishing pivot," remarked: "Now she talks as if she always opposed the funding."[110]

Then folks started adding detail after mind-numbing detail about each of the bridges. I usually don't fight additions, though I found them unnecessary. But then I knew what would come next. After these details were added, more important details would be subtracted. The fact that Congress removed the earmark was removed. (Wouldn't that be the most important fact?) There were claims the bridge was proposed to go to the airport. (It wouldn't have. It would have gone to the island on which the airport lies.) Time was added, making sentences longer (two months after she became governor; two years after the bridge proposals...can't our readers count? Why can't we just give the date if the other things (when she became governor; when the bridges were proposed) are already in the article?) The detail of how Palin blamed Congress was added. OK, fine. But then a praise by TCS was added--I guess for "balance"--without noting the many critical articles on TCS' website condemning McCain/Palin for purposely misstating the facts on the bridge. Oops. Then lots of stuff on the second bridge was added, often repeating information found earlier in the very same subsection

Most importantly, the whole reason why the bridge was important was removed: it's use in the McCain/Palin campaign and the criticism for it. It is doubtful there would be thousands of articles over the last week on the "Bridge to Nowhere" if it weren't used by McCain and Palin at the Republican National Convention in every campaign stop. And yet, literally hundreds of thousands of articles according to Google have accused McCain and Palin of "lying" on the issue. Perhaps no other accusation in the entire McCain campaign has been more contested as a lie -- by newspapers across the political spectrum from far right Wall Street Journal to mainstream to far left Nation--than the bridge to nowhere. Even Palin herself admitted in the ABC interview with Gibson that she was for the bridge before she was against it, that she kept the earmarked money and that she only wanted to build the bridge if federal taxpayers footed the bill. And yet, Palin continues to give it as an example of her saying no to federal spending when the truth is Alaska kept the federal spending and didn't even build the bridge. (One could argue the only thing more fiscally irresponsible than taking federal money to build an extravagant bridge is to take the money and not build the bridge.)

At any rate, my rant is over. I propose going back to the original article, short and sweet, but so as not to delete anything, I simply added back the deleted material. I did not add back any quotations from the many critical press articles, except Newsweek's very brief one which encapsulates all the criticism.

If you like the long, convoluted article, that's your choice. But please do not remove the criticism that is at the heart of why the bridge is so notable: Palin's stating--or misstating--the facts about the bridge on the campaign trail.

(And if someone wants me to revert back to my original consensus version that lasted a good week with very few changes, just let me know, and with enough support, I'll happily do it.)GreekParadise (talk) 05:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Last point: perhaps the longer version, if not used here, should be used in the article on the bridge(s).GreekParadise (talk) 05:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, be bold and revert to the good version. The current text is much more suitable for the actual bridge article. Grsz^talk 05:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. All the stories of the bridge fail to mention that Ketchikan is land lock and can only be reached by air or boat. That the airport is on an island across from the town. That the island provides multiples of sq. miles of development as compared to what is left in Ketchikan. Look for yourself here. Also, Palin has never said she agreed to the "bridge" as is in regards to the projected dollar amount of the project - she agreed to a link. But I suppose all those facts and contexts are worth much to make the topic exciting. And please, show me the law and the process that allows the Governor to "return" the money that Congress (Obama & Biden voted yes on by the way) gave to Alaska that use to be allocated to the "bridge to no-where"? Theosis4u (talk) 06:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're going on about Theosis4u. If you think that stuff is important, by all means bring it up. None of those issues have been discussed much by any of the candidates of late, and as it is now the article does deal more directly with the issue as it's being debated by the candidates and in the popular press. But that doesn't mean that the other details need not be discussed. I do think that a balance needs to be struck between the length of material here, but certainly this stuff should be in the sub-article. Aprock (talk) 07:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I am bringing them up and have else where. I've lived in Alaska and know many of the cities, towns, villages are only accessible from air or water. Those in the lower 48 don't appreciate this situation and will most likely not even consider this as a possibility. Also the fact that the town is constrained for development (geographically) and could use the island for expansion if a bridge was done only gives support to WHY a bridge would be consider being built. It's much more than a "because the airport was on the island". This inclusion doesn't take away or add to the debate about the cost of the project and if it was corrupt or excessive. I do believe that leaving these two points out though does slant the story to a POV agenda. Theosis4u (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, this should be included with the above context. Palin didn't support the bridge as an "as-is" blanket statement of approval. She supported a "link" for the residents of the islands. And that she would "evaluate" the details when it was appropriate. Palin said, "The money that’s been appropriated for the project, it should remain available for a link, an access process as we continue to evaluate the scope and just how best to just get this done," from Boston Herald I think that is notable considering the current description and qoutes implies she did, when we know she didn't. Theosis4u (talk) 07:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

@GreekParadise...Yep...I agree w/Grsz11. Pre-changes, the segment was clear and NPOV. Until election day, there will be attempts to cover them (the bridges) with camoflouge (sp) since they represent many angles to Gov Palins tenure. You have stated somewhere, days and days ago, of your desire to keep this section free of partisanship. Good Luck. --Buster7 (talk) 07:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't introduce SPAM into the article someone duplicated a whole subsection two times in the article, once in the campaign section where it belongs and once in the Governorship section, word for word, so check the article carefully before you edit it. The SPAM that appeared two times was the following, (one of those was legitimate)

"In her nomination acceptance speech and on the campaign trail, Palin has often said: "I told the Congress 'thanks, but no thanks,' for that Bridge to Nowhere."[103][104] Although Palin was originally a main proponent of the bridge, McCain-Palin television advertisements claim Palin "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere".[105] These claims have been widely questioned or described as misleading in several newspapers across the political spectrum.[106][107][108][109] Newsweek, commenting on Palin's "astonishing pivot," remarked: "Now she talks as if she always opposed the funding."[110]". Hobartimus (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I consider that sufficient support for reverting. As for the airport, I'm not saying don't include it. I think it should be included. It's a major, if not the major, reason why the bridge was suggested. I'm only saying that the bridge goes to the island where the airport lies (which is accurate), rather than the bridge goes directly to the airport (which is inaccurate, since it must be reached by an access road). Sometimes, wikipedia has to bow down to the gods of accuracy.  :-) GreekParadise (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus, that's not spam but the original consensus version of the article. It does raise an interesting question, though, whether it belongs in the bridge section or the campaign section. Probably one should be shortened and refer to the other.GreekParadise (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it appeared two times in the article word for word was SPAM. I have no problem with it appearing 1 time at 1 place. How it was before I removed 1 of them was pure spam, repeating the same thing word for word. One instance is legitimate 2 (copied word for word) is SPAM. Hobartimus (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

OMG you just introduced SPAM to the article in this edit [39] with the exact same sentences being duplicated in two sections (campaign and governorship), please revert yourself, this clearly damages the article.Hobartimus (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"Palin continues to support funding Don Young's Way, estimated as more than twice as expensive as the Gravina Bridge would have been.[109]" is not supported by reference 109. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122090791901411709.html?mod=loomia&loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r4:c0.0766691 . I suggest the POV statement which is not supported by the cite given ought to be removed forthwith. Collect (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The reference [105], not [109], supports the claim. One of the reasons for reverting to the old consensus version was so references would be accurate. And this one is, as you can see.GreekParadise (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The revised reference (I cut and pasted the reference which listed source 109) still does not support the claim. In fact it states explicitly "That revised claim would be more persuasive, however, if she had not continued to support Alaska’s other Bridge to Nowhere until as recently as last June." Hence I inserted the actual reference from the cite. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• The most important fact, the fact that the earmarks were removed, was not omitted, it was corrected. Per the "other" redux conversation in the talk page, I have explained in detail how omitting a brief synopsis of why the earmark was removed strips out perspective, and adds undue weight on congress for the act, when there was more to it than that. If there were anything that needs to be reintegrated back into the article, it would be the Stevens protest of the Coburn amendment, for the 2006 appropriations bill, seeing that this wasnt simply a hovering earmark that they handed off, it was hidden in the annual national budget for transportation and housing. I am confident that his can be done in a brief synopsis manner to bring the subarticle back into NPOV. The version listed in [[Gravina Island Bridge was over 2.5 paragraphs, and the version I originally had in here was about 1.5 sentences. Duuude007 (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

After you corrected it, D, someone removed it, considering it too long. (Check history.) I'd rather have the short version than no version at all. I've never removed your longer version, but my problem is that once you add it, folks add all kinds of tangential things until other people complain article is unwieldy. For Palin purposes, I think it is only sufficient to say that Congress removed the earmark after criticism. I think throwing in Stevens and the Coburn Amendment confuses more than it elucidates in an article on Palin, although the details absolutely should be in the article on the Gravina bridge. What is the essence of what you want to add? That the earmark was hidden in the bill? That could be added in a word or two without going into Stevens and the Coburn Amendment.GreekParadise (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Well, if you remember, the almost immediate followup to the earmark being stripped from the bill was the transparency act written by Coburn and cosponsored by both Obama and McCain. this proves that the earmark was deceitful in passage even to the senate's POV, and they made sure such a thing would never happen again. Flatly blaming congress without at least a little detail pertaining to this veers away from the neutrality that we all love. I am definitely open to suggestions, if you have an idea of how to better summarize it. Duuude007 (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

D, would this sentence alleviate your concerns?

In 2005, Congress passed a $442 million earmark hidden in omnibus legislation to build the two bridges but later reversed itself...

My point is, if your concern is about "blaming Congress," I don't mind pointing out that the earmark was hidden in omnibus legislation. Find me a source that says this and I'm all about reincluding it, short and sweet, without details (Coburn Amendment) that cannot be explained adequately in a short amount of space. What do you think?GreekParadise (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• hmm, even that has something wierd with it. It implies that the bill's sole purpose was the earmark, when it was actually included in a national level trans/housing/urban dev budget for 2006. It wasn't media exposed until the amendment was put forward a month later. Plus the term omnibus is a bit unfriendly to the layman. Duuude007 (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it implies that the bill's sole purpose was the earmark at all. That's what I meant by "hidden in omnibus legislation." We could wikify "omnibus" in case readers don't know what it means (it's already in wikipedia), but "omnibus" is the most accurate term and is, I think, better that "was a very small part of some very large and complicated legislation".GreekParadise (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• I suppose. But I consider myself fairly scholarly, and that syntax is pushing my own interpretations. Would "within an omnibus 2006 budget bill" be a more layman's way of describing it, or am I fouling up the context too much in that interpretation? Duuude007 (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm OK with the language.GreekParadise (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Holy cow, are we back in consensus?! I might have a heard attack <sniff> Duuude007 (talk) 02:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, just to spare your health, I'll come along and disagree. First, to say that the earmark was "hidden" in the bill is unsupported and POV. Don Young denies that it was hidden: "It was always transparent,” he says. [40] Second, it's misleading to say that the earmark was in a bill that was passed, because that would strike most readers as meaning "enacted". I think what happened was that the House and the Senate passed different bills. Each included the earmark but they differed in other respects, so neither was enacted; both went to a conference committee. The conference committee reported out a version that didn't include the earmark, and that's what passed. See this article from CQ Politics. For this summary, we don't need all that detail, but we shouldn't misleadingly imply that the earmark was enacted, and had the force of law, but was later repealed. Third, it's not enough to say that Congress stripped the earmark "later". The single most important fact about the chronology is that Congress stripped the earmark before Palin ever became Governor, so we have to specify that it was stripped in 2005. I'll make appropriate edits and hope that these changes are uncontroversial. JamesMLane t c 07:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm OK with JamesMLane's edits. Hope you are too, D.GreekParadise (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't have said it better myself. Well done. Duuude007 (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks

There are five references that pertain to debunking Palin's claim "thanks but no thanks," including one offset quotation from Newsweek ("astonishing pivot"). I'm not sure the Newsweek quotation adds much except editorial outrage. The thanks/no thanks is adequately debunked by the prior 4 sources. (Propose: removing Newsweek). Kaisershatner (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC).

The references debunking the claim are in footnotes, designed to show widespread disapproval. Orginally they were cited in the main text to show that on the right (WSJ editorial), as well as in more mainstream sources, Palin's claim was debunked. (There are literally hundreds of thousands of mentions in Google attacking her claim as a "lie." The Newsweek quote is short and tries to sum up the prevailing feeling. To take it out would be to say, in effect, there is criticism without saying what the criticism is. The Newsweek quote has been discussed many times. Check the old archives of this talk page. It was debated and determined to leave in one quoted criticism while removing the others from the WSJ and NYT, etc.GreekParadise (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that including a brief quote is reasonable. I don't really like the Newsweek one, becuase as Kaisershatner noted, it basically just expresses disapproval. I prefer a quote from the lead of the Washington Post story: "Critics, the news media and nonpartisan fact checkers have called [Palin's Bridge claim] a fabrication or, at best, a half-truth." This quote underscores the previous sentence, which alludes to the broad and nonpartisan objections to Palin's claim. MastCell ^Talk 17:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it does more than express disapproval. It remarks on her including it all the time in the speech as if she had never said otherwise. Originally we had both Wash Post and Newsweek in article (about 10 days ago, you can find it), and I'm OK with putting WashPost back. (Others may complain.) I do think Newsweek and WashPost are saying slightly different things. WaPo's saying it's false. Newsweek's saying Palin is acting as if she never said otherwise. Those are different complaints.GreekParadise (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The article has been fudged to state that she "continues" to support the Don Young's bridge, despite the fact that the cite given used the past tense. Using the present tense is not supported by the cite as given. If the person wishes to use the present tense, then another cite would have to be found. Would someone kindly place her support in the past tense as indicated in the actual cite given? I am not a "reverter." Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The cite does NOT use the past tense. The cite says "So far, Gov. Palin has not “stopped” that second Bridge to Nowhere" That means her support continues. Please read the source. It's the New York Observer. Perhaps you're reading something else?01:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC) GreekParadise (talk) 03:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The source given says "That revised claim would be more persuasive, however, if she had not continued to support Alaska’s other Bridge to Nowhere until as recently as last June." " I consider "if she had not continued" to be an exemplar of the past tense. It does not say "she continues" as some appear to wish it said. And yes -- I quote the New York Observer article. I consider the issue of the tense to be settled. Her support was until last June by the precise words of the article cited. Collect (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

With due respect, you're wrong. Perhaps the New York Observer article has some ambiguity, but not this one by the Associated Press and the Anchorage Daily News dated yesterday, September 16. http://community.adn.com/node/131399. I'll add the article to the source list so that no one questions her continued support again.GreekParadise (talk) 03:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The cite given used the past tense, as stated. If you add another source, then you should also include the ambiguity in the source as cited. Unless another source is given, the past tense is correct. Moreover the source added contains the apparently erroneous claim that the second bridge goes to Wasilla. There is a possibility that this added source is incorrect in that regard. Would you use it for a claim that the second bridge goes to Wasilla? Collect (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, the sources condemning use of Bridge to Nowhere by McCain/Palin in the campaign have been moved from the Bridge to Nowhere section to the campaign section. For the record, I preferred leaving them in the bridge section. As they are now, they are orphaned from context. In other words, the reader, if he/she only reads the campaign section, has no idea if the statements are true or false whereas a reader who has just read the Bridge section would be able to evaluate the comments for himself/herself. I would like to return the comments to the Bridge section but understand my will may not have been the wiki-majority. But given the section was moved, I think it is important to replace it, not with a duplication but with an explanation of the critique and a reference to the section where the material is now included. I have done that.GreekParadise (talk) 05:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

object This paragraph needs to be cleaned of POV inferences and cleared of it's inaccurate statements. Delete/cleanup the following:

"...without mentioning Palin's prior support for the first Bridge to Nowhere,"

It's agenda pushing to reference her prior support in regards to the convention speech UNLESS you want to also give the complete details of the situation. Better done on the subarticles.

"...her continued support for the second Bridge to Nowhere, "

It's agenda pushing to reference her prior support in regards to the convention speech UNLESS you want to also give the complete details of the situation. Better done on the subarticles.

"...or the fact that when she said "no thanks" to Congress, Palin determined that Alaska should keep the entire $442 million originally earmarked for both bridges."

Weasel wording with "Palin determined". It was Congress that killed the earmark. It was Congress that happen to include addition money [not earmarked to bridges] to Alaska that was of the same figure. This issue goes to the topics of earmarks and Congress, not Palin.

"This discrepancy has caused a wide variety of media sources across the political spectrum to claim the McCain/Palin campaign is "lying" or "misleading" on this point.""

And they claimed wrongly at the time and have backed off. She did kill it, she has never agreed to the full scope of the project, she agreed to the value of having a "link" if it could be done responsibly, and so forth. She STILL supports the ideas of a "link" at both locations. The issue is if they cost analysis and benefits makes sense.

Theosis4u (talk) 05:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

@ GreekParadise. How about this instead.....

• "...or the fact that when she said "no thanks" to Congress, Palin acquiesced that Alaska should keep the entire $442 million originally earmarked for both bridges."
• Also suggested for the second challenge.----"This discrepancy has caused a wide variety of media sources across the political spectrum to question the McCain/Palin campaign's sincerity on this point.""--Buster7 (talk) 06:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Theosis4u, this section is a summary of the widespread criticism of McCain/Palin on this score. We have to give a fair summary; we can't just say "there was criticism". It's not "agenda pushing" for us to mention the salient facts underlying the criticism. So, for example, a reasonable summary must include the fact of her original support, but doesn't need to get into the level of detail of "September 2006 speech said this, September 2007 said that". What we can do, however, is to make it clear that certain facts are being mentioned because they're the ones raised by media critics (not necessarily because they're the ones Wikipedia is presenting as objectively most important). I'll try a rewording along those lines and hope that the revised perspective satisfies your concerns. JamesMLane t c 07:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Theosis, this is a summary of media criticism. The other more specific media criticism on the campaign's use of the bridge was moved to the campaign section (against my wish, but I'm acquiescing :-) ), so this is a summary. Buster, I think that James does a good job here. I'm afraid that "acquiescence" is a POV. She did it. Whether she "acquiesced" in doing it is subjective. I like the second quote better "question sincerity," except that that's not the words the media used. "Misleading" and "lying" are direct quotes, so I prefer James' version. I will, however, make two small corrections to James: remove a non-gramattical "is". And I will change "important facts" to "the following" to lessen POV. (Who are we to say they're "important"? I think they're important, but that's my POV.)GreekParadise (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

After looking at it, I decided "the following" was unnecessary verbiage, and I numbered the objections.GreekParadise (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This new version, compared with yesterday's, is substantially worse. The enumerations are superfluous and represent WP:OR unless they are cited, which they were in the prior version. Kaisershatner (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The full section is now at the campaign section, with a link from the bridge section. Campaign events and discussion goes into the Vice Presidential campaign section. Hobartimus (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Citations in the enumerations are all based on either the bridge article itself or the information on the bridge that was moved to the campaign article. This was a summary. Can't we just reference the wiki-article? If not, we can put multiple footnotes after each statement.GreekParadise (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Partisan? 9/16/08

I was reading the article and it's tone struck me as off...it seems very much in Sarah Palin's favor, and doesn't seem to give much of a balanced perspective, especially in regards to her use of travel funds. I think someone should take a closer look at who has been editing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modelliv (talk • contribs) 05:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You must have read a different wiki. 66.190.29.150 (talk) 05:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY!

Seriously guys, stick to possible improvements to the article. Keep the tinfoils hats off and remember WP:AGF. The Squicks (talk) 06:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, other people would say quite the opposite - that it contains a lot of tangential stuff that looks bad but has little to do with her. Plus, for every thing that actually ends up in the article there must be ten things that keep getting proposed. You should see the stuff that ends up here on the talk page. Please keep in mind that the purpose of this particular article is to present a balanced, informative picture of her life - meaning her personal and professional history. This article is not about the campaign or about whether she will be elected, or a good or bad Vice President. Some of that is in articles related to this. Other stuff is best left for sources outside of Wikipedia - forums, newspapers, and the like. Some scandal or mistake, misstatement, personal embarrassment, might be better put in the article about her tenure as Governor, in the campaign, or just not on Wikipedia. We're not trying to favor her or disfavor her, just say who she is. When you get down to it, that usually sounds more positive than not for most people. It's not supposed to be a 50/50 balance, it's supposed to tell her story. So when we decide whether something fits or not we're supposed to ask the question, first, is it solid, verifiable, sourceable factual information. But after that it has to be relevant, not too long or too short, avoid being tabloid/bloggy, and so on. We try to be neutral, which a little different than trying to be equally balanced between good and bad. I know that's kind of long but I hope it helps explain the focus here. Wikidemon (talk) 06:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

@ Wikidemon. A well-stated explanation of "the process that is Wikipedia". Worthy of BOLD Script. My hope is that Wikipedia survives the "bad press" it gets at times for its content during the process of editing. The continuous efforts of all the editors envolved here at Sarah Palin is a testament to the free and fair mind of the common man at work. No matter all the pulling and tugging, we should all be proud of the finished product. (Whenever that is?)--Buster7 (talk) 07:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

@ Squicks...I thought we were supposed to use aluminum foil???--Buster7 (talk) 07:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well said Wikidemon. (I'm sure this has been discussed many times on this talk page, but for completeness to this discussion.... ) One addition to your explanation of decision to include — Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of living persons (BLP) must be followed. — ERcheck (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

VP Selection Process

The key turning point in Sarah Palin's life was her selection as Vice Presidential Candidate. So the factors leading to the selection are very relevant to this article. Several times, I have tried to include the specific sourced information (from NY Times) that: "McCain had wanted to name Joe Lieberman. But outrage from Christian conservatives over the possibility that McCain would select Lieberman, a supporter of abortion rights, became too intense to be ignored. With this in mind, he called Palin on August 24 to discuss the possibility of having her join him on the ticket." I have seen this same information in other reliable news sources, and have not seen this disputed. If it is disputed by other reliable sources, that information could be included. However, Hobartimus simply reverted the edit, saying it was unsourced. Not true. Either Hobartimus is lying or did not read the referenced article. Next, Hobartimus wrote a nasty note on my talk page, threatening to have me blocked from editing wikipedia. Hobartimus said I was being defamatory and including unreferenced materials, when the facts are totally opposite. If anything, Hobartimus is the one who perhaps should be blocked for threatening me and making mis-statements. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&oldid=238924768 was my edit, so anyone can verify that my edit does have a reference (139), which is still in the article.

I am requesting to include the specific factual information concerning the VP selection process, and not in some watered-down version. Wikipedia is here to report the facts as best as they can be determined, not to make spin for either Democrats or Republicans. On a separate issue. I request that Hobartimus stop the bullying tactics and heavy-handed threats. If possible, I would like to have Hobartimus' unfair and inappropriate comments removed from my talk page. Dagoldman (talk) 07:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Is your factual information a direct quote from McCain? Becuase McCain did not say antyhing even remotely close to what you have claimed here when I heard him speaking about how he arrived at his choice of Palin. It sounds like you are trying to pass off some op-ed heresay as "factual". 66.190.29.150 (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• It was not an op-ed. And the source was advisers close to the McCain campaign. You obviously did not even take the trouble to read the reference. Dagoldman (talk) 07:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

In principle, I would agreee with you, Dagoldman. And WikiDemon does an excellent job in the section just above to explain why I feel that way. This is a BLP. What a wonderful, fullfilling life achievement it must be to be nominated for such a high office. I certainly don't know how or where you'll squeeze it in but I support your efforts. I would suggest you KEEP the comments on your page...should you ever need them or if others want to "witness" them.--Buster7 (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Anything unsourced by the times is essentially an op-ed. That rag has lost nearly all credibility these days. The reality is that it's claims are completely at odds with what I've heard McCain himself say in the interviews. given that's the case, it would require the addition of too much material to properly place in context her selection, not even getting into the obviousness of McCain's words are infinitely more important than unsourced "aides" from the NYT.66.190.29.150 (talk) 07:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

@66.190.29.150.. "That rag", as you call it, is still a reliable source. At least it is not anonymous.--Buster7 (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Ironically, the anonymous comments are the real op-ed. On wikipedia, personal opinions about the New York Times or your opinions about what McCain said don't matter at all. Our job is to include relevant, factual, sourced information for the article, as best as it can be determined. I agree with Buster7 about the need to make it shorter, and could do that. Also, I appreciate Buster7's suggestion to KEEP the discourteous and highly inappropriate remarks on my talk page. But I'd still prefer they be removed. I don't think false and defamatory remarks should be tolerated on wikipedia. I must go to sleep now, but will respond to further comments in about 8 hours. Dagoldman (talk) 08:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You added "McCain had wanted to name Joe Lieberman." to the Sarah Palin article [41], this statement was completely unreferenced. In Wikipedia terms an acceptable reference for such an execptional statement about someones thoughts or thought process would be a direct quote from McCain. In this case it doesn't matter if the Times is a rag or not or wrote an op-ed or not since the Times never made the claim that "McCain had wanted to name Joe Lieberman.". Hobartimus (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The newspaper may not have made the claim (in an editorial), but the claim certainly appeared in at least one news article: "For weeks, advisers close to the campaign said, Mr. McCain had wanted to name as his running mate his good friend Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, the Democrat turned independent. But by the end of last weekend, the outrage from Christian conservatives over the possibility that Mr. McCain would fill out the Republican ticket with Mr. Lieberman, a supporter of abortion rights, had become too intense to be ignored." Quoted from Elizabeth Bumiller and Michael Cooper, "Conservative Ire Pushed McCain From Lieberman", NYT, 30 Aug 2008. -- Hoary (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are you limiting this to McCain's thought process?. He has a close inner circle of advisors that he consults with in addition to official campaign spokesman that are commonly in communication with and quoted by the MSM. Please read WP:RS - Direct quotes are not required. IP75 75.36.70.205 (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I trust you will understand how these are completely different claims. "According to the NYT Anonymous sources said McCain had wanted Lieberman" and "McCain had wanted Lieberman" as a statement of fact by Wikipedia. One statement is about an allegation made by anonymous sources one is about McCain. What was put in the article was completely unsourced. Compare these two statements from this source "Muammar Qaddafi, a man who takes his Islam very seriously, said on television that Obama is a Muslim." and "Obama is a Muslim". Clearly these are not the same statements but completely different. And this fact won't change if the statement was made to a newspaper anonymously by "A powerful foreign leader who takes Islam very seriously said that Obama was a Muslim". You still can't put that "Obama is a Muslim" in the article any more that you can put "McCain had wanted Lieberman as VP" in the article. The two statements have nothing to do with each other please do not claim that the one statement was sourced in any way. Hobartimus (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree. In your example above, the editor is not accurately reflecting the source. They are taking it out of context which results in a distortion. IP75 75.36.70.205 (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that McCain considered Lieberman is noted. The fact that his pick of Palin may have been intended to boost support from Christian conservatives is noted and cited. Further exploration of McCain's thought process and vp selection process may be appropriate for the 2008 campaign article, but not in Sarah Palin's biography (this article). Kaisershatner (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus - Another example of what I believe you are referring to is in my comments about a sentence that is still in the article. It is in the "VP Selection Process" section above this section (Both sections have the same name). This is the correct citation for the sentence: [[42]]. Could you please review it and revise the "under consideration" wording if you think it is not accurate. Thanks, IP75 75.36.70.205 (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• 1) Here is the original text from the New York Times article: "For weeks, advisers close to the campaign said, Mr. McCain had wanted to name as his running mate his good friend Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, the Democrat turned independent. But by the end of last weekend, the outrage from Christian conservatives over the possibility that Mr. McCain would fill out the Republican ticket with Mr. Lieberman, a supporter of abortion rights, had become too intense to be ignored." This is certainly the basic information that I wanted to have included. 2) The article was referenced, as I pointed out. The reference to the NYT article was after the next sentence, which was from the same NYT article. How can Hobartimus say it was "completely unreferenced"? 3) Hobartimus goes on to say it had to be a direct quote from McCain. That is certainly different from "completely unreferenced". Hobartimus is just arbitrarily shifting the argument, looking for new objections. Show me where Wikipedia says that a direct quote would be required. 4) I am certainly willing to include "advisers close to the campaign", as you currently suggest. Here is the text I would propose, which I think is factual, relevant and sourced. Any objections or suggested improvements to this text:

On August 29, 2008, in Dayton, Ohio, Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, announced that he had chosen Palin as his running mate. Palin had been under consideration since a private meeting with McCain in a February National Governors Association meeting at which Palin made a favorable impression on McCain. According to close campaign advisers, McCain had wanted to name Joe Lieberman. But outrage from Christian conservatives over the possibility that McCain would select Lieberman, a supporter of abortion rights, became too intense to be ignored. With this in mind, he called Palin on August 24 to discuss the possibility of having her join him on the ticket. On August 27, Palin visited McCain's vacation home near Sedona, Arizona, where she was offered the position of vice-presidential candidate. Palin was the only prospective running mate who had a face-to-face interview with McCain to discuss joining the ticket that week. Nonetheless, Palin's selection was a surprise to many as speculation had centered on other candidates, such as Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, Lieberman, and former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge.

What's the justification for the statement "But outrage from Christian conservatives over the possibility that McCain would select Lieberman, a supporter of abortion rights, became too intense to be ignored."? Seems like you're focusing on just one reason for what was undoubtedly a complex decision. Pingku (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The justification is presented within a NYT article whose relevant part is quoted twice and which is explicitly linked in this very section of the discussion page. Just press the "Page Up" key on your keyboard. It seems like McCain or his advisers or both focused on just one reason for what may have been a simple decision. (I don't claim that it was simple, but I have reason to doubt that it was complex.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

true?

Is it true Sarah Palin's e-mail was hacked, some serious stuff was found and posted on 4chan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.182.53 (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Since editing the article is limited to registered users, why doesn't that also apply to the discussion page? Dagoldman (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, maybe yes, most likely not. It's dubious that anyone with the means to hack Palin's email would choose 4Chan as their place to disclose. And if it's true Wikipedia will be the last to know. Why ask here? We try to stay at least a few days behind the latest gossip and news. If something is true and important enough to say it will appear in legitimate news sources long before it gets into Wikipedia. Hope that helps. Wikidemon (talk) 07:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Dagoldman, Wikipedia is intended to be editable by everyone. In certain cases we limit editing on particular articles to registered users, or, less often, to just administrators. When that happens, people who are not able to edit the article directly are encouraged to suggests edits on the talk page.--agr (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I find the anonymous posters irritating, but I guess that's just a necessary (and positive) part of the whole process. Dagoldman (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Found this: http://rs307.rapidshare.com/files/145931046/WWIII.7z Has screenshots and stuff.

http://gawker.com/5051193/sarah-palins-personal-email-account-hacked Rhinowing (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

also, this strikes me as exactly the kind of thing 4chan would doRhinowing (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There's some interesting info on this whole situation here: http://pastebin.com/f652c44fb According to this Wired Blog: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/group-posts-e-m.html its confirmed to have actually occured. and/or folks contacted have admitted the leaked emails are genuine. sherpajohn (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There is now a discussion going on below at Dhraaammaaa warning/ Yahoo email hacked.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

NOW supports Obama? What a shock!

Not sure how this crept in the article. NOW is a highly partisan organization, and I doubt you'll find an example of NOW ever supporting any conservative candidate. Unless we want to list the position of the national women's advocacy groups, NOW's position has no relevance to this article. Fcreid (talk) 08:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It should be removed immediately, or balanced with material from women's group's who are supporting McCain/Palin. SnapCount (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

How about making a master list of every possible organization and who it backs? And a full list of 527s would be nice. Or, better yet, simply not list organizations whose opinions are explicitly partisan as not being worthy of an encyclopedia article. Somehow I think not listing organizations makes more sense. Collect (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and obviously my original point. Regardless of whether I agree with their social politics, you have to respect Femnists for Life (Palin's organization) by their statement, "as a nonpartisan organization, we cannot endorse any candidates" [43]. If only all "nonpartisan" organizations could be so, well, nonpartisan. Fcreid (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

In general, seems to me who endorses/opposes the McCain/Palin ticket and the Obama/Biden ticket would be possible subjects to consider in related campaign articles, but not really suited for individual biographical articles.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the removal. At this point I'm seeing this constantly being pushed into the article, whoever is doing it it's starting to get tendentious. Hobartimus (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

See the other discussion below. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

For purposes of Clarification.

From what I can gather , is McCains pick of Palin caused them to drop their mostly neutral stance and take a position in the campaign.

Their last presidental endorsement was 24 years ago and that was for Mondale who ran on a ticket to feature a woman as vice president. Their political statement concerning GOP ticket is their opinion that McCain has a track record of voting against issues important to women. Reading the article their concern is equal pay for equal work. Woman being paid 77 percent of what men are paid.

They have a wiki link National Organization for WomenThey are very pro choice, hence, their not supporting Palin would make perfect sense.

Here is a link to the Washington Post: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/16/faced_with_palin_womens_groups.html --207.232.97.13 (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)fred

Abortion and stem cell research

I started a new topic because this editorial overlaps some of the topics being discussed here. I've posted the link to the talk page for "Political positions of Sarah Palin" as well, and also put the link on the talk page for "Political positions of John McCain" in case anyone over there was interested. As an editorial piece, it's opinion, but it's Associated Press. I thought it might help with some of the worries about WP:OR, and at any rate that it provides a bit more fuel for discussion. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 20:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Abortion tied to rape and incest?

Inclusion of these specific types of pregnancies amounts to pure POV-pushing because of the negative connotation of those terms. There is no reason to enumerate these or any other of the potential means a woman could become pregnant, and the existing statement of "only when the mother's life is in danger" adequately describes her position. Fcreid (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. This reminds me of pro-life people calling pro-choice people pro-abortion, or was that anti-choice people calling them that?66.190.29.150 (talk) 09:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. These "negative connotations" you mention are in the eye of the beholder - I'm sure there are plenty of people who would support her hardline position. In any event, there is nothing POV about fully elucidating that position. Gatoclass (talk) 09:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What's the point in wasting space? "Only if the mother's life is in danger" is quite succinct and elucidates well all by itself. Should we iterate every possible scenario where she believes abortion should be an option? If you believe these various phraseologies are largely irrelevant, why do you even care?66.190.29.150 (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The article should present facts regardless of whether it garners support on one side of the political spectrum or the other. Would she oppose abortion in the case of teenage prenancy? Yes, unless the mother's life is in danger. If conception occurred while drunk? Yes, unless the mother's life is in danger. If the woman claimed it was an immaculate conception? Yes, unless the mother's life is in danger. See the trend here? Fcreid (talk) 09:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

One such fact is that her opposition to abortion rights for women who have -- how can I phrase this without "negative connotations"? -- been impregnated against their will. (There, I've avoided that shudder-inducing word "rape".) Some readers (e.g. those who haven't benefited from "Focus on the Family", etc.) that any woman running for high office and born after the eighteenth century or thereabouts would acknowledge such a right; such readers may appreciate being informed (of course in a way that couldn't possibly reflect any point of view on any issue) that such an assumption is mistaken. -- Hoary (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

And the existing condition "unless the mother's life is in danger" clearly conveys that. Would a mother's life be in danger in the case of rape or incest? Or are you suggesting that you *intend* to lead the reader to some conclusion? Fcreid (talk) 09:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

First I misphrased myself. Not "impregnated against their will" (which of course would cover consensual sex) but "penetrated against their will" or something along those lines. (Actually I'd prefer "rape". Similarly, I'd prefer "incest" to some circumlocution. They're both simple, easily understood terms, and Wikipedia is under no obligation to mince words.) Secondly, no, the "existing condition" does not convey this. Consider: "I'll meet you for dinner tomorrow unless the conference I must attend goes on after 7 p.m." says nothing explicit about what would happen if I wake up tomorrow with a head-splitting cold. Many people (I think most) would assume that the head-splitting cold, although not explicitly mentioned, would prompt cancellation of the dinner date, even if "definitely" or similar were added to the mix. (It seems that you would not be among them.) I don't understand your question "are you suggesting that you *intend* to lead the reader to some conclusion?" What I'm suggesting is that the article makes clear what Palin's position is. -- Hoary (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've already debunked this claim with the logistics of "making it clear". Feel free to address that argument specifically, or concede the argument entirely.66.190.29.150 (talk) 10:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I take umbrage at your suggestion that a WP reader is not smart enough to conclude what the statement means. I think you made your own position on this matter clear with your Eighteenth Century comments above. However, if you'd like to expand this point to include quoted material where she stated she would "choose life" even if her own daughter were raped, that would seem to be acceptable (whether it makes your point or not). Some may argue undue weight to include point/counter-point in this political summary, however. Fcreid (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This is sourced in Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Abortion. Were you only assigned to watch over this page rather than all of them? EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Stating "only when the mother's life is in danger" does not adequately make her position clear. There are obviously many people who are against abortion that believe there should be an exception in cases of rape or incest. This is her stated position and it would be POV and deceptive spin not to add a few words for clarification. IP75 75.36.70.205 (talk) 10:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Then the position statement of those people would not read "only when the mother's life is endangered", would it? Fcreid (talk) 10:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You've suggested that there is some kind of ambiguity here, but in reality the only thing that you seem to want to detail are arbitrarily selected scenarios, of which I will not even specualte as to your or others' intent. But would you be so inclined to give an example of when/how "only when the mother's life is in danger" breaks down in adequately describing Palin's position? Thanks. If you cannot, you would be the one positing a deceptive and POV position by exaggerting the implications of your arbitrarily selected scenarios.66.190.29.150 (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Directed at me, EconomicsGuy? Assigned? I could care less about the politics of this. Frankly, her positions on social issues are polar opposite of mine. My agenda since I first read this article two weeks ago has been to avoid blatant and insidious POV creep. Now that I know most of the personalities on both sides, that's become much easier. Fcreid (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There are many politicians that say abortion should only be banned if the "mother's life is in danger," but when asked specifically about rape or incest, they say "oh yes, that too." I've seen even McCain do it. Palin's position on abortion, in fact, differs from McCain's and that of many pro-life supporters because she refuses to allow an exception that most who are opposed to abortion would concede. The statement merely clarifies the point and does not need to be stated in a POV way. You could say "Palin would only allow legal abortions if the mother's life is in danger. Palin would criminalize abortions made if the mother's health (but not life) were in serious danger or if a woman was impregnated by rape or incest." This clarifies her position and distinguishes it from other pro-life positions.GreekParadise (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It does nothing of the sort, particularly since it's based entirely on the starw man that there is any confusion. You are wasting space to insert completely arbitrary, defacto biased, examples. Her position is crystal clear and completey conveyed by "she only supports abortion in case where the mother's life is in danger". 66.190.29.150 (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

True "rape" and "incest" are technically implied by "all" and in a court of law, there'd be no difference, but the argument for the basis of inclusion is to explore some of the more severe consequences of the word "all" the reader probably hadn't thought of.--Loodog (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: the source we took this piece of information from also explicitly sets aside cases of rape and incest. Could be argued to be a bias of the Seattle times, but nevertheless, there's precedent for including it explicitly in professional journalism.--Loodog (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Am I supposed to care what kind of examples the Seattle Times wishes to include in its pages? I thought I was an editor of encylopedic content, not constructing a term paper on the details of a specific pro-life position? Perhaps you think your fucntion here is something it is clearly not. 66.190.29.150 (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

My point is that your argument about rape and incest being implied would be applicable to the Seattle Times article as well, yet they've found reason to include explicit mentions.--Loodog (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The Seattle Times does not necessarily have a "Neutral Point of View" as one of their bedrock principles.--Paul (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's common across the spectrum to include the explicit rape/incest mention. Even Fox News: [44][45]--Loodog (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, but he's a writer. It's entirely his volition to include or not include such examples, in fact it's in his job description to inject his own biases into his writing. But this is not a newspaper, nor is this a column; it's supposed to be enclypedic, and atttempts should be made to avoid injecting unneeded bias were none need be. Adding the "examples" does nothing to further enlighten the reader, nor does convey any additional information on her viewpoint. Unneeded bias, superfluous words does not a better wiki make.66.190.29.150 (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Loodog. It's not just the Seattle Times -- the overall off-Wiki political discussion includes extensive reference to Palin's position on abortion after rape. We select what to include in this summary based on the importance of the information. Specifying this point is clearly important. That it could be argued to be logically subsumed within "except to protect the health of the mother" doesn't change the way the media are addressing this particular non-exception, making it important. To take one of Fcreid's examples, on a Yahoo! search, +Palin +abortion +rape gets 4,470,000 hits. +Palin +abortion +"immaculate conception" is only 36,200, and even that surprisingly high number probably includes no or virtually no genuine hits. (On the first result page, the bulletin of the Church of St. Mary of the Immaculate Conception discusses Palin's stance on abortion.) JamesMLane t c 15:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. The addition of the examples is nothing more thsn editorializing. The media have their agenda, but we do not share it, er, we aren't supposed to anyway. 66.190.29.150 (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

More: [46] "The candidates were pressed on their stances on abortion and were even asked what they would do if their own daughters were raped and became pregnant." If such an answer is implied, the question need not be asked.--Loodog (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin is against abortion except in cases where the mother's life is in danger. This is her stated position. That is not controversial. It is supported by the references. Further exposition in this article, especially use of "Palin would criminialize all abortion in the United States" is just editorializing and fearmongering. Kaisershatner (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC) Addedndum: what she believes should be the case, and "she would criminalize" are not the same thing - the reference applies to the former, not the latter. At minimum, recognize the VP does not set abortion policy. Kaisershatner (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Nowhere in the sources does it says he wants to criminalize abortion. This should be removed.--Loodog (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Paul.h,Struck with apologies; Paul.h did not make the following comment; rather, an IP did. yes, you are supposed to care what the Seattle Times chooses to report as newsworthy. You're supposed to care about what reliable sources say, and reflect it accurately, when you have your Wikipedia hat on. Saying that the Seattle Times "does not necessarily have an NPOV" suggests a deep misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. This is a really simple one: if numerous reliable sources contextualize Palin's abortion stance by noting that she does not support rape/incest exceptions, then we reflect it, even if we personally as editors might disagree with that contextualization. If our sources don't say she'd criminalize abortion, then we don't say it. MastCell ^Talk 16:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: MastCell, "Am I supposed to care what kind of examples the Seattle Times wishes to include in its pages?" was not my edit. It's okay with me if you revise your comment and remove this reply.--Paul (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Loodog. Moving on to what I hope will be our next point of agreement: sources 179 and 180 don't mention "life of mother in danger." Source 179 says nothing at all about health or life, and source 180 states "Smith said Palin is opposed to abortion, but believes an exception should be made if the health of the mother is in danger." I would change the current wording to reflect this "exception should be made if the health of the mother is in danger" or propose changing the source if that is not her actual position. Kaisershatner (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, couldn't we say "Palin endorses the right of a rapist to force a woman to bear his child", and that would still be technically accurate given her stated position, right? Fcreid (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Fcreid. It is simply a fact that should be disclosed. That's basically her stance and it is important enough that everyone should know. It could make the difference (for some people) whether or not to vote for her/McCain. Editor^U.S.A. TIC 17:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Current version reads "Palin has called herself "as pro-life as any candidate can be"[176] and has called abortion an "atrocity".[177] She is against abortion in cases of rape or incest, but believes there should be an exception if the woman's health were in danger.[178][179]" It is short, accurate, and consistent with the cited sources. Kaisershatner (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It is inaccurate to say Palin's "against abortion" unless you also say that Obama, Clinton, and most pro-choice organizations are "against abortion" too! Many pro-choice people are "against" abortion for themselves and family. The difference -- and only difference -- between Palin's views and Bill Clinton's is that Palin wants to criminalize abortion. According to the article, she thinks "abortions should be banned even in cases of rape and incest." How does she propose to ban it? By encouraging people not to have them? No, she believes in using criminal law to punish people. That's not fear-mongering. That's accuracy. Palin and McCain want criminal sanctions for abortion. They're not just "against" it. They want to punish Americans for doing it. That is her political position. What would you say other than "criminalization"? "Against" abortion does not cut it. To be "pro-life" is not the same as "opposing" abortion. It is a belief that the state should use its police power to force women, against their will, to have a child. In saying this, I don't mean any attack on pro-life people, but you cannot be "pro-life" without supporting a criminal sanction for abortion. If you're against abortion but would not have the State ban it, then you're "pro-choice." And Palin isn't.GreekParadise (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"No, she believes in using criminal law to punish people." I must have missed something. What's the source for this statement? From what I've seen, Palin seems to be remarkably hesitant to use government to pass laws about social issues.--Paul (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

So I would say "She would criminalize abortion in cases of rape or incest, but believes there should be an exception if the woman's life (but not health) were in danger." (It is NOT accurate to say that Palin believes an abortion should be legal if the woman's health is in danger. Palin believes a woman must sacrifice her health (but not her life) to have the child.GreekParadise (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

GP, I am quoting the cited source. It says "health." I would be happy to look at another source. I think "criminalize" is tendentious. Maybe Palin and McCain want to ban abortions by appointing conservative judges who will allow states to enact laws criminalizing abortion. Kaisershatner (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I was being facetious about the rapist rights statment! Here is what we know about Palin's positions:

Rejected sympathy for Down's Syndrome son, as gift from God. (Aug 2008) Opposes embryonic stem cell research. (Aug 2008) Every baby is created with a future and potential. (Aug 2008) Safe Haven bill: allow surrendering newborns without penalty. (Feb 2008) Adoption is best plan for permanency for foster care kids. (Oct 2007) Pro-life. (Nov 2006) Choose life, even if her own daughter were raped. (Nov 2006) If Roe v. Wade got overturned, let people decide what's next. (Oct 2006) Opposes use of public funds for abortions. (Oct 2006) Pro-contraception, pro-woman, pro-life. (Aug 2006) Only exception for abortion is if mother's life would end. (Jul 2006

Here are the actual quoted sources suitable for RS [47]. Anything beyond this, including the "rape and incest" caveat in this statement is pure synthesis. Fcreid (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's Sarah Palin in her own words, saying she would support a constitutional amendment to "outlaw" abortion even in cases of rape and incest. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEN-c0zRH1c "Outlawing" is not the same as "opposing" Would you prefer "outlaw" rather than "criminalize"?

How about this sentence: "She would outlaw abortion, even in cases of rape or incest, but believes there should be an exception if the woman's life (but not health) were in danger."GreekParadise (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have with that wording is it imparts powers to her that she does not have. She will not outlaw abortion. She believes it should be outlawed. That is different. I changed wording to "believes abortion should be illegal in cases of rape or incest." Is that closer to agreement? Kaisershatner (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"She" would not do anything. Read that citation I provided above for her exact words where she specifically stated that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, she would do nothing except except what the people in her state voted to do. You are commingling her personal beliefs with her legislative agenda, and that's flat-out wrong! If you wish to say she would support anti-abortion legislation if that is what her constituency wanted, that would be accurate. Fcreid (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's not argue hypotheticals. I like Kaisershatner's version; it sticks to the sources, which indicate that she believes that abortion should be illegal in most circumstances. What action she would or will take based on that belief is a matter of conjecture; I think the reader can draw their own conclusions. MastCell ^Talk 17:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It's not hypothetical at all. She specifically answered the question as quoted in the RS I provided above, and the answer was she would do only what her constituents voted. Can that fact not be woven into this synopsis of her personal beliefs? This is obviously a scare tactic to synthesize that she represents a threat to Roe v. Wade and would outlaw abortions, but there is no citation to support that. Fcreid (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Right now, she has no power to ban abortion given Roe v. Wade. That can be changed in two (and only two) ways, a constitutional amendment and a change on the Supreme Court. She has already said she supports a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion (which reminds me, I think I'll add the youtube clip as a source). If she supports a constitutional amendment and she believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned, it is not unreasonable to suggest that as President she would appoint judges that agree with her. I'm not saying she would break the law. I'm saying she would do everything in her power within the law, if elected, to outlaw abortions.GreekParadise (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow Wow let's take a step back, we are getting into major bias territory here, "as President she would..." what what what? You just took huge leaps there without blinking. Let's just stay with the facts Palin is a "nominee" for "Vice President". Hobartimus (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This entire line seems unproductive. It's common knowledge that Palin is "an outspoken abortion opponent". Kaisershatner's wording accurately and concisely conveys her position on this issue without inflammatory wording or spin. MastCell ^Talk 17:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Bingo, Greek! That's why this entire nonsense is pure provocation. If you want to state her personal position on abortion, do so without embellishment. However, don't synthesize nonsense about outlawing abortion and other stuff that is pure conjecture and entirely outside of her purview to control. And, even if those external forces were to overturn Roe v. Wade, she has also made it clear that (at the state-level, at least) she would abide by the will of her constituents. Why is it so important to synthesize more than the facts we know? Fcreid (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

We've described her position as related by reliable sources. If you consider it "nonsense" that someone a heartbeat away from the Presidency just might have an impact on the status of Roe v. Wade, then I don't see a lot of room for discussion. MastCell ^Talk 17:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, she would "abide by the will of her constitutents." That's a meaningless statement. You're saying that she would not go out and personally arrest people for having abortions if it's not illegal? LOL. The point is she advocates for CHANGING the law to make abortions ILLEGAL. That's not hypothetical. That's what she would do in every legal way she can. Hobartimus makes a ridiculous point that she's only running for Vice President. Since that's true, I guess NONE of her positions on ANY issues matter since the Vice President can't veto bills and can only act legislatively by breaking Senate ties. The point is a VP can become President at any moment. And if Palin becomes President, she will everything she can to change the law so that it becomes illegal for any woman (including a rape victim) to have an abortion if the woman's life is not in danger.GreekParadise (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You made the ridiculous point that "As President" she will have the power to change abortion laws. And then you top it off with the completely unsourced "And if Palin becomes President, she will everything she can to change the law so that it" which I won't dignify with a response as that's just too biased a statement. Hobartimus (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh and here she says "life" not "health." http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/2006/governor/story/8372383p-8266781c.html

Can anyone find a source where Palin herself, rather than a spokesperson, said "health"?GreekParadise (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The 2006 questionnaire: ""I am pro-life. With the exception of a doctor's determination that the mother's life would end if the pregnancy continued. I believe that no matter what mistakes we make as a society, we cannot condone ending an innocent's life." [48] The article also says that the group she's a member of, Feminists for Life, holds the same position. And that she was allegedly willing to sign anti-abortion bills as governor, though that one is more shaky because it's hearsay. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 18:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

So it sounds like the answer is "life" rather than health. She consistently says life and only spokesperson says health once and unquoted.GreekParadise (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, how about we go with "Palin believes abortion should be illegal in all cases except where a woman's life is in danger." It is succinct. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

So it looks like someone stuck the "rape and incest" back in there despite the ongoing talk here! Can anyone provide a citation where Palin has ever said she doesn't support abortion in the case of "rape and incest"? Anything at all where she's quoted as ever using the word "incest"? If not, those caveats should be removed and replaced with citable material, as this amounts to pure extrapolation of her position in order to capture "scary words" to impress a point. If you would like to say that she would "choose life" even if her daughter were raped, that is reasonable and has citation behind it. Fcreid (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's clear that the consensus version is that she supports abortion "Only if the mother's health is in danger". Other versions do not seem to have consensus. Hobartimus (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Someone pulled the rape and incest out after my comment, so it's good now. We'll see how long it remains out. Fcreid (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This whole bit about Palin thinks abortion "should" be outlawed and "would" outlaw it are a bit much for the sources we have. I think it suffices just to say that she objects to all abortions, including those for victims of rape or incest, on personal values. If we wanted to translate these beliefs of hers into actions she would take, we need sources that say that she would or sources saying she already has signed such legislation. I haven't seen any sources showing legislative action taken or wanted to be taken.--Loodog (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't disagree more. Palin is not a private citizen. She is running for office. Her personal views are irrelevant. (And as I repeatedly point out, many are personally "opposed" to abortion for themselves or their families but would not criminalize the act done by complete strangers. Biden, for example. We could say Biden opposes abortion. And he does. He said so in his Meet the Press interview. But he's pro-choice.) What matters are Palin's political views. And she supports a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion even in cases of rape. Need a source? Watch the youtube debate I cited.GreekParadise (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed rewording

"Sarah Palin is opposed to abortion, including cases of rape and incest, though condones it in cases where the woman's life is in danger." (rewrite in italics)

Why I like this:

1. Simply states her beliefs, not what she would do.
2. Keeps rape and incest mention as sources do.

Feedback?--Loodog (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. I would say "... except in cases where the woman's life is in danger", just on grammatical grounds. MastCell ^Talk 21:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Gibson ABC interview 09/13:

Gibson: John McCain would allow abortion in cases of rape and incest. Do you believe in it only in the case where the life of the mother is in danger?

Palin: That is my personal opinion.

Crystal clear. She makes the distinction. It's absurd to attempt to censor this on the grounds of the words being "scary". Their scariness or otherwise matters not one iota. They are the correct words for the cited violations. And it surely notable, not least to women, that a candidate for vice-president holds the personal opinion that women impregnated by rape and/or incest should be denied abortions. The Serbs, whose war on civilians included impregnation by rape and even, in some cases, by forced incest, held Bosnian Muslim women captive in what became known as rape-death camps. Those who survived long enough to be impregnated were kept alive until their pregnancies were too far advanced for termination. Then they were released into what remained of their communities. Civilized people were in consensus: they regarded it as, er, "notable" that, in the opinion of the Serbs, women impregnated by rape and/or incest should be denied abortions. Why should this view be any less notable when it's held by a candidate for the second-highest public office in America? Writegeist (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I agree with Loodog's wording. Writegeist (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I must be one of the few who didn't see the Gibson interview or read the transcripts. If that is verbatim, so be it. Let it roll, with the wording as suggested by MastCell. Fcreid (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, changed it.--Loodog (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not fond any of it. It is needless words which are only inject to bias the readers and divert attention. Why does Obama's wiki say he's African American? When many would argue he isn't african american at all since his father was not only part arab but was an african immigrant. I could find all sorts of selective quotes from varioud articles related to it, and turn what could have been a simple phrase into several phrases which could have been better spent just giving the most basic facts. They haven't done that there, and I don't think it should be done here.66.190.29.150 (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

She's a politician. This is a political issue. I understand the concern for accurately reflecting her view with reliable sourcing, but beyond that I fail to see the problem. Obama's skin color doesn't have anything to do with Palin's views on abortion. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 00:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

So I take it you've never heard of the words "identity politics"?66.190.29.150 (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Identity politics: "Identity politics is political action to advance the interests of members of a group whose members are oppressed by virtue of a shared and marginalized identity (such as race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or neurological wiring)." Where does that say anything about a person's opinion on, say, abortion? If you're talking about Obama, take it to his talk pages, please. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 01:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't tell me what to do. You asserted my comment was not related to politics, and you were entirely wrong. If the standard exists in the Obama wiki, then it's going to exist here. Period.66.190.29.150 (talk) 02:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. An aggressive and uncivil response to a civil and justified request. (A request is not the same as an instruction.) Caveat editor(s): before you respond to the user of the 66.190.29.150 IP address, check out its talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Writegeist (talk • contribs) 03:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

General support (with some rewording) - I think you have to change "is opposed to" to "supports outlawing" or "making illegal". This is not about her personal beliefs. As noted above, many pro-choice voters are personally opposed to abortion. What makes a politician "pro-life" is that the politician is working to criminalize abortion. Other than I support it with Mastcell's grammatical correction. The statement would read as follows:

"Sarah Palin supports making abortion illegal in all cases, including rape and incest, except when the woman's life is in danger."

Oh, and for Fcried, here's evidence she doesn't think incest should be an exception. http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/101906/sta_20061019031.shtml GreekParadise (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This was the exact point I was addressing. Neither the outlawing or the making illegal is supported in the sources. The sources just say what her personal beliefs regarding the practice are. We need a source saying "Sarah Palin would illegalize/criminalize/outlaw abortion", or that she would like to. All that's supported is personal unlegislated belief.--Loodog (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Before we can say "criminalize" or "outlaw" we need a source that backs that up. Several sources preferred.--Paul (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Here she says, in an official debate, that she would support a constitutional amendment to "outlaw abortion, even in cases of rape or incest" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEN-c0zRH1c She says she would "support the proposal" and "stand by it" The questioner makes clear she's discussing a constitutional amendment rather than legislation (that would be currently unconstitutional). Pretty clear-cut and from the Governor's mouth. You can see her saying it yourself.GreekParadise (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

YouTube isn't a reliable source. Kelly ^hi! 03:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It is when it's Sarah Palin herself saying it in an official C-Span debate. Right? Kind of impossible to dispute. So does that officially end the argument on this? Has anyone who has watched the first minute of the video any qualms with including Sarah Palin's position on abortion in this article as follows?

"Sarah Palin supports a constitutional amendment to make abortion illegal in all cases, including rape and incest, except when the woman's life is in danger."GreekParadise (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Youtube is a fine source when the actual interview is being shown. Transcripts are preferrable to interviews, but ok. She doesn't say (nor is she asked) that she would sign legislation to outlaw abortion, merely that she would show support for a third-party's constitutional amendment to outlaw it. It's weaker than her actively passing legislation, but it is sourced. We can include the note if you want.--Loodog (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Her record in Alaska doesn't support the claim that she wants to use her power as an elected official to "criminalize" abortion. "Criminalize" is awfully POV, and I don't see this as being as clear cut as some think it is.--Paul (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not use the word "criminalize." I said "make abortion illegal". See text of article. If you'd prefer the word used in the youtube debate, "outlaw," I'm OK with that too.GreekParadise (talk) 04:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand why rape and incest are specifically mentioned, when the rest of the statement reads she believes in one exception: when there's "a doctor's determination that the mother's life would end if the pregnancy continued."[181] When I added that point about the doctor and the reference, I removed rape and incest deliberately. Saying it this way strikes me as sensationalist: She's against all abortion unless a doctor says the woman will die! Even if there's rape! or incest! All of it! I would prefer the shorter and equally comprehensive version I had inserted: She believes abortion should be illegal except in cases of "a doctor's determination that the mother's life would end if the pregnancy continued."[181] If people care a lot about documenting her view of the law, I would be fine with including "and has expressed support for a constitutional amendment to that effect." Thoughts? Kaisershatner (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I could try again to explain, but I'd just end up repeating what's above. I'd recommend taking a look above starting with the first mention of Seattle times.--Loodog (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation. Add my opinion to those who think the singling out of rape/incest is not productive or useful. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

How about making it productive by noting her differences with McCain. "Palin's view differs from McCain's in that McCain would make exceptions for rape and incest. [source]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreekParadise (talk • contribs) 15:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"Palin considers herself a born-again conservative Christian. She supports... outlawing nearly all abortions (even in cases of rape or incest)..."[49] "In 2002, when she was running for lieutenant governor, Palin sent an e-mail to the anti-abortion Alaska Right to Life Board saying she was as "pro-life as any candidate can be" and has "adamantly supported our cause since I first understood, as a child, the atrocity of abortion.""[50]

When running for governor: "This summer, in a candidate survey by the anti- abortion Alaska Family Council, Palin answered "Yes" to the question: "Would you support legislation and/or a constitutional amendment to clarify that the state constitution does not contain a right to abortion?" As to what she'd do as governor, Palin said, "I would side on the side of life if legislation were passed by the people's representatives in the state of Alaska, the Legislature, but ... there is no law that I could sign in office that could ever supersede the Supreme Court's ruling.""[51]

And as governor: "Palin said Senate President Lyda Green, a Republican from the governor’s hometown of Wasilla, had “ample opportunity” to use her leadership post to advance two proposed anti-abortion laws that died when the regular session ended April 13. “As you are aware, I fully support these bills,” Palin wrote Green... Palin said lawmakers had plenty of time to consider these and other bills, but that Green thwarted their advance by assigning them to committee... she considers the abortion bills important enough to merit their own short special session, possibly in Anchorage." [52] Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 23:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Huge interest in Palin

Sarah Palin is so far the most visited regular article this month [53], accessed by nearly a third of a million times per day (nearly 5 times more than Barack Obama and more than 10 times the number of VP hopeful Joe Biden - Palin is accessed more than 4 times more frequently than John McCain). And this talk page is probably one of the most edited in Wikipedia's history. Maybe that should be acknowledged in a "infobox" template on the top of this talkpage? --Hapsala (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Why should we? I see no reason to. Honestly, I doubt that the numbers are correct but even if they are, so what? It's a high traffic page, sparked by a current event. It will change sooner or later anyway... SoWhy 14:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think that the numbers are incorrect..? --Hapsala (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

We've also gotten countless external reviews of this article stating how contentious the editing is.--Loodog (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Besides, at least 254,000 of those accesses are attributable to the ten most active editors here. Kaisershatner (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It was at the top, but it started landing below 100,000 now and no longer is all that remarkable (at least by the standards of the other candidates). That's despite briefly having more traffic than the Main Page immediately after the nomination. If there wasn't cause to post a notice before, there certainly isn't now. Dragons flight (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If you love the language, how can you not be addicted to this article?! The very first time I visited, I saw a statement saying "Palin refuses to acknowledge that global warming is man-made" or words to that effect. At first I chuckled at the insidious insertion of the disputed premise as fact, but I then thought to myself, "What if no one catches that?" Well, someone did catch that one, but the hilarity has been non-stop ever since. Even when I promised myself I wasn't going to eat up any more of my time on here, I'm always drawn back. What a marvelous concept! </soapbox> Fcreid (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Censorship redux

http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=136 presents a comprehensive list of city records which have been asked for. One, with regard to book banning or reshelving, is of interest as it does not corroborate claims about Palin seeking the banning of a specific book. The only book in any relevant period is "Heather has two mommies." Collect (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Rocky Start?

"Despite the rocky start, by the end of her first term, Palin had gained favor with Wasilla voters." I question the neutrality of this sentence. The term "rocky start" is not npov and I propose it should be removed. 206.180.38.20 (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of a weird statement anyway. I mean, how did she not gain the favor of the voters if she were voted in to begin with? Is it insinuating that early in her mayorial term she lost their favor??66.190.29.150 (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The section of the article preceding this paragraph deals with firing folks which is a bit rocky, so the sentence is a bridge to the next paragraph which details her many accomplishments in her first term. For more background on that sentence, read the reference, but here is the meat of the material it is based on:

She became embroiled in personnel challenges, a thwarted attempt to pack the City Council and a standoff with her local newspaper. Her first months were so contentious and polarizing that critics started talking recall. [....] But the situation calmed, and rather than being recalled, Palin was re-elected. She later acknowledged, "I grew tremendously in my early months as mayor."

Perhaps the sentence would read better as "Despite the rocky start, by the end of her first term Palin was very popular and easily won reelection"?--Paul (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

How about using the exact words, i.e. "Despite being embroiled in personnel challenges early in her first term, Plain was very popular and easily won reelection to a second term". Fcreid (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget the recall effort and the popular revolt against her decision to fire the non-book-banning librarian that forced Palin to rescind her decision. Seems "rockier" than most small-town mayors.GreekParadise (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the citation indicates she was investigating the book issue on behalf of her constituents. Fcreid (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it says she was investigating to see what they (the town) would say if the constituents brought up the issue. Grsz^talk 20:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

How about "Despite challenges faced early in her first term, Palin became very popular and easily won reelection to a second term." Fcreid (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Billed state for eating at home Per diem charges

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090803088_pf.html

This has been raised once in archive 18 (I think) but the people pushing it were using an inflammatory tone. Without being inflammatory, I believe that this is notable. Please use this section to discuss how to include it (without undue weight - one or a MAX of two sentences total). Homunq (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's about as notable as how often she has to shovel her front porch in the Alaskan winter per year Or if she takes the office stapler home with her some nights. Nothing odd at all with per diem charges, espceially in a huge state like Alaska, as it is the largest state in the union, by far. 66.190.29.150 (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It can be indeed added to the article, without innuendo or inappropriate tone. Present the facts as reported, and we will do just fine. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not a biographically significant detail. It's politics, and semantics. A per diem covers more than food. This article has no perspective, and looks much more like an editorial designed by a committee than a biography. The section on her first three years as mayor spends twice as much space on how no books were removed from the library during this first four months of her tenure, as it spends on how she cut taxes, improved roads and sewers, expanded the police department, and installed bike trails and new water treatment facilities. Adding every little insignificant charge is in direct conflict with WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP (Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides) and WP:COATRACK. WP:RS is not by itself sufficient grounds for inclusion of material in a biography of a living person.--Paul (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, --Tom 15:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, you're right, "eating at home" is biased. But COATRACK is totally immaterial here - we are talking about one sentence, which is directly about actions of Palin herself, not tangential. Mentioning BLP is redundant - you are just arguing that it is UNDUE. I'd say that RS is enough for one sentence. The article in question (just one of several articles that come up in a search on this) gives the governor's office saying "perfectly normal" and a former (democratic) governor saying that the same behavior by a functionary in 1988 was "quite the little scandal". I'd say that this brings it to the level of notable. Homunq (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

My reference to WP:COATRACK was directed generally at the article but my discomfort includes the per-diem detail being discussed here. The "coats" in this article are an unending stream of "gotchas" and criticisms that are basically tangential to the biography of Sarah Palin. For example: "she fired a police chief," "she didn't really fire the chef," "she flew on an airplane while in labor," "she doesn't like whales," "she talked about God while in church!," "she lost money when she sold the state jet," etcetera, etcetera. In order to keep some perspective and to keep these kinds of things from "overwhelm[ing] the article" editors need to continually evaluate the notability and importance of items added to the article. Ask yourself, "what will this look like in 20 years?" "Will it look like a political food fight or a biography?" Folks that work on Wikipedia articles are called "editors" which means they are expected to exercise judgment while developing encyclopedia-quality articles.--Paul (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

We can certainly agree on all of that. But it's irrelevant here. (Personally, I see the "God in church" stuff as laughably COATRACK - by trying to stir up controversy, it just makes her look good.) Homunq (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, we hit an edit conflict, you added a useful passage from policy. Point by point: Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability... actions as a politician, I assume that this point is not a matter of debate. ... and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources,... check ... and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article... one sentence cannot overwhelm a giant article ... or appear to take sides. OK, granted.

How about "Palin has charged a $58 "per diem" allowance, which covers meals and expenses while traveling on state business, for 312 day trips during her first 19 months in office." I think that "day trips" is good neutral language (significantly moderated from the controversy-seeking language of the cited article) to say that she slept at home. Her detractors would want to add that evidence suggests that some of these "day trips" were 45-mile commutes from her home to her regular office; her supporters would want to say something like "Her spokeswoman said that such expenses are not unusual." But the sentence itself is eminently neutral, and suggesting that one sentence will overwhelm the article is silly. (The relative balance of library and taxes is irrelevant here). Homunq (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue of Palin's billing the state government for travel/per diem expenses is notable enough for a sentence or perhaps two, given its coverage by reliable sources. The only aspect that attracted non-partisan criticism was Palin's billing the government for her childrens' travel; the state comptroller said: "We cover the expenses of anyone who's conducting state business. I can't imagine kids could be doing that." But that's all in the footnoted sources; I think one sentence to the effect that she charged a travel allowance for 312 day trips in her first 19 months is reasonable, without additional spin; this much coverage seems justified to reflect the issue's coverage by reliable sources (not just the Post, though they first reported it). MastCell ^Talk 16:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Except that they weren't "day trips", legally speaking. Whatever the practical status, legally she was on a long trip from Juneau, and she was entitled to stay at a hotel in Anchorage and charge the state for that. Instead she chose to drive home every night and stay there for free, thus saving the state a lot of money. -- Zsero (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Great explanation. Can you suggest a netral wording? Homunq (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let's not editorialize about "saving the state money", since that is, at best, highly debatable. If you prefer changing "day trips" to "nights spent at home", which is actually closer to the sources, then I'd be fine with that. MastCell ^Talk 17:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the new version:

Since the office in Anchorage is far from Juneau, while she works there she is legally entitled to a $58 per diem travel allowance, which she has taken (a total of $16,951), and to reimbursement for hotels, which she has not, choosing instead to drive 45 miles to her home in Wasilla.[91] She also chose not to use the former governor's private chef.[92] In response to criticism for taking the per diem, and for $43,490 in travel expenses for the the times her family accompanied her on state business, the governor's staffers said that these practices were in line with state policy, and that Palin's gubernatorial expenses are 80% below those of her predecessor, Frank Murkowski.[93]

Note that this is approximately 1 sentence more than the corresponding section before I started this talk page section, and that the old sentences have been tightened.

It's an improvement. If we're going to quote someone on the context or appropriateness, though, I'd prefer we quote the state comptroller rather than Palin's staffers. The state comptroller was quoted in the Washington Post piece essentially defending the per diem as the governor's right, but questioning the use of state funds to pay for Palin's children to travel since they were presumably not directly engaged in "state business". MastCell ^Talk 18:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The apparent consensus paragraph has been altered to only show the controller's doubts, and not the original contents of the paragraph. The result is a decided change in what had, I thought, basically found agreement. Collect (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Rather than delete any source (Washington Post) I thought it fair to include material which had been left out of the cite, which might otherwise tend to be misleading as to the content of the story as published. It is not as good as the earluier paragraph, to be sure, but I would not want anyone to misinterpret a citation. Collect (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Article for Deletion: Clone article about Mike Wooten

I authored it, and now I have deemed it a coatrack, unnecessary to remain, because all of the information it has also exists in the Sarah Palin subarticle: Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal. if you have an opinion on the matter, please participate in the discussion at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Wooten (trooper) page. Duuude007 (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin/McCain have lost the endorsement of National Organization of Woman

I have added it to reception of Palin and it is removed? Why? It is making news in every paper just google it. I am left with the impression that this is not good wiki but censorship.

Associated Press Sept 16th

"WASHINGTON (AFP) — Prominent US women's rights groups on Tuesday backed Democrat Barack Obama for the White House and slammed his Republican rival John McCain for trying to lure women voters by choosing Sarah Palin as a running mate.

"The nation's oldest and largest women's rights organization... the National Organization for Women (NOW), proudly endorses Senator Barack Obama for president of the United States," NOW chief Kim Gandy told a news conference held jointly with other groups claiming to represent millions of women voters." --MisterAlbert (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This is simply the wrong article for it. Try 2008 U.S. presidential election, Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 or John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

See the other discussion [54] basicly this is inappropriate for this article. Hobartimus (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

While the original poster's edit may well have been unsourced, I do think that something along these lines is appropriate. Read the section: it consists 100% of who was surprised and/or happy with Palin's selection, it has no mention of any specific group with a negative reaction. One sentence on feminist groups such as NOW would be a welcome balance. Homunq (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't get the section title here. Did McCain have their endorsement before he picked Palin? How could he lose it if he didn't? Hobartimus (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"Lost" implies that they once had it, or even a chance of getting it. NOW is never going to endorse any Republican, and everyone knows it, so this is not notable. -- Zsero (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this talk section is mistitled. I still say that the article section lacks balance. Clearly any sentence which mentions NOW should qualify them with "traditionally Democratic" or some such leftist qualifier. Homunq (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not entirely true. They do occassionally endorse liberal Republicans in congressional races. Though I think you have to be pro-choice to even be considered, so it is fairly obvious they wouldn't endorse McCain-Palin. Dragons flight (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

In an extended look online, I found no endorsements of a Republican in a contested race. If one exists, so be it. That does not seem to alter the essentially partisan character of NOW. Collect (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind conservatives... NOW won't even support individual women who represent flies in their ointment agenda. Ask Linda Tripp about the NOW support she received while she was getting railroaded for exposing the pecadilloes of her boss ten years ago! :) Seriously, one can find countless objective citations that demonstrably prove NOW is on the extreme left. In fact, a nonpartisan organization is, by definition, not supposed to be supporting any candidate or party. Fcreid (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a very notable kind of thing. That it was so expected makes it even less relevant. If a reader comes here wanting to know who Sarah Palin is, the fact that one particular group or another endorses her co-runner's candidacy is not that important - more so to the campaign article where a list of endorsements might make more sense. Wikidemon (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Howsoever, it is clear that Palin's nomination has not been universally acclaimed, as the "reception" section would seem to indicate. At least a sentence, maybe as much as a paragraph, in that section, detailing the objections (lack of experience, maybe also the "gimmick (for women)" issue such as the on-mic Noonan comment) would be appropriate.

A loud "?" to the last unsigned comment. Unless one lives in a fully totalitarian state, one expects some opposition to just about anything. Finding that an extremely partisan organisation is partisan does not sound very notable at all. Collect (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

They have a wiki link National Organization for WomenThey are very pro choice, hence, their not supporting Palin makes perfect sense. From what I can gather , is McCains pick of Palin caused them to drop their mostly neutral stance and take a position in the campaign.

I found a link discussing Now, the endorsement , and who and what they are. what they from the Washington Post: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/16/faced_with_palin_womens_groups.html

So according to the ariticle the last presidental endorsement was 24 years ago and that was for Mondale who ran on a ticket to feature a woman as vice president. Their political statement concerning GOP ticket is their opinion that McCain has a track record of voting against issues important to women. Reading the article their concern is equal pay for equal work. Woman being paid 77 percent of what men are paid.

From what I can gather , is McCains pick of Palin caused them to drop their mostly neutral stance and take a position in the campaign.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/16/faced_with_palin_womens_groups.html --207.232.97.13 (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)fred

- Mostly neutral? 24 years? No endorsements? http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Womens-issues-gender-studies/NOW-conference-declares-emergency-NOW-PAC-urges-votes-for-Kerry-Nov2.html "A decision to prioritize the mobilization of women to vote for Senator John Kerry in the November 2004 elections by NOW at its 2004 National NOW Conference is reported. It is observed that Kerry shows strong support for women's rights through his public statements and voting records over the years." Still haven;t found an endorsement of a Republican yet. Collect (talk) 23:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

NOW is definitely Pro Choice and in so many words are saying to Palin they want government to stay out of a woman's uterus. --207.232.97.13 (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Knik Arm Bridge

A section in the article currently title "The Second Bridge" has all kinds of problems:

Palin still supports the second bridge, which was proposed in 2005 , through a request in earmark funds. 42 Million has been spent on the planning process. The 600 million dollar bridge and highway project links Juneau with Palins home town of Wasilla with its population of 7000 people. She did ask for a review of the bridge's financing plans and expressed concerns about the financial risks for the state.

Critics state that the bridge is an expensive project , doesn't help commuters, doesn't help create jobs, it may drive the beluga whale to extinction, and serves the Govenors home town of Wasilla. John McCain derided the project calling it a "monstrosity" that was "terrifying in its fiscal consequences." [112]

The whole section is factually incorrect, especially the claims of a link to Wasilla. The proposed bridge is across the mouth of the Knik Arm, much as the Golden Gate Bridge crosses the mouth of San Francisco Bay. Wasilla, Alaska is way the hell up on the north end of the Knik Arm, nowhere near the proposed bridge. Here is a map of the Knik arm and Wasilla. I'm thinking the particular references to Wasilla in regards to this bridge should be removed. Should the arguments of the bridge's supporters be included? Also, according to Knik Arm Bridge, the bridge has been proposed since 1955. Perhaps the whole paragraph should be deleted. Kelly ^hi! 19:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the section, at least for now, based on a closer examination of the given source. There were numerous factual inaccuracies in addition to the ones cited above, including claims of an extinction threat to beluga whales (nowhere stated in the source) and claims by Democratic opponents of Palin that were cited in this article as straight facts. Kelly ^hi! 19:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Hobartimus (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, I should have mentioned here that it was also redundant to the "Bridges to Nowhere" section immediately above it, where the Knik Arm Bridge is already mentioned. Kelly ^hi! 19:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Also agree. The material in the article was clearly wrong about the date the project was proposed and its proximity to Wasilla.--Paul (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well there are two bridges and that is not clearly stated in the title to the section. I suggest a better clarification be made between the two bridges, and the separate issues involving each one. --207.232.97.13 (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure when you wrote this, but I long ago removed that section under Bridge Redux REDUX above. Don Young's Way does provide an "alternate route" from Anchorage to Wasilla which was one of its main selling points.GreekParadise (talk) 01:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at the map? Wasilla is nowhere near the bridge! I suppose it could be considered an "alternate route" if you wanted to drive approximately the same distance as the existing route, but on a different highway. But are you suggesting the purpose of the bridge is to provide an alternate route from Anchorage to Wasilla? Looking at the map, that's a silly suggestion. Kelly ^hi! 02:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, that's the purpose of the bridge according to many people including Wasilla's mayor. Please read this: http://community.adn.com/node/131399. We can include it as a source.GreekParadise (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, as the article points out, the official name of the bridge is Don Young's Way. I don't know who removed all the references to the official name of the bridge. If you oppose giving the official name of the bridge, please say why. Someone even removed it from the "see also"!GreekParadise (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The quote says Dianne Keller, who succeeded Palin as mayor in Wasilla, has said the new $600 million crossing could lower traffic congestion in the fast-growing community. It doesn't say the purpose of the bridge was to link Anchorage to Wasilla, which, looking at the map, is kind of a dumb idea. They're already linked by a route of approximately the same distance. Also, the official name of the bridge is "Knik Arm Bridge, as our article on the bridge states. Kelly ^hi! 02:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, did you read the article? Just because you think the mayor of Wasilla has a dumb idea doesn't mean that the purpose of the bridge is not to connect Wasilla to Anchorage. It clearly is an ALTERNATE route. And the official name of the bridge is "Don Young's Way." I'll be happy to change the name of the other wikipedia article, if you wish. But read the source. It clearly documents what I say. And since it does, I see no reason not to put it back, unless you or another wikieditor can think of one. (Also the claim that she canceled the Knik Arm Bridge is false and should be removed immediately.) I'll remove the false claim and begin putting back in the Don Young's Way name. I'll wait on the "alternate route" a few minutes to see your response, but again, it's hard to dispute the mayor of Wasilla with your own point of view.GreekParadise (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Who said she cancelled the Knik Arm Bridge? Also, look at the other opinions above. Our article says the bridge has been proposed since 1955, and just because the current mayor says it "could ease congestion" doesn't mean the purpose of the bridge is to link Anchorage to Wasilla, when a glance at a map shows that's not the case. Kelly ^hi! 02:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, in regards to the name, "Knik Arm Bridge" returns 23,500 Google hits[55] while "Don Young's Way" returns about 3,000.[56] which tells me the former name is the most common usage. Kelly ^hi! 03:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who said she cancelled the bridge but I've already taken it out. As for Don Young's way, it is the official name, even if it gets fewer hits. (I'm not for deleting the more popular unofficial name, only for adding back the official name.) As for the alternate route, a glance at the map shows that's exactly what it is. If you read articles on the bridge--and I've probably read about 30 now--there are a number of Wasilla commuters who argue for and against it, with those for it saying the current bridge gets backed up and it provides an alternative way around it. I just looked at local.google.com. Go there yourself. Type in Wasilla. You'll see there are ZERO named towns, not a single one between Wasilla and Anchorage on the side that would served by Don Young's Way. I'm not saying that development cannot occur. Of course it can. (Don Young's son in law has some land out there.) But, as of now, among populated areas, the only area the bridge would serve is Wasilla, as an alternate route to Anchorage.GreekParadise (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll tell you this much - I read the AP article, but I also looked at other sources, and came away convinced that the AP article was not a reliable source. If you bothered to look at any of the maps, either that Kelly linked above or those in the sources and external links for the Knik Arm Bridge article of which this PDF map is the best, you yourself could see this - any route over that proposed bridge would only be a shorter route from Wasilla to Anchorage if you first moved the city of Wasilla at least 6 miles to the west. More importantly, the actual reason for the bridge is given here, and has nothing to do with Wasilla. Please don't try to push unreliable crud into the article, realize that sometimes the media is just wrong, and when it is the responsible thing to do is ignore the sources that don't have a significant connection to reality. GRBerry 03:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I can see including the "Don Young's Way" alternate name in Knik Arm Bridge, but why include it here? Especially when a direct "see also" link (Knik Arm Bridge) has been changed to a redirect link (Knik Arm Bridge (Don Young's Way)). Why change a direct link to a redirect? Kelly ^hi! 03:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Because one of the reason this bridge was criticized as a bridge to nowhere was because people thought it typified pork barrel spending and the name was part of it. \(I personally heard of Don Young's Way years ago and only heard of Knik Arm three weeks ago when I started researching this, but I'm not from Alaska. I don't want to change the link. I just want to mention in the body that it's named after Don Young, as I had it before. This was the old text:

"a proposed bridge ("Don Young's Way", named after Alaska's Congressman) crossing Knik Arm to provide an alternate route from Anchorage to Wasilla."GreekParadise (talk) 03:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

As to GRBerry's point, call it unreliable crud if you like, but it's the Associated Press and the Mayor of Wasilla and the Anchorage Daily News against your say-so. I've read the criticism, that it's actually 6 miles longer. (I've done a lot of research on it.) Critics have said that. And proponents say it would be an alternative route when the main bridge is crowded. I have looked at the maps. And I can provide at least five more sources talking about it as an alternate route to Wasilla. I never claimed it was the ONLY reason for the bridge or even the primary reason for the bridge. But it clearly is a reason and one I see often talked about in all the sources on it.GreekParadise (talk) 03:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any other sources that say the purpose of the bridge is as a route to Wasilla? Because the AP article obviously has issues. (The Anchorage Daily News did not write this article, they just reprinted the AP piece.) You're synthesizing something from the Mayor's quote that simply isn't there. And I still don't understand the need to include both bridge names here, when the reader can simply click on Knik Arm Bridge and learn all about any alternate names. I tend to see it as an effort to backhandedly link Palin with Young, who is actually one of her political opponents and a controversial figure. Best to keep it as neutral as possible by simply using the most common name. Mention Young all you want to in the bridge article. Kelly ^hi! 03:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to say she's an opponent of Young somewhere in the article fine by me. I never said that or even implied it. The bridge's official name is Don Young's Way. He was chair of the House Transportation Committee. It was seen as his boondoggle. In fact, if he hadn't named it after himself, it might have escaped scrutiny. I think there are many people like me, who don't live in Alaska, who have heard of Don Young's Way and never heard of Knik Arm. That's the reason to include it. And after all, it's the actual name of the bridge. "Knik Arm" is unofficial.GreekParadise (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"Dianne Keller, who succeeded Palin as mayor in Wasilla, has said the new $600 million crossing could lower traffic congestion in the fast-growing community". What about that quotation is unclear to you? Do you think the mayor of Wasilla was NOT talking about Wasilla when she said "this fast-growing community." C'mon Kelly, that's really stretching it.  :-)GreekParadise (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you read what I posted above about common usage? Why keep repeating yourself and making me repeat myself? Just make your argument once, let other people comment, and consensus will emerge. As I said, that mayor's quote does not at all address the reasons for building the bridge, just a possible side effect. You're taking too much from it. Kelly ^hi! 03:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I will revert. I have already found five sources that talk about the Wasilla-Anchorage connection, including the conservative Washington Times, the independent Congressional Quarterly, and several in Alaska. It was you, I think, that made the original change, and you did so without a single source to back you up. I can provide a dozen, given time. And you can't find one. Find me a source that says that the distance to Wasilla had nothing to do with it. It's in practically every article I see on it. And if anyone disagrees, I defy you to find me five sources that dispute the many, many sources I have found from every political perspective, from every geographic perspective, and from the Wasilla mayor herself.GreekParadise (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Will you please have a little courtesy and post the sources here for us to examine? There are 3 other editors here who have agreed with me, you are the only person arguing your point of view. Kelly ^hi! 03:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are you simply reverting against current consensus instead of discussing? Hello? Kelly ^hi! 04:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? Because you ended the discussion. In effect, you have admitted that I'm right, that you can't find anything that the Mayor of Wasilla said that does not support my view. And how can you dispute it when the Mayor of Wasilla herself is talking about supporting the bridge to lower traffic-congestion in her town. It's undisputable. She doesn't call it a "side effect." That's your language. And does it really matter if it's a "side effect" or "a reason to build the bridge." It's the same thing. It's one reason to build the bridge and it's why the mayor supports it.GreekParadise (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's be perfectly clear what happened here. A well-sourced sentence that has been in the article for ten days and agreed upon by many consensus editors was changed, with NO SOURCE to back up the change except WP:OR. I have given several sources, AP, CQ, Washington Times, Anchorage Daily News, and Wasilla's own mayor (!) and others I haven't even named yet: Sitka paper, Ketchikan paper. Unless some editor can provide sufficient notable sources that dispute my very fine reputable sources from all political and geographic persusasions and Wasilla's own mayor, my 30 sources beat zero sources. It's not a vote of the editors that counts; it's the fact that well-sourced information was replaced by unsourced information.

If you have even half a dozen sources saying that an alternate route to Wasilla is not a purpose of the bridge, I'd genuinely like to see them. Virtually every source I've read says it is. Now if you would like to modify the sentence, based on a real-live source apart from WP:OR, I am all ears.GreekParadise (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I added "spurring development" to the quote. I am more than willing to admit that there may have been more than one purpose for the bridge.GreekParadise (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Here are some of many sources describing a purpose of the bridge being an alternative route from Anchorage to Wasilla:

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=weeklyreport-000002944951

http://community.adn.com/node/131399 (you've read)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/05/palin-yet-to-say-no-thanks-to-other-big-earmarks/

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/09/14/for_palin_political_issues_still_unresolved_in_alaska/?page=2

http://www.sitnews.us/0908Viewpoints/091608_joan_beraldi.html

GreekParadise (talk) 04:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, for the record...There may be only one editor stating a case but that does not mean that other editors are not observing and willing to support, if necessary. GreekParidise was not a lone candle in the wind. His SOLITARY defense of his edit does NOT imply that it is the ONLY defense. This is true in other threads as well. --Buster7 (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

One of your sources says, "the project would link "two strategic ports and facilitate the construction of the Alaska natural gas pipeline." He also said plans call for private financing in addition to state and federal money." Those are direct facts to the primary reasoning of the bridge. Why is the indirect benefit to the traffic in Wasilla so important to the article? Couldn't we list hundreds of indirect benefits and negatives to building any bridge? Are we (& sources) just picking the mayors comment out of hundred of other supportive comments that were given? I can see how it would be nice to include it to create an inference that Palin might be "helping out her home town". What else does the reader gain from knowing about the Wasilla reference in this article that they would also discover if they reviewed the sources? Theosis4u (talk) 05:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The nonconsensus edit should be reverted to the version established by Kelly. Hobartimus (talk) 11:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The source which claims the Knik bridge goes to Wasilla was reinserted to buttress an argument that Palin still continues to support that specific bridge project. Was that source (which also refers to the bridge endangering whales) discredited in some manner? Collect (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the section above? Maps [57] show that the proposed bridge over Knik Arm, near Anchorage is nowhere near Wasilla. See this other map with the bridge clearly marked [58] and see the comment of admin GBerry "Please don't try to push unreliable crud into the article," and I agree with that assessment. When the "Wasilla connection" was added back despite consensus that it is inappropriate it was also a BLP violation of this section of BLP [59]. Hobartimus (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for circumlocution lest I run afoul of criticizing any editor who might insist that this article was and remains accurate, despite any maps not supporting the claims. I agree a heck of a lot with your position. Collect (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I would ask that any editor read all five sources before commenting further on this topic. WP:OR is NOT acceptable as a source. If you want to add other reasons why the bridge was important other than "spurring development" and an "alternate route from Anchorage to Wasilla", I'm OK with that. Feel free to add them, but you should first be able to find at least five separate mainstream sources that mention these additional reasons, just as I have. (And for the record, I could increase these five sources to 30, if I needed to.) I note that every wiki-editor that has objected to this has given a POV reason why. The question is not whether mentioning Wasilla creates a certain impression of Palin. Let's just get the facts.GreekParadise (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

So Theosis, find five sources that say "link ports" and "faciliate natural gas pipeline" and then let's add those reasons in.GreekParadise (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Collect, I'm not aware of anyone discrediting the Associated Press article in any way. Heck it was repeated in the Anchorage Daily News. If anyone would discredit the AP, you think it would be a local newspaper since the bridge touches Anchorage.GreekParadise (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus, I saw the maps, and I never claimed the bridge was "near" Wasilla (although in Alaska, 30-40 miles is pretty "near"). My claim, backed up by several sources, was that the bridge provided an "alternate route" from Wasilla to Anchorage. As it happens the proposed bridge is near Anchorage. And once you cross the bridge, the first named town you hit is Wasilla. GBerry's personal opinion that the Associated Press/Anchorage Daily News is "unreliable crud" carries no weight with me. There are mainstream media sources from the far right (Washington Times) to the center (AP, ADN, CQ, Mayor, Alaskan paper) to the left (Boston Globe) that mention one of reasons for the bridge is an alternate route to Wasilla. Even your source, Hobartimus, knikarmfacts.com mentions the Wasilla route(http://knikarmbridge.com/faqs.html - scroll to bottom). Where are the mainstream sources that DON'T mention it?GreekParadise (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"The only proposed compromise I could think of is "while most sources that mention the Knik Arm Bridge/Don Young's Way detail the benefits of an alternate route between Wasilla and Anchorage (including Wasilla's mayor), some wikipedians, based on their own research, have come to the conclusion that all the mainstream non-biased media sources are false and that their own perspectives (which they admit are designed to help Palin) are, in fact, the correct ones."

Does anyone see any problems with this compromise? Umm, I do. :-D But if anyone has any sources other than WP:OR, please show them to me. Otherwise, five sources beat zero. Like it or not, you cannot change a well-sourced sentence and replace it with your own research.GreekParadise (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind pointing out the bridge is "near Anchorage" and provides an alternate route from Anchorage to Wasilla, if that would satisfy some of you.GreekParadise (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Dhraaammaaa warning/ Yahoo email hacked

Appearantly Ms. Palin's yahoo accounts were hacked, at some point I'm sure someone is going to want to add info discovered there to the article. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure they want to, but such additions would be reverted under violation of WP:BLP. It is not the business of Wikipedia to publish private citizen's personal information. Jtrainor (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

very true, but what about information that is really public record type information, that was kept on these accounts? (letters, memo's etc regarding state business?) Just a warning that the drama potential of the incident is high. not to mention, that the incident itself might reach a notable position (i sure hope not though, it's stupid). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure she didn't use her personal Yahoo! account for official business, or, say, to help one of her political donors get a government job. I mean, that's something that the Bush Administration and Washington insiders do to avoid public scrutiny, and I've been told Palin is a maverick :) In all seriousness, it remains to be seen how much of an issue Palin's use of personal email accounts to conduct state business (and her subsequent attempt to privilege those emails) will be. If the good folks at 4chan really have cracked the account, that would be interesting, but we'll have to wait and see. Thanks for the heads-up. MastCell ^Talk 21:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Appearantly the Guardian's blog has picked it up, don't know if that counts as reliable for this sort of thing. not linking. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are generally not used as Reliable Sources. Oh yeah, and she's pretty MILFy, all right. 204.52.215.14 (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian report is written by a staff writer, see here, a foreign correspondent in the old parlance, so it hardly comes under the usual def of blog. Newspapers seem to be calling their columns blogs these days. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the AP is on the case. I think there's at least a 50/50 chance it's a hoax, but it's out there in reliable sources. I'd rather wait to see how it shakes out before we include anything in the article. MastCell ^Talk 22:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Another site I saw this mentioned on said it was 4Chan where the emails were posted. So flip a coin whether they were real or not, but I wouldn't put it past them. As for the "propriety" of it, I wouldn't read too much into it. It's very common to be friends with people you work with or friends with people you also have business relationships with. If one such person shoots you an email at your personal account that contains one paragraph about business and one about personal stuff, I doubt any of us would take the time to split it out and reply to the personal from the personal email and the business from the business email. Now we're technically and security minded people - Palin isn't. To me, "emailgate" isn't worth a mention unless there is something really juicy there. --B (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's true, I'm sure the Secret Service are knocking on some doors right now. Hopefully they bring their waterboard. :) Kelly ^hi! 22:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, your post just made me Laugh Out Loud. :-). I'm going offline, feeling rather good about the state of things.  :-) Keeper ǀ 76 22:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

While not an inappropriate response...if it was 'anonymous' through 4chan....it's likely proxied from here to eternity and not really traceable. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I snagged an archive of what was allegedly captured before everything disappeared from 4chan and generates the 404 error it now does. There was certainly nothing "interesting" in the thread I snagged... generic platitudes to friends and family and the like. Even if it's legit, unless someone is holding back some bombshell, this is just a fizzle in the pan. What was interesting to me was that, even among this less-than-savory crowd, there was still contentious dialog about Palin. I didn't think these guys even cared about politics! :) Fcreid (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It does look like it may be legit, though: [60] Fcreid (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It is legit. Anonymous appear to be responsible. [61], [62] 89.139.48.100 (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this belongs in the article. I cannot imagine a more egregious breach of the WP:BLP policy of Presumption of Privacy and respect for Basic Human Dignity.--Paul (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we tread very carefully on this, including links to the alleged data. This is one where waiting a day or two before mention is the most prudent path. Fcreid (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The information that hackers claimed they have hacked her email is now well sourced and I would say confirmed. See the Washington Post. It's also near the top of Google News. The story appears to also have a hook, that Palin might have violated the law by using her personal email for government business. That appears notable. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually the story doesn't say it's illegal, just that the person doing the FOIA request thought it was careless.The story also says that "Palin refused to comply with a public records request in June to divulge 1,100 e-mails sent to and from her personal accounts, citing executive privilege." --Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've heard that some of the sources are going down as legal action is taken. At this point there's no evidence of any wrongdoing - from what I've seen the alleged e-mails were personal or political in nature, not official. Kelly ^hi! 00:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The Gawker link is here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

crap. I agree with fcreid, we should go slow with it. as of now the only thing are RS allegations of inappropriate email hiding from public records disclosure. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm thinking if there was anything illegal/incriminating there, we'd already have been hearing MSNBC and the New York Times trumpeting it. But we'll see. Kelly ^hi! 00:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

well...my bit of OR into this indicates that some of the anonomous folks posted the screen shots and stuff at /b/ and also sent material to wikileaks. wikileaks reviews stuff before posting so, there could very well be material to come out of this that would turn this back into the VP-announcement-wheel-war-frenzy of a couple weeks ago. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The AP says the following: "The disclosure Wednesday raises new questions about the propriety of the Palin administration's use of nongovernment e-mail accounts to conduct state business. The practice was revealed months ago — prior to Palin's selection as a vice presidential candidate — after political critics obtained internal e-mails documenting the practice by some aides." Hackers break into Sarah Palin's e-mail account (AP)--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

FoxNews says the following: "Gawker complained that Palin has since “deleted” the account, and suggested she was trying to “destroy evidence.”" Palin’s E-Mail Account Hacked, Published on Web Site. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think John McCain broke the password on the account, to refute Obama's claim that he doesn't have hacker skillz. Kelly ^hi! 00:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this shows the wisdom of John McCain's distrust of email! :-)--Paul (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit, since the Secret Service is now involved with law enforcement[63] that it's probably worth a footnote at a minimum. rootology (C)(T) 03:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Since it's all over the news. If it's still going tomorrow, I'd say add it. Damn Drudge, he made the link sound like it was Feds vs Anonymous, but it hadn't finished loading yet. rootology (C)(T) 03:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

CNN says the FBI and the Secret Service are on it. Somebody is screwed, I think - this shit is felony-grade. Kelly ^hi! 03:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I also understand there are indications she may have been in dialog with some exiled member of Nigerian royalty in some sort of scam to launder $18,000,000.00USD (EIGHTEEN MILLION DOLLARS) in exchange for 35% of that for her services. CNN will certainly latch onto that! Fcreid (talk) 10:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should detail the e-mail thing in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. ;-) Kelly ^hi! 12:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The 4chan dude who broke it said he was afraid of the FBI during he did it. However interesting this is it has no place in the article right now per WP:RECENTISM. Hobartimus (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevancy to an article on Sarah Palin. Will someone kindly remove any insertion on the main page? At best it is prurient, at worst it is a violation of law to promote theft of personal information online. Collect (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Concur. This news is yesterday's flash in the pan and was not even noteworthy then. I read the "confession" from Rubico (who claims it was he who actually accessed the account/violated the law), and he said he went through every piece of mail in her mailbox specifically looking for something to derail her campaign but found nothing. It shouldn't be in here unless and until it bears meaningful fruit beyond the tin-foil hat bloggers. 138.145.4.3 (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anyone promoting the "theft" here. As for prurient interests, this does not appear to me to be obscenity. From what I can see this is a discussion regarding whether the fact that Sarah Palin's email account was hacked and leaked onto the internet for everyone to see should be mentioned in this article. I see the Recentism argument but I do think the issue is relevant to Sarah Palin.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Prurient: "Uneasy with desire; itching; especially, having a lascivious curiosity or propensity; lustful." I, in fact, state that the desire to find Palin's emails and publish them precisely fits the dictionary definition furnished.

That's your opinion, which looks like WP:OR. I'm more concerned with the facts and whether this incident will have an effect on the outcome of the campaign. If so, I think it deserves a mention. If it's forgotten by tommorrow then no. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The concept that everything "leaked" onto the Internet is fair game is somewhat alien to me. As for "Recentism" it specifically and precisely fits the issue as well. Collect (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wolf Bounty Correction

I have added a correct cite for the judge's ruling against wolf bounties, and added wording indicating the basis on which the judge ruled. I trust no one will object. Collect (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal life section

Well, the religion part has somehow grown to approximately 3/4 of the section on her personal life. Information on her hobbies, etc., has been cut out as "propaganda",[64] so we have a problem again with undue weight on religion. I propose cutting out the mentions of the single prayer she made in the Wasilla church, which now takes up about half the personal life section. Kelly ^hi! 22:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Kelly, but stand by for a firestorm of opposing opinion. As far as I'm concerned, far too much weight has been placed on this one commencement speech to these ministry students, but there's just nothing else to support the weight that this speech represents a persistent theme with her. You would think there would have been homage paid in multiple other venues, like city council hearings, gubernatorial addresses, etc., where the impact would have actually been meaningful. There's just no evidence of that. Moreover, we have firsthand accounts from both friends and enemies that Palin didn't wear her religious beliefs on her sleeve. Given that, I write off the speech as pandering to a specific audience. Others won't let it die as easily, I assure you. Fcreid (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and where did Erik the Red get consensus to remove the "gushy" stuff? Frankly, that's one of the few actual meaningful things about "Palin the person" in this biography. That needs to be added back soonest. Fcreid (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think her religion is a reasonable topic to some extent, given the role it has played in her public persona and in reliably-sourced coverage of her. That said, I do tend to agree with Kelly and Fcreid here that the quotes and the lengthy exposition of that single prayer are jarring. There's actually nothing remarkable about that prayer, which is why it seems so odd to rehash it at great length. Palin can't be the only American to pray for the safety of the troops, or for wise leadership, or for the success of a project - I suspect hundreds of millions of Americans do this. I'm fine with devoting some space to her religious beliefs as they've impacted the campaign and national discussion, but I'd agree that the current paragraph is lopsided and reads oddly. MastCell ^Talk 23:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Unfortunately, the only compromise we've been able to establish creates a "ransom note effect" with bits pulled out of context to make it look like she's a total loony! Fcreid (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, no offense intended to those whose religious beliefs are actually so intense. Fcreid (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Yeah, I think the (third?) paragraph, which recounts her church membership history and personal statement of religious beliefs, is appropriate and neutral. The last paragraph, with the long exposition about the prayer, is in fact "jarring" (thanks for the awesome word, MastCell!). I'd be happy with leaving the third paragraph and trimming the fourth. Thoughts? Kelly ^hi! 23:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I just restored it. This was discussed once at Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 21#Levi Johnston and one editor may have wanted to remove it (it could have just been a rhetorical argument) and one editor though it should remain. My feeling is that a biography should have something about the subject and not just be a collection of quotes from the culture wars.--Paul (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Were you referring to the personal hobbies part? Kelly ^hi! 23:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's what I removed that was undue weight. Was her completion of marathon in less than four hours a significant part of her life? No. The rest of the stuff is written in such a way that it serves to enhance the persona she's created of a folksy, down-to-earth everyday American, or "hockey mom". If we can reword the material so that it does not carry this tone, I'd be all for including it. (The hobbies, not the marathon). Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 00:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a biography, and those are her personal hobbies and accomplishments. It absolutely belongs in this article. Fcreid (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Then let's write about it in a way that doesn't enhance her "like us folks" image. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 00:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything that unduly enhances that image, Erik. They are all statements of fact, supported by multiple sources and have never been in contention. And I can't imagine how they could be presented in any more of a "clinical" manner. Fcreid (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

And good luck sanitizing the "like us folks" image. That's like trying to hide the incredible hulk being green, or that linux is free. Covering it up it is an act of censorship and bias.--Canislupus01 (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the cutting back of the religion related excesses. Hobartimus (talk) 01:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, you "trimmed" the whole relgion section by accident. Don't worry, I fixed it. Grsz^talk 18:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Grsz, did you even read the section above? I left the part of the religion section that people agreed to leave. I only removed the undue weight part. Why the hell can't people express their point of view here first instead of blindly reverting? I would have held off if anyone had made an argument about retaining that info. This is hugely frustrating. Kelly ^hi! 18:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Not as frustrating as the groups in here that band together to get their work done. Palin's religion has become a pretty big part of the conversation surrounding her. Yes, the paragraph was too big, but it's inappropriate for you to say you're "trimming" something, when you just go and delete the whole thing. The most important part of the discussion of her religion is the statement on Iraq, and that's the only part I left. Grsz^talk 18:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no. If there is any mention of the "Iraq Crusaders onward by God's Will" nonsense, then the entire thing gets reverted to provide the full context, including that it was to a group of missionary students graduating after a year in a "Jesus Master's" program or something and that it occurred in the Wasilla church. Fcreid (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It does say that. Did you even bother to look? It also includes Palin's defense. Grsz^talk 19:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I reworded it slightly to add some additional qualifiers. Frankly, the audience, occasion, venue and the fact that this was a one-time issue that is inconsistent with any other available source describing her behavior with respect to religious beliefs cannot be overstated. Fcreid (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This statement without citation needs to go, however: "Palin's religious views have been seen as an issue by both her supporters and her detractors." If you want to revert to that statement that her religious views have come under attack in the press, that's fine. This statement is a synthesized lie. Fcreid (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reworded it to what I believe is an accurate, neutral and true account. Fcreid (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Publication of her signature, is it fair?

Do you think that publicating the signature is legal, fair, and do you have permission from Sarah Palin to do that? If not then you should immediately remove that! I'm just can't imagine this, because the signature is something that can be used to verify lots of things, and this is also regarded as a proof on juries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.246.234 (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the 1992 elections, there are only 4 major party nominees (VP or otherwise) who did not have signatures listed here:

Joe Lieberman

Bob Dole

Jack Kemp, Jr.

Dan Quayle

In contrast, 11 candidates over 20 opportunities to run in one of these spots do have their signature listed here, including every candidate in the last 3 election cycles.

So yes, it definitely is fair and has a valid place in the article. Duuude007 (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yahoo! Email Hacked

Since it's going to end up here anyway after it's been put up and removed and put up and removed,(Dang strait"woot") let's start the discussion. Should this page have a mention that Sarah Palin's personal email was hacked and screenshots released to the Gawker and Wikileaks. See here. There are allegations that Palin was wrongfully using the account to conduct government business (a freedom of information act request was made). I say, Yes.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This is under discussion a few threads up: #Dhraaammaaa warning. Let's centralize it there. MastCell ^Talk 23:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Got it.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay I did a search and it is already in the news media.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/17/palins-email-account-hack_n_127184.html http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/17/palins_yahoo_account_hacked.html So I say yes based on reliable sources. --207.232.97.13 (talk) 00:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)fred

{P.S. very off topic, however a good wiki suggestion would be around the issues of hacking , trolling , and 4chan,Encyclopedia Dramatica here is a great article to bring you up to date and probably worth a wiki page of its own.) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html?pagewanted=1} --207.232.97.13 (talk) 00:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)fred --207.232.97.13 (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)fred

Regarding the topic of Palin emails I came across this Salon article on Sarah staying off the Palin staying off government servers with her email accounts.

http://machinist.salon.com/blog/2008/09/15/palin_emails/

--207.232.97.13 (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)fred

Let's try to keep this discussion to the one above.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed the subject heading to Talk:Sarah_Palin#Dhraaammaaa_warning.2F_Yahoo_email_hacked.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, it seems article on wikipedia may have helped the hacker gain access to the acct: [65] Professor marginalia (talk) 01:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. How did I guess there would be a thread about this? Anyway, it's not biographically important, not unless there's a huge fallout. A discussion of this probably belongs in the article about Anonymous, and perhaps in some campaign-related article somewhere. But I must say, the fact that it happened is a lot bigger of a deal than anything they are reported to have disclosed.Wikidemon (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that the Obama and Biden articles frequently use Wikipedia:Recentism for removal justifications, seems that is absent with many points on the Palin articles. Theosis4u (talk) 04:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In discussion of this very issue, a few threads above, a number of editors invoked recentism as a reason not to include it (yet) in the article. If you feel some sections of the article are overly recentist, then the most productive approach would be to specifically identify them and suggest changes. Vague insinuations of bias rarely lead anywhere useful. MastCell ^Talk 15:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what your getting at. I only learned of Wikipedia:Recentism when I saw a edit done to either Obama or Palin that listed Wikipedia:Recentism in the edit notes. I believe is was done by you MastCell. My comment here was simply pointing out that the sourcing of Wikipedia:Recentism in that edit made things very clear to me to understand the context of the edit. I'm not making insinuations, just saying that to specific state Wikipedia:Recentism is useful and could be done more often here. That it seemed to help the admins in managing the other articles pretty well. Theosis4u (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Well, I apologize for misunderstanding your point. I think recentism is a useful concept which could be applied here as well, so it sounds like we're in agreement. MastCell ^Talk 22:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Image for Deletion

I am posting this here because the image is tied to the Sarah Palin official merged subarticle: Gravina Island Bridge. Kelly just submitted the Image:Palin nowhere.jpg for deletion. In Kelly's argument, he claims that this Fair Use copyright confirmed image with the source of http://www.andrewhalcro.com/files/FH000020.jpg has' no sort of copyright, and does not exist at the source. Furthermore, he thinks it would be just as easy to replace this image with "any" image of Palin. That again is a flawed argument, as it assumes that this image was a generic depiction; it was not. It was a specific, exclusive themed event that she put herself in, and is impossible to recreate the image's cited context with an alternate image of her. I ask that anyone who is interested in the role of this image to participate in the discussion Kelly created for it, so we can get this picture dilemma resolved once and for all. Thanks. Duuude007 (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ethics advisor

This article currently says:

Palin's ethics advisor urged her in July to apologize for "overreaching or perceived overreaching" to get Wooten fired.[1]

[1]Carlton, Jim. "Ethics Adviser Warned Palin About Trooper Issue", The Wall Street Journal (2008-09-11).

This is problematic and I'd like to remove it. In fact, I did remove it, but was reverted here. The problem is that CNN subsequently reported that this "ethics advisor" was actually an "informal" and "former" advisor who was merely offering Palin "unsolicited" advice.[66] As such, this only merits mention in the sub-article, if there. I'm sure lots of people give Palin unsolicited advice, but it's not notable enough for a brief summary of this matter, IMHO. Because the person in question turned out to not be "Palin's ethics advisor", I think this material currently in the article is currently false.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I read the source and you're correct - the sentence gives the wrong impression and doesn't belong here. Kelly ^hi! 02:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Heres' the pertinent part of the CNN report (emphasis mine): "A former ethics adviser to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin warned in July that firing her public safety commissioner would become a "grave concern" for her administration….Shea had acted as an informal ethics adviser to Palin, but he told CNN that his advice on the Monegan firing was unsolicited."Ferrylodge (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I've started an article about Walt Monegan.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect "informal" is the rule for ethics advisors; few politicians would admit to formally employing someone to tell them right from wrong. That said, I'd agree this level of detail is probably most appropriate for the subarticle, not for this parent biography. MastCell ^Talk 05:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"Earmark" vs. "Funding Requests"

"Earmark" has been pointed out to have several different meanings, therefore it would seem reasoable to use "funding request" to refer to requests made by a state or municipality, and reserve "earmark" for funding placed in legislation by Congress. "Funding request" is a non-colored and accurate term for funding requests. I suggest this is the most neutral way to handle what has become a hot-button issue for some. Collect (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"Earmark" has different meanings only because we sometimes get careless and write "[[earmark]]" rather than "[[Earmark (politics)|earmark]]". When linked properly, "earmark" is fine, and it's the term commonly used by both sides in the debate. Obviously, Palin doesn't have the power to earmark money herself, but the context is usually clear that she's requesting and earmark. (For example, one sentence you changed, "Many of the earmarks that Palin had requested were criticized by Senator McCain....", can't be misinterpreted, and the earlier version is preferable.) Where that context isn't clear, I agree with you that it should be stated, along with the use of the correct wikilink. JamesMLane t c 16:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I find the argument that "it is used by both sides" when I can find many cases where it is not used by one side to be disingenuous. Further, the term "federal funding" is a term of absolute neutrality. Given the choice between a term associated with a POV and one not so associated, I submit the choice is clear. Let's avoid POV usage of colored terms. Collect (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I note that "earmarks" has been reinserted, without using any reference to "funding requests." Absent any other objection to the clearer language, I would trust someone would undo that revert. I do not want a revert war, I want NPOV usage, rather than a deliberate reversal of the emended language. The term "earmark" has been pointed out repeatedly not to be the correct term for funding requests from a state or municipality. Thanks! Collect (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In the spirit of compromise, I did not remove "earmark" even where it was inaptly used. Collect (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The specific example I gave was, "Many of the earmarks that Palin had requested were criticized by Senator McCain...." It's somewhat imperious of you to say, "The term 'earmark' has been pointed out repeatedly not to be the correct term for funding requests from a state or municipality." (emphasis added) By my example, I pointed out that you were wrong. Only Congress can enact an earmark, but Alaska can certainly request one. Putting aside what the campaigns say, the MSM have used this formulation. JamesMLane t c 00:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Proof by iterated assertion does not work here. The term "earmark" has a specific meaning, and to use the average reader's unfamiliarity with how the system works to push a POV is errant. Actually, it is wrong. I have inserted "funding requests" without reverting the term "earmark." I trust that the phrase "funding request" will not get reverted yet again, as I think that is contrary to what is right. That you call me "imperious" is outre for sure! I do not revert stuff repeatedly. Collect (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

separate article on political positions

It appears that there is a separate article on Palin's political positions. That article contains much material which, by consensus here, is unsupported. As essentially all of the salient material is now within this article, it would appear that the other article ought either be brought into sync with this article, and maintained in sync, or else ought be removed as duplicative and quite likely not conforming to the NPOV rules. Is there a mechanism which would ameliorate this problem? Or is it proper to have disparate material in another article which, within the parent article, has been determined to not belong or even be inaccurate? Collect (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin Inconsistent remarks

Was wondering if we should have a specific section on inconsistent statements told by Palin ie Bridge to know where, Alaska producing 20% of US energy, Visited Iraq, Visited Ireland, Previous VP candidates have never met with world leaders....

I realize these may not be consistent with an NPV but this does give an understanding into her creditability. 99.228.151.16 (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. Every politician makes inconsistent statements. Hers are not exceptional. We will list them point by point in their own right, but to devote a section to it is POV.--Loodog (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You may be looking for http://www.factcheck.org/. MastCell ^Talk 16:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Pointing out every politicians' flubs and inconsistent remarks is beyond the sane scope of any article. And in general they have nothing at all to do with "credibility" at all. They have to do with our species. Collect (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridge to Nowhere POV tag: Hobartimus' FALSE edits WITHOUT discussion on talk page should be reverted.

Hobartimus, without going on the talk page, has put in a number of false facts in the article that bear no support in the sources. He has admitted he's done it for POV and I note that on this talk page, he has already been admonished for this. After a long talk page discussion, all of these changes he made were all against the sources.

1. The Gravina Bridge goes to the Gravina Island. The bridge does not go to the airport, which lies on the island as the original said.

2. The official name of the bridge is Don Young's Way. Like it or not, that's the name of the bridge. You can't delete it because you don't like the name.

3. All sources say the Knik Arm bridge provides an alternate route to Wasilla. See talk page. Hobartimus has no source other than WP:OR.

4. Media section deleted with no reason given on talk page.

I will add a POV tag of non-neutrality unless either Hobartimus seeks compromise or the article is reverted back to the SOURCED facts. Ironically, now the article points to sources that in no way back up Hobartimus' changes!

Please support reversion to original. With that support, I will remove the POV tag.GreekParadise (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I asked you before not to make personal attacks see WP:NPA. See the section on this talk page titled "Knik Arm Bridge".[67] above where this is discussed and where administrator GBerry already said to you "Please don't try to push unreliable crud into the article" I'd consider that as a warning if I were you. This was said in direct response to your point 3 that you also bring up here. You were also warned by others to respect consensus and not to make nonconsensus edits which is a direct violation to WP:BLP. "The bridge does not go to the airport" ???? What's that supposed to mean? We have a whole Wikipedia article, see the article Ketchikan International Airport. Hobartimus (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You made it personal. You made unsourced changes. Give me one source to back up ANYTHING you have changed. You cannot remove sourced content or replace it with unsourced content based on WP:OR or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (GBerry's insult of the Associated Press as "unreliable crud" is also not based on fact, particularly when the AP is backed up by the Anchorage Daily News, Congressional Quarterly, the Washington Times, the Boston Globe, local Alaskan newspapers, and Wasilla's own mayor! Your only sources, Hobartimus, are WP:OR and WP:IDONTLIKE IT and POV. If not, give me a source!GreekParadise (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What is unsourced that is currently in the article? I already asked you and you didn't name the statement. Please name the unsourced statement that I placed into the article and I will remove it/get a source for it. What's unsourced? The removal of the Anchorage-Wasilla connection (your point 3) was done per a consensus of editors, reinserting it without consensus would be a BLP vio, so that can't be it, I can't think of anything that's currently in and unsourced. Hobartimus (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You have no right to remove well-sourced information and/or replace it with false information. There is no source that the Gravina Island bridge goes directly to the airport. All the sources say it goes to the island and then there's an access road. It may seem silly but the original is true and your edit is false. Period. Don Young's Way is a well-sourced fact. It's the name of the bridge. Why do you want to remove it? Any reason other than POV? Anchorage-Wasilla is a well-sourced fact supported by some editors, dozens of sources and with ZERO sources to the contrary. Why have you removed the truthful, well-sourced information? Any reason other than you don't like it? The fact that several editors also don't like it because of their own research is irrelevant. You simply cannot delete well-sourced material you don't like based on your own edits.GreekParadise (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it in the article that it directly goes to the airport? I didn't put it there the word directly but if it's there delete the word directly then. I hope you don't deny that it does link the International Airport with the city. I removed Anchorage-Wasilla per consensus above on this talk page. Did you read that discussion that decided that it was inappropriate? Hobartimus (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this points up a major problem with the "Bridge to Nowhere" section of this article. It's full of odd and tangential trivia which have little direct bearing on Sarah Palin, yet which provide an endless opportunity for argument and ill-feeling. The section should be much shorter, and it should focus on Sarah Palin's actions with regard to the Bridge, and the reaction to them, rather than bogging down in details about which roads the bridge connected, or naming issues, or whatever. Fight about those in the bridge articles, not here. The bottom line is that the Bridge connected sparsely populated areas. That should take up one short, declarative sentence, and the remainder of the section should discuss Palin, not the various bridge names, or Congressional amendments that Palin had nothing to do with, or the population of Gravina Island, or the price of tea in China. MastCell ^Talk 16:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

All of this relates to Palin and that's why H wants it removed. The first statement Hob added was false. I had that Gravina Island was sparsely populated and to be fair, someone asked that the airport be included. I was fine with that. But then H made the true statement false. As to the second statement, it's the official name of the bridge. As to the third, it relates to Palin because Wasilla is her hometown. And the fourth relates to Palin's use of the bridge. As H has given no reason or sources for his changes (and he's had an hour to think of them), I will revert. None of H's changes, other than the media criticism, affect the length of the section, and the media criticism relates directly to Palin.GreekParadise (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Do not play games please. You know that the media criticism is in the campaign section because it happened in the campaign, there was no media criticism before the campaign started rather she was praised. You know very well that it's in the campaign section, I qouted it to you in full on your talk. And the Anchorage-Wasilla connection was removed per consensus. Reinserting it without consensus would be a BLP vio. Hobartimus (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

1)The media criticism is about the BRIDGE. Period. Full stop. Readers of the bridge section should be able to read about it, which is why I pointed to it. Kaiser agrees.GreekParadise (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

2) No consensus can be built around WP:OR. I and Buster and others think that 30 sources trump zero sources. It's hardly consensus if: a) several wikieditors disagree; and b) ALL sources support my interpretation and NO sources support yours. And if any of those disagreeing editors were fair-minded, they would recognize that 30 sources trump zero sources and revert it back themselves.GreekParadise (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have given H an hour to supply reason or source for his edits. He cannot. I will now revert. It is my second reversion on the official name of the bridge (Don Young's Way) and the alternate Wasilla-Anchorage route as one reason for bridge (and my first reversion on the media and airport). I will not make a third reversion. If others support me--and believe that wikipedia should be based on truthful sources rather than personal research--they will back me up on it. If you've already expressed your view on the many earlier talk pages, I would welcome reiterating it here.GreekParadise (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

1)I don't agree with 1) but if you do decide to reinsert it I only ask that you then delete it from the campaign section so there will be no duplicate sections (see I used duplicate per your earlier request when we discussed this).

2)What's the rush with 2? The Anchorage-Wasilla connection, I didn't count but clearly 5-6 editors at least disagree with you on this what's the need for urgency? On sources, I could bring 100 sources that discuss Palin's glasses, that doesn't mean that it can't be reverted unless someone "brings sources that deny" statements about Palin's glasses. That's just silly, we have millions of sources it doesn't mean that the material is appropriate to the article, this is why we have discussions, consensus... To decide if it's apporopriate to put in a biography. Hobartimus (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, H, for at least beginning a discussion on this. That's what I've been trying to do for over an hour. On 1), I want to refer to the more detailed discussion in the campaign section without duplicating it. On 2), Buster supports me and you and Kelly disagree with me. Possibly GBerry too, but I'm not confident he has read my other cited sources. You have conceded, have you not, that the Anchorage-Wasilla connection was one reason for the Knik Arm Bridge. Right? It may be the primary reason since it's in virtualy every source on the topic and the Wasilla Mayor seems to think it so, but I haven't said it's the primary reason. It's "a" reason. And it clearly relates to Palin. So my question for you, that I've been trying to understand for several hours now, is why DON'T include it? What's your reason? The only reasons I've heard so far are WP:OR, and I insist those are not valid.GreekParadise (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't insist that people must endless repeat their arguments over and over. I spent some amount of time reading the official proposal documents for the bridge (linked from the Knik Arm Bridge article) and can't find anything about Wasilla. The proposal seems to be all about developing the area across the Arm from Anchorage and general improvement of the Alaskan transportation infrastructure. To insist on identifying the purpose of the bridge as being an alternate route to Wasilla is so much undue weight it's just silly. I suppose you could say the Golden Gate Bridge was constructed to provide an alternate route from San Diego to Seattle, and be technically correct, but it wouldn't belong in an article about a politician who supported the bridge. Kelly ^hi! 16:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The official proposal documents that I read also mention Wasilla. See the last paragraph of http://www.knikarmbridge.com/faqs.html. Did you read something else I should be aware of? I don't disagree that development is an additional reason, but as far as transportation needs, the closest two cities it would connect are Wasilla and Anchorage. There is not a single named town, village, or settlement of any size across the bridge from Anchorage that is closer than Wasilla. And yes the Golden Gate Bridge does connect San Francisco and Marin County, its closest populated areas.GreekParadise (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Just looking at the history to try to untangle this. Hobartimus has the last revert. I cannot be sure of all the changes because the silly warring in wikicomments has thrown off the diff algorithm (c'mon, guys, both of you... if you really have to add ALL CAPS wikicomments, at least leave the last guy's comments intact and add yours instead of reversing its meaning. That means you, Hobartimus.). As far as I can tell, Greek Paradise is right about all the issues being fought about here in talk, but there is also a significant paragraph about the relation to the presidential campaign and "lies" which is in contention on the page but not being discussed here.

I absolutely encourage both of you to find a compromise. GreekParadise may be right if the argument is just WP:RS, but if there is a concern about WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE then the correct solution is compromise. I will now do my best to put in some kind of compromise; though I will favor GreekParadise because I feel that RS is on their side, I will not go 100% with their version. And then, instead of continuing the edit war, both of you talk productively to each other - fewer arguments and more productive proposals of actual article text posted here in talk. Homunq (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

ps. I am also inclined against someone who does a "last word" edit-war revert without mentioning it in the ongoing talk page debate.

"What is the purpose of the project?

The project is being developed to create an efficient link between the operations and infrastructure of the two ports; build an alternate north-south emergency response and disaster evacuation route; establish the transportation infrastructure for existing and projected population and economic growth; and implement the Alaska legislative mandate to construct a bridge crossing of Knik Arm (AS 19.75).(from [68]) Not a word about Wasilla. The main discussion of this is here [69] people who revert against consensus as developed in the Knik Arm Bridge section violate BLP outright.Hobartimus (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I think you hit the nail on the head with the POV and UNDUE thing. Perhaps a benefit of the bridge may be reduced congestion in Wasilla, as people would theoretically be able to cross the Knik Arm without having to drive around the Arm, through Wasilla. But this seems to me to be WAY down the list of purposes for the bridge, and to mention only the theoretical Wasilla benefit and no other purposes is way too much weight. I could support in the article on the [[Knik Arm Bridge, if balanced with the other purposes, but the only purpose for stating that here seems to be an attempt to induce a subtle POV that the Wasilla thing is the reason she has a measure of support for the bridge. There's no evidence for that. I think we should simply have a short clause that states the purpose of the bridge is to cross the inlet of the Knik Arm near Anchorage. Kelly ^hi! 17:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the entire premise initially given, and support the edits by Hobartimus. The nature of the attack on him will not be questioned by me, although I could see where some others might do so improperly. Collect (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I stand by my request that you guys work it out on the talk page before edit warring, but I missed that other section of the talk page before I put in my compromise edit. If I had seen the prior discussion, I would have been better able to assume good faith for Hobartimus's last edit. Homunq (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Weighting of bridge stuff - proposal

Proposed: Detailed coverage of bridge funding, benefits, drawbacks, and controversies belong in sections in the articles Gravina Island Bridge and Knik Arm Bridge. Discussion of Palin's role as Governor in those issues belongs in summarized paragraph(s) in Governorship of Sarah Palin. In terms of the impact on the campaign, coverage should be in John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. Discussions of sources, weighting, POV, etc. should be on the talk pages of those articles. Only when consensus is achieved there should neutral summaries of the material be brought to this talk page and proposed for inclusion. Discuss. Kelly ^hi! 17:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse it seems that BLP cannot be enforced to a desirable degree here some will just undelete the disputed material whatever BLP says. Hobartimus (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

since Gravina Island Bridge is already a merge of a Palin subarticle and structure article per the discussion page and category tags, it is a valid argument. It should follow the same rules of BLP under that cause. Duuude007 (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Partially endorse: We should just say "the Gravina Island Bridge"; no airports, no populations, no nothing else. The wikilink is right there, and if anyone is curious about the specific areas connected or their populations, they can click it. The point is that this is a politically controversial "Bridge to Nowhere". Let's just say that, rather than trying to illustrate it with factoids which belong in the bridge article. As to here vs. the Palin subarticles, there should probably be a brief summary here with more detail, perhaps, in the subarticles. I don't think it should disappear entirely - it's a relevant part of her biography at a couple of key junctures - but it can be summarized more briefly and readably than we're currently doing. MastCell ^Talk 17:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, that's absolutely what I'm saying. Also, rather than bringing original or new material directly here to this biography, it should first be introduced, and included if appropriate, at the sub-articles. Then a summary should be brought here. Kelly ^hi! 17:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• A sentence or two is going to be more appropriate than a paragraph or two here, this stuff has often been grown to severely undue weight. The Big Dig, a far bigger and more important transportation project is barely even mentioned in the biography of Tip O'Neill, the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives that did more than anybody else to get funding for the project. And that level of description is due weight; this level of description is far beyond due weight. The Interstate Highway System (properly named the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways) gets two paragraphs in the biography of Dwight D. Eisenhower because it is widely considered one of his most important and enduring contributions. Those two examples demonstrate just how far beyond reasonable bounds coverage in this article has gotten. GRBerry 17:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Cmt - First, WP:BLP does not prohibit including things that might show the subject in a bad light; it merely requires attribution to a reliable source. Also, I've see WP:UNDUEWEIGHT thrown around so often on this page that even a lone six-word sentence on a issue was axed. That's ridiculous. There is clearly POV all around. Second, WP:CONCENSUS does not trump reliable sources. "Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority." Thus, mob rule is not the way things work here. Personally, I've given up trying to contribute to this page. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Nobody (at least not me) talking about eliminating this stuff entirely. I have no problem with "controversies" so long as they're neutrally worded and appropriately weighted. What we're talking about is that the detail and discussions belong in the subarticles, with appropriately-weighted summaries being brought to this article per Wikipedia:Summary style. Kelly ^hi! 18:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Part of the reason due weight versus undue weight has had to be discussed so much is the number of editors who want to put everything about their favorite issue in the main article. If new, these are editors who don't understand proper use of summary style. Another part of the reason is the editors who are erroneously believing that everything which can be sourced reliably (or sometimes even unreliably) must be included. These are editors who are confused on the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions; as being sourcable is a necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion. If only experienced non-partisan editors were working here, these discussions and explanations wouldn't be necessary and you wouldn't see them as much. GRBerry 18:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

My only comment is that we should not be using quasi-voting. If you have something to add to the debate, by all means, comment, but the use of endorse tends to lead to violating WP:DEMOCRACY.

Oh, and I do not particularly stand behind my "compromise" edit. Whatever solution can get the best consensus is fine with me. I just did it because I feel that edit wars should not have a winner, even a temporary one. Homunq (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone care about sources? I should note that this is the first time in this entire debate, which has gone on for hours, that Hobartimus has brought in any source that does not mention Wasilla. It is written by the bridge toll authority, a source that would make money from the bridge and wants to be in the Governor's favor and even that source DOES mention Wasilla here (http://www.knikarmbridge.com/faqs.html) outside H's paragraph. Balance H's first source with all the other sources I have noted: the Associated Press, the Anchorage Daily News, the Washington Times, the Congressional Quarterly, the Boston Globe, various Alaska newspapers, AND the present mayor of Wasilla, Alaska also say that a major reason for the bridge was an alternate route to connect Anchorage to Wasilla. Indeed, EVERY SINGLE SOURCE ON THE ISSUE mentions Wasilla somewhere. If anyone wants to their own research -- which is the only basis until now I've heard for refusing the multiple sources -- they should note on Google Maps that there is not a single named city, town, village, settlement, or burg anywhere between Anchorage and Wasilla that would be connected by the bridge. I realize that development is an issue and I included it in the simple original phrase:

proposed bridge crossing Knik Arm to spur development and provide an alternate route from Anchorage to Wasilla

The statement is accurate, it's not undue. One could add "in the region" after development if you want. But no one's trying to write a book here. There's a reason why every single source on the bridge mentions Wasilla. That's a major purpose of the bridge. (But the original version doesn't say "major"). I should also note that this language has sat still for almost 2 weeks of contentious edit warring, so I'm clearly not the only one with this view.GreekParadise (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

GreekParadise, the whole point of this conversation is that your arguments probably belong at Talk:Knik Arm Bridge. When that article achieves consensus on the issue, this article should only include an appropriately-weighted mention, per Wikipedia:Summary style. Kelly ^hi! 18:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. I think it's now established now that my version is sourced and the current version is not. No source says "to allow development of Anchorage." That is in the current article and has no basis in any of the sources. For pages and pages, editors were arguing based on their own research that I was incorrect about sources. I'm glad that is resolved. The new argument is that it's too long for a summary page. I note returning the phrase to its original form: "to spur development and provide an alternate route from Anchorage to Wasilla" is only 12 words. The Hobartimus version "to allow development of Anchorage" is only five words but is demonstrably false and not supported by ANY source anywhere. Should we change five words of newly-inserted false content to return it to the twelve words of original true content that no one disputed for two weeks? I think we should.GreekParadise (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

And if it's OK with you, Kelly, since folks are mostly discussing the Anchorage-Wasilla connection here and not the other three changes Hobartimus made without agreement, I'm going to continue to add sections on the other three changes at the bottom, starting with the airport. Is there agreement that the inaccurate Hobartimus change on the airport be reverted back? See discussion below.GreekParadise (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. The purpose of the bridge, per the FAQ you linked, is The project is being developed to create an efficient link between the operations and infrastructure of the two ports; build an alternate north-south emergency response and disaster evacuation route; establish the transportation infrastructure for existing and projected population and economic growth; and implement the Alaska legislative mandate to construct a bridge crossing of Knik Arm.[70] Nothing about Wasilla. Kelly ^hi! 18:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the part about Wasilla in the FAQs. Maybe you missed it: "The logical terminus for the crossing on the Mat-Su Borough side is the Point MacKenzie Road near Port MacKenzie that connects to the existing Knik-Goose Bay Road, and ultimately to the Parks Highway at Wasilla." But why are you bringing back in discussion of sources here? Which is it? If it's reliable sources, I can rule it out as an issue because you know I have dozens of them, and you have, at best, one biased (written by the very toll authority that wants the bridge and even your source mentions Wasilla). You don't dispute the Associated Press, the Anchorage Daily News, the Washington Times, the Congressional Quarterly, the Boston Globe, various Alaska newspapers, AND the present mayor of Wasilla, do you? Here are the sources again. These are just a few. If people want 10 more, I'll give them.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=weeklyreport-000002944951

http://community.adn.com/node/131399 (you've read)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/05/palin-yet-to-say-no-thanks-to-other-big-earmarks/

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/09/14/for_palin_political_issues_still_unresolved_in_alaska/?page=2

http://www.sitnews.us/0908Viewpoints/091608_joan_beraldi.html

I'd like to rule out the source question as a red herring, since I have many many reliable sources and the current words that are in the article right now HAVE NO SOURCE WHATSOEVER BACKING THEM. There is no source of which I'm aware that mentions "development in Anchorage." Hobartimus made that up. And his made-up language is in the present article until someone (not me) reverts.GreekParadise (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Once we have dismissed "sources" as an argument, we get to the question of "undue." Here is the original paragraph (that I did not write, btw) that Kelly deleted:

Palin still supports the second bridge, which was proposed in 2005 , through a request in earmark funds. 42 Million has been spent on the planning process. The 600 million dollar bridge and highway project links Juneau with Palins home town of Wasilla with its population of 7000 people. She did ask for a review of the bridge's financing plans and expressed concerns about the financial risks for the state. Critics state that the bridge is an expensive project , doesn't help commuters, doesn't help create jobs, it may drive the beluga whale to extinction, and serves the Govenors home town of Wasilla. John McCain derided the project calling it a "monstrosity" that was "terrifying in its fiscal consequences." [112]

Even though I liked the original paragraph, after Kelly removed it, I brought back 12 words. Now those 12 words--admittedly truthful and well sourced--have been replaced by Hobartimus with five words that everyone admits are completely unsourced. If editors don't like my 12 words, I am in complete support for bringing back the original paragraph.GreekParadise (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we understand that you are in support, since you've built gigantic walls of text on this page repeating yourself over and over, and insisting that if others don't also repeat themselves on this page, you have consensus. The point is that other editors have concerns about undue weight and problems with NPOV that you simply refuse to address. Kelly ^hi! 19:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, how do you propose including the alternate route to Wasilla but weighting it appropriately so that the information is accurate and NPOV, but not too long? Got any ideas? I thought we did a great idea on Gravina Island "(population 50), where Ketchikan's Airport lies". In six words, we conveyed both sides of the dispute. Do you have any solution to show both sides other than throwing away multiple reliable sources? Would you prefer a more direct route: "Some have criticized Palin because the bridge provides an alternate route from Anchorage to Wasilla, while others note that the bridge would spur development in Knik Arm"? I thought I said that very thing, short and sweet in my original:

"to spur development and provide an alternate route between cities such as Anchorage and Wasilla"GreekParadise (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, I agree on the repetition and the walls of text. However, it is baffling to see you say that GreekParadise does not address "undue" when they just said: we get to the question of "undue.". As to NPOV, I have yet to see any argument about NPOV that is not based in UNDUE, and doubt that one could be posed. Homunq (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that the "alternate route to Wasilla" claim is not included in the FAQ on the bridge, and anyone with common sense looking at a map of the area can see why it's not stated as a purpose of the bridge, because such a claim is ridiculous on its face. Wasilla is nowhere near the bridge, and there is already a direct highway route from Anchorage to Wasilla. The "alternate route" claimed benefit is so far down in the weeds that it would barely rate a mention in Knik Arm Bridge or Governorship of Sarah Palin, much less here. Kelly ^hi! 19:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention false. The bridge by itself does not provide any sort of access or connection to Wasilla, it would need many Km of high quality road in addition AND the trip would be longer than the already existing road (depending on the shape of the future road possibly much longer). The Bridge and a huge long road together would provide access not the bridge by itself. The Bridge by itself is only good for allowing the city of Anchorage to start developing and building up on the other side and links to the Port MacKenzie area. The statement that the bridge provides a link between these two is a clear twisting of the facts and is designed as a misrepresentation so that the reader has the false image of Anchorage at one end of the Bridge and Wasilla at the other end of the bridge, you cross the bridge and you are there. Any look at the map shows that Wasilla has nothing to do with this bridge its nowhere near it and it wouldn't even get one KM shorter route to Anchorage. Not to mention the bridge was proposed in 1955 many years before Palin was even born. By selectively including and omitting these facts an agenda emerges. Administrator GBerry said regarding this Anchorage-Wasilla issue "Please don't try to push unreliable crud into the article" to GreekParadise and I agree with this assessment. Hobartimus (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's one source, the toll arm authority. How about the other five sources and the mayor?GreekParadise (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's my proposal, based in part on what Collect did.

Original: "to spur development and provide an alternate route between cities such as Anchorage and Wasilla"

Original + Collect: "to spur development and provide an alternate route between cities such as Anchorage and Wasilla, although Wasilla is not near the bridge"

"Near" is kind of a weasel word.

How about:

"to spur development in the region and provide an alternate route between cities such as Anchorage (5 miles from bridge) and Wasilla (40 miles away)"

That way we don't have to argue about near or far.GreekParadise (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

How about being reasonable, and agreeing to drop all mention of Wasilla because any attempt to mention it is an attempt to make our readers draw false conclusions. Your continues advocacy for such blantant untruths amounts to soapboxing. GRBerry 20:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

GRBerry, everything I do is backed up by many reliable sources. And yours is just your own opinion. You haven't given a single source. My advocacy is for truth. What's yours for? I resent your implication that my reliable sources are advocacy and your personal opinion is somehow true, even though you can't find anything to back it up.GreekParadise (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, God, enough already. Don't repeat yourself over and over again, we've already heard it a million times. We're tired of the same preaching over and over again. The current version is way more neutral and contains the same factual information. Kelly ^hi! 00:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Is she really a journalist?

Wikipedia lists journalist as her profession, but in lots of other languages this is not mentioned. And in fact she is never worked in her life as a journalist! Yes, she has done a degree in journalism, but she worked only as a sports reporter, which is very far from journalism. So this is should be gone, somebody wanted to color her profession list..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.244.150 (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

sports reporter is journalism. maybe not high grade journalism, but that's a subjective arguement. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This has come up before. I guess an example would be Hillary Rodham Clinton, which states that she is a lawyer, despite the fact that she has not practiced in many years. Palin has a degree in journalism, and that was her initial profession. Kelly ^hi! 20:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

So why not list Sports Reporter as her profession? That would clear up any confusion. Bristolsbabydaddy (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Because that sounds like trivializing to some, and I imagine there would be resistance on POV grounds. *shrug* FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 21:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin online popularity benefits the McCain campaign

"Nearly 1.2 million people read Palin's Wikipedia page in the first 36 hours after Republican presidential candidate John McCain announced she was his VP choice, according to Web analytics company Compete.com Palin's page was the most popular Wikipedia page for all of August, even though her candidacy was only announced August 29." ..."Palin's online popularity might also be fueling the higher number of female Web surfers visiting JohnMcCain.com. Prior to the addition of Palin to the Republican ticket, 48 percent of visitors to McCain's site were female; since the Palin announcement, female visitors account for 52 percent of traffic." [71] --Hapsala (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... so it went from 48% to 52%? And the margin of error is? And since when can a website tell if you're male or female? This is some scary stuff. MastCell ^Talk 16:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Intresting point about the male/female "statistic". Still something might be appropriate along these lines in case decent sources come around. A short sentence about the magnitude of Wikipedia traffic perhaps? Hobartimus (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Is CNet a reliable source? Aprock (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, they can tell your gender because of the DNA readers embedded in the space between the keys of your keyboard. Wearing tinfoil finger caps prevents this. Kaisershatner (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Odd (mis)use of sources

In the "Governor of Alaska" section, we state that Palin has sometimes opposed the Republican establishment, especially with Ted Stevens. To support this maverickness, we cite an article entitled... Campaign money hurts Palin's outsider image. That article's thrust is that Palin received donations from the same "fundraising scheme" at the center of Ted Stevens' corruption indictment. The article explicitly states: "Palin didn't reach the governor's office picking fights with the Senate's longest-serving Republican." The thrust of the article is that: "The donations aren't evidence of corruption, and Palin is not among the lawmakers under investigation in the VECO case. But they undermine arguments that Palin has broken from Alaska's Republican machine, including Stevens."

We are using the article to support a claim that Palin has "broken" with Stevens and cut a separate path. But the article's explicit and implicit message is actually largely the opposite: that Palin received money from many of the same sources, and that she has strategically allied with Stevens when politically beneficial to her. The article's message is that the record "undermines arguments that Palin has broken from Alaska's Republican machine." (emphasis mine) Why are we citing the article to support a diametrically opposite claim? MastCell ^Talk 17:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought this up, Mast- this is happening in several places in the article, as quotes are cherry-picked to support a statement, even if the thrust of the source article is the opposite. This all has to be looked at and corrected. Similarly, this article is including quotes in the footnotes to support individual points but then using the "ref name" system which attaches that quote to any time the ref is involved, even if that quote is not verifying the additional places in the article it is attached to. This gives an inaccurate, unbalanced presentation. I propose that we remove all such quotes within references and let our readers look at the sources themselves and thereby get the entirety of what the source is saying, not the carefully tweezed quote. I've duplicated a few sources with different quotes as a temporary fix, but I think we need to look at this. Further, today I removed from the text a quote that was actually a quote from an article, but read as if it were a direct quote from MOnegan, which is was not. We have to be much more careful about how we use quotes everywhere in this article and this needs to be fixed. Tvoz/talk 22:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridge to Nowhere - Airport on Gravina Island

The original statement on the Gravina Island aiport is here:

a proposed bridge connecting Ketchikan to Gravina Island (population 50) where its airport lies;

An editor removed it. I left an hour to discuss it on the talk page and when no reason was given, I reverted it. Then the same editor reverted it a second time, changing it for the second time to this language:

a proposed bridge connecting Ketchikan to Ketchikan International Airport and Gravina Island (population 50)

I believe the original statement is more accurate. The proposed bridge does NOT connect Ketchikan directly to its airport. It goes to the shore of Gravina Island. Then a substantial access road on Gravina Island (mentioned later in the article at a cost of $25 million) goes from the bridge to the airport. I believe the original statement is the correct way to say it. The new way is not only inaccurate; it may create confusion about the access road. If you agree, please express support and/or revert it back as I cannot.

Another option I would support would be :a proposed bridge connecting Ketchikan to Gravina Island (population 50) where Ketchikan's airport lies GreekParadise (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we please keep the bridge discussion centralized instead of forking into multiple conversations? Jeez. Kelly ^hi! 17:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I was purposely forking to separate out the four issues on which Hobartimus and I disgree. Editors may agree on some and disagree on some. This makes it clear and easy for anyone to read and review. (I told you I was going to do this in our discussion on my talk page about 45 minutes ago.)GreekParadise (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Oops, when I wrote this, there was no discussion above. Now that it's there we can stay there. Sorry.GreekParadise (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Turns out the discussion above mostly deals with the Knik Arm Bridge. For simplicity sake, let's deal with each change discretely. What are folks' views on the airport change?

A simple Wikilink to Gravina Island Bridge, without further exposition as to the reason for the bridge, is sufficient. People who want to know more can read that article. If details on Palin's support/oppositions are included in that article, a summary would be appropriate in Governorship of Sarah Palin. The permanent population of Ketchikan Island is not really an item of interest in the Sarah Palin BLP. Kelly ^hi! 18:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What about a proposed bridge connecting Ketchikan to it's airport on Gravina Island ?? Grsz^talk 18:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I definitely support just cutting out any explanation, since it is obvious from context that the worth is questioned and any details are at the sub-article. If we do keep the explanation, I think GreekParadise's version is more accurate. Homunq (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's great that in only six words "(population 50) where its airport lies," we manage to show both sides of a dispute which is detailed in the sub-article. That's why I like the original draft.GreekParadise (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The article was changed by another editor to imply that the DYW bridge would be part of a route from Anchorage to Wasilla. I added the fact (sourced elsewhere) that Wasilla is not proximate to the bridge. I hope this is sufficient to stop some of this sruff. Collect (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Collect, that comment belongs in the discussion above, about the other bridge. I understand, it is hard to keep this straight. Homunq (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You beat me to the punch, Homunq. I was going to say "No doubt, Wasilla is FAR from Gravina Island :-D but I think you wanted to comment on the section above."GreekParadise (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry -- the title of this section is plural as well, and I thought it therefore applied to plural bridges ... and, as far as I can tell, has precisely the same interested parties, for good or ill. If it is to be restricted to a single bridge, then the plural is misleading. Changed DYP to DYW while here in any case. Does anyone think that the entire Bridge stuff should be edited down to 3 or 4 sentences rather than dancing on the head of a pin about Wasilla being reached by the bridge? (Rhetorical question, I fear) Collect (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Changed to singular. I think (hope/pray) that this tiny issue in this subsection has been resolved.GreekParadise (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I still disagree that the permanent population is relevant. Maybe include the number of employees at the airport? Kelly ^hi! 19:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

My comments stand -- I suppose changing the name after the confusion arose will confuse still more people. So far, it appears the sections have exactly the same denizens, and some of the same issues are raised in both sections. Might we just actually discuss the issues raised instead of minutiae? Specifically -- ought this entire bridge stuff be editted down to a bare minimum instead of engulfing the entire article? It is running into COATRACK status rapidly. Collect (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a two or three-sentence summary of the issue as described in Governorship of Sarah Palin would be appropriate, per Wikipedia:Summary style. Kelly ^hi! 19:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

As a draft, although I could not fully summarize the section under Governorship of Sarah Palin in three sentences, I ended up with the following (which would be preceded by a link to Governorship of Sarah Palin:

In Palin's 2006 gubernatorial campaign, she supported the building of a Gravina Island Bridge, which had been nicknamed the "Bridge to Nowhere." The project was attacked as an example of pork barrel spending. As a result Congress stripped it of an earmark allocation. The money previously earmarked for this and another project, the Knik Arm Bridge, also known as Don Young's Way, was to be made available for transportation projects generally.[77]

Palin changed her mind on the bridge, her Communications Director said, when “she saw that Alaska was being perceived as taking from the country and not giving, and that impression bothered her and she wants to change it. … I think that Sarah Palin is someone who has the courage to re-evaluate situations as they developed.”[73

With, of course, corrected footnote numbering.

I would like to hope that this is shorter than any current version, and covers all the pros and cons involved. Collect (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Something like that would be ideal for the Governor section. The current political controversy would be suitable for the campaign article. Kelly ^hi! 20:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I m honored. Anyone who wishes to place it there is to be thanked! Collect (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I did some rephrasing and shortening. Hopefully it will not be considered a problem.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Certainly an improvement, as far as I can tell. Collect (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I think the current section is abominable. It takes the hard, considered careful work and compromise of 20 editors over two weeks and throws it in the trash can. But I won't revert today. I'll leave it to others to fight my battles. Hopefully someone will fix it. And I encourage someone to do so. If not, coming tomorrow, I'll want someone to justify any reason, besides POV, why you would take the most important fact anything discusses with regard to Palin and bowdlerize it. Because if you're going to throw away the Bridge to Nowhere section, we're gonna have to throw away about half the rest of the article as "undue." I mean, is the hacking of her email account really more important than the thing she's most famous for? Controversial bridges????? LOL. Could we underplay it any more? Could we throw any others well-known titles in hopes readers don't find the truth? I have an idea. Why not just call the Lewinsky Affair "Clinton's controversial friend"? And in the Nixon article, let's call Watergate, a "mishap at a Washington hotel" GreekParadise (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Greekparadise, can you identify a particular change that seems particularly atrocious? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Start with the title. Why would you give up Bridge to Nowhere? I'll get the rest tomorrow.GreekParadise (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, I thought it looked stupid to use quotation marks as well as parentheses in a section header. There's nothing nefarious about it. If you can think of another heading that doesn't use quote marks and parentheses, then that would be fine with me. Not one of the cited sources used a title containing parentheses. Plus, this section of our article covers two bridges, one of which is "rarely" referred to as the "Bridge to Nowhere", so it seems absurd to use a section title that rarely refers to the section's subject-matter. I'll see if the section header can be modified to address your concern.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason why John McCain is (or needs to be) mentioned in this summary? Aprock (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to go ahead and remove McCain from this summary in a bit. If someone feels that McCain's position on this is vital in the biography, please chime in here. Aprock (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The current title "bridges that allegedly go nowhere" is absurd. The story is about "bridge controversy," and that should be sufficient. There is no need for any title other than "Bridge controversy" unless one is invested with using a particular epithet for the bridges which is iterated in the body of the section. If the title were "Bridge(s) to Nowhere" then that term should not be repeated in the body of the section. Unless, of course, the aim is to increase character size of the article -- which is already too big by half. Collect (talk) 23:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The title is rather idiotic. Grsz^talk 23:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Collect, I'm sorry you don't like the new section header. Let's work on it. I think the main point of Greek Paradise was that we need a header that people will immediately recognize as referring to the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere". So, that's what I was aiming for, without the ridiculous use of parens in the heading (which none of the cited sources use). Although I initially wrote "Bridge Controversy", I changed it to "Bridges that allegedly go nowhere" in order to address the concern of Greek Paradise. Do you acknowledge that he has a legitimate concern?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I can live with the current "Bridge controversy", but you'll have to persuade Greek Paradise.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The POV usage of "Bridge(s) to Nowhere" has been made excessively clear (comments which might have been viewed as attacking anyone are being totally avoided). The "RtN" name has attracted material which is wrong and errant, and iterated to boot. If we remove that name from discussion, maybe, just maybe, this section can get stable. The only section title which will now work is the simple one "Bridge Controversy." Collect (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Current version looks good in that it presents all the same factual information as the previous version, but in a far more neutral way, without the "gotcha" or "ZOMG HYPOCRITE" attitude. Let people read the facts, follow the links to the subarticles and sources, and make up their own minds. Kelly ^hi! 00:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge subsections

I haven't been following all of this earmark and "Bridge to Nowhere" discussion. However, it seems clear that the "Federal funding" subsection ought not to be separate from the "Budget and spending" subsection. I'll go ahead and move the "Federal funding" subsection" under the "Budget and Spending" subsection.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Fannie and Freddy

Can someone explains what Palin meant when she said this "Well, you know, first, Fannie and Freddie, different because quasi-government agencies there where government had to step in because the adverse impacts all across our nation, especially with home owners, is just too impacting.” in her interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity. I would like to add her viewpoints on this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It might help to read up on them. The wiki article is sparse, but maybe that will change now that they are on the headlines. Fannie Mae grew out of FDR's New Deal, a response to the great depression. Between 1954 and 1970 it was phased from being government instituion to being a publicly traded company with a "special" relationship with the US government. Here's a timeline for the curious: http://www.alliemae.org/historyoffanniemae.html. Aprock (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there an interview transcript up yet? (I don't think there is, because there is more of the interview to air yet tonight.) Yeah, there's some stuff from that interview should be added. I do understand her point about dumb government backing of those mortgage corporations, which are going to end up costing the average taxpayer a lot of money. Thanks, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd! :) Kelly ^hi! 20:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget LBJ, who quasi-privatized them in 1968. Seems like either the government should be responsible or not.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There must be some reason why Fannie and Freddy had such a special status, did they contribute to political campaigns by any chance? Hobartimus (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think they did! I even think that some of their former notable leaders are working for a particular campaign! Kelly ^hi! 20:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there any evil that can't be traced directly to a Democrat? :) And yes, Freddie Mac did make illegal campaign contributions; they paid a then-record fine to the FEC in 2003 for funneling money to Michael Oxley, Republican of Ohio, then chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Freddie Mac also gave generously to the Republican Governors Association, which to its credit eventually decided to return the money ([72]). Back in the days when soft money was legal, Freddie Mac was the 2nd largest contributor to the National Republican Party, second only to PhRMA ([73]). MastCell ^Talk 22:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi - I'd say I need more context to figure out what is being said. The word "different" is the first clue - different than what? The antecedent is missing from this selection. Hobartimus - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac started as government agencies, then were privatized and sold stock on the stock market by LBJ to pay for the Vietnam war, and have been heavy government lobbiers ever since - in part because they were more regulated than the average lender. Although prior to this month there was not a legal obligation on the part of the government to cover any failure they encountered, there was a widespread market expectation that the goverment would in fact cover any failure. GRBerry 20:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Swamps and wetlands

While the concept of "wetlands" has made the expression somewhat anachronistic, I'd just like to note that working on this article sometimes feels like draining a swamp. That said, it seems like this article seems to be gradually moving toward NPOV.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Palins Church not mainstream Assembly of God

Sarah Palin's congregation is not part of the world wide pentecostal denomination known as Assembly of God but is affiliated with New Apostolic Reformation, of "Third Wave". This movement is NOT the same as Pentecostalism of the Asssemblies of God —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamkrattkc (talk • contribs)

Please see the refutation to your error above in #Palin's Church. Repeating falsehoods does not make them more credible, it just makes you less credible. GRBerry 21:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Pay cut as mayor disputed

[74]

I realize that that is not an WP:RS, but it makes some very specific claims about an article in The Frontiersman, which is. The frontiersman does not have online archives going back that far. For now, the safest thing to do is just remove the claim, which I have done. I left a somewhat obvious choppiness in the prose, somebody else should probably fix that. Homunq (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The safest thing would of been to get consensus before removing it as that statement has consensus when it was added. Theosis4u (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I read the link you provided a "talking points memo" which was a bit oddly sounding for a title and also checked the edit you made [75]. What seems to be the problem what do you want to change the only thing I found was a $61,200 figure in your link what would be an exact 10% pay cut. It seems the council actually passed a resolution to achieve this so this must be researchable. Hobartimus (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The given link gives this storyline: Mayoral pay was $64000 shortly before Palin came to office. The city council voted to raise it to $68000 over her objections (that is, she voted against the raise). Shortly after taking office, she got it cut to $61,200. Three years later, it was back at $68000, and nobody has a clear story as to when or why that happened. It could be that the $61,200 never took effect. All of this is allegedly referenced to reliable, but inaccessible, sources. If any of it is true, the article was incorrect as it stood.

Since this is BLP, the safest thing to do with a disputed fact is to leave it out, not to leave it in. Homunq (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Do any of the reliable or unreliable sources cast any doubt on the proposition that she sought to lower her salary from $68,000 to $64,000? If not, then let's allow the article to say so, citing the New York Times reference that has been deleted.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes let's start researching this, I see the problem with the conflicting 61.2 vs 64 numbers, however I'd say that how much was the pay before Palin took office really has no relevance, when she took office her pay was 68. We don't know if they'd changed the pay 10 times during the rule of the previous mayor or not and that's the previous mayor's story. I didn't check what this source was whose talking points were these? Isn't "talking point" with some negative connotations what's this site some sort of blog you read or what really? Couldn't figure it out what it was. I'll start looking for some sources. Hobartimus (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems fair. Except of course for the exact numbers. the NYT says she cut to $64000, the source says "the McCain campaign provided us with minutes from a Wasilla City Council meeting from November 13, 1996, which appear to show that Palin introduced and passed some sort of measure to reduce her salary by 10 percent." - which means $61,200. Since this seems like a more specific documentation, I would be OK with "sought to reduce her salary to $61,200" or "... by 10%". Then when people ask, "well, did she or didn't she?" we'd have to say "not sure."

As for the connotations of the name of the source: just read their wikipedia entry. It's a partisan blog, but it does have a staff of professional journalists, and has won awards. They would hardly be making something like this up, particularly because they've specified their sources to the point it would be easy to check offline. Homunq (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The "dispute" is from Talkingpoints.com, a quite partisan site. The evidence appears to show that she could not reduce her salary for the last fiscal year because it would be the salary of the next mayor -- $68,000. Up to that point, she had drawn a lower salary. Had she kept the lower salary for part of the fiscal year, it might have been binding on her successor. Fiscal years running from 1 July to 30 June are not uncommon, and do not coincide with Mayoral terms. Since this simple explanation fits all the known facts, and the statement from Palin given in "talkingpoints" it is likely to be the correct interpretation. We know from the Wasilla annual audited report that "administrative salaries" for 2000 were budgeted at $167,005 and came in under budget at $161,594. Several sources back the ordinance being passed for her pay cut as well. I am inclined to think the talkingpoints memo is the problem, and not a valid source. There is sufficient evidence to state that she had a pay-cut ordinance passed, which is not disputed by talkingpoints.com and I would suggest that the undisputed fact be inserted in the article. Collect (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What are your sources for all of this? It definitely clarifies the matter, if you can give sources. Homunq (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasilla official documents are at http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=136 . One can track administrative salaries compared with city council salaries if one spends the time. A cursory look supports the claim that the administrative salaries (presumably including secretarial salaries etc.) showed a different rate of change than did the city council salaries from 1996 to 1998. I am not a CPA, but I would bet that a person skilled in accounting could determine with some accuracy what happened. The Wasilla newspaper, alas, does not seem to have archives from that period searchable online, which was my first hope for solid material. Collect (talk) 23:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

cool. What about your claim that she had to increase her salary to set a precedent for the next mayor? Homunq (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Even the TPM site says "Two and a half months after I was elected, the new resolution kicked in, but I took a pay cut down to $61,200. Then I had to accept the $68,000 since the last fiscal year started." I look especially at the last part "since the last fiscal year started" to indicate that the fiscal year was important, else why mention it? Collect (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, but I think you were reading a lot into the word "last" up above. I think it just means FY 99 in context. Homunq (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)The unreliable source says: "When she came in as mayor, she passed the ordinance which brought her salary down to $61,200."

The reliable source says: "Ms. Palin, who had campaigned promising to cut her own full-time salary, reduced it from about $68,000 to about $64,000, but she also hired a city administrator, John Cramer, adding a salary to the payroll."

Thus, it would be consistent with both to say that she: "supported an ordinance that reduced her $68,000 salary by several thousand dollars." I'll insert that.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, that seems to be consistent with all sources the exact number can wait, Humunq is right that we need to get stuff right if we put it in, there is no rush here. Hobartimus (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I found this old article reprinted recently [76] but it has no number except that the salary of Mayor is 68 000. Hobartimus (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any dispute that she cut her salary, the only question is by how much. The sentence about cutting her salary should be restored without any specific numbers.--Paul (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The article does cast doubt on whether she ever earned only 61.2, given that three years later she was earning 68. However, the only reasons given for that doubt are the later number and the fact that the McCain campaign didn't do their research for them. I'd say we can discount this doubt. Homunq (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it turns out that the established consensus would seem to be that TPM is a WP:RS. Therefore, I would support using the source to say that she lowered her salary but that it went back up. If we need to explain the later rise, the best we have is "The pay hikes were apparently due to mandated salary increases that the City Council refused to overrule, though that's not certain." which I would accept phrasing as "she lowered her salary,(nyt ref) but by 1999 the city council had raised it back.(tpm ref)" (Note that I am only suggesting trusting TPM not to lie about the contents of The Frontiersman, which is clearly supported by the WP:RS/N consensus cited. Note further that this wording is shorter than the current "supported an ordinance".) Homunq (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd urge that the details be put in the sub-article, rather than the main article.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. But it is misleading to say she took a pay cut, then not mention that the pay was back up two years later. Really I am getting tired of UNDUE arguments about things smaller than a sentence. Homunq (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

TPM is not RS for a BLP. To wit: "When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used." TPM does not meet this criterion. Sorry to burst anyone's bubble. Collect (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops. You're right. The fronteirsman is, but not available online. How very 20th century. Would be great if someone from Wasilla went to the archives and pulled the article and added the ref to wikipedia (if they had a title, that would prove they'd seen it, since TPM just gives the date). But I'm not holding my breath.

So, I guess we're going to have to go back to the "supported an ordinance" language. It's a pity, but I simply cannot support "lowered her salary" if we have a non-BLP RS saying that the lower salary lasted two years (FY 97 and 98). Homunq (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)