Talk:Sarah Palin

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

Mayor of Wasilla

I added the fact that Palin is the former mayor of Wasilla, Alaska to her initial introduction in this article. It is of note that she is running for governor, but if that were not true then she would still be notable as a politician as the former Wasilla mayor. Michaelh2001 07:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Commissioner Dismissal section heavily slanted in favor of Palin

• It does not mention that this is an ongoing scandal. Generally, this sort of thing is under a 'Controversies' section in Wiki biographies.
• It says that Wooten was 'involved in' a divorce and child custody battle, which could mean he's a paper pusher at a law firm. In fact, he was the husband of her sister. He's an ex-brother-in-law.

NOT Governor yet

Pallin hasn't taken office yet. She shouldn't be listed as the 11th Governor. GoodDay 16:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Alaska governors take office on the first Monday in December of the year they are elected. Gov. Palin took office yesterday in Fairbanks (readers please note the datestamps of these comments). This was the first time since statehood an Alaska gubernatorial inauguration was held outside of Juneau, the state's capital. McGehee 17:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Needs editing?

Governor Murkowski did appoint Palin to serve as a commissioner on the state's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which she served on during 2003-2004, but later resigned, in protest over her perceived "lack of ethics" by fellow Alaskan Republican leaders. This included the state party's chairman, Randy Ruedrich, a fellow commissioner, who was accused of doing work for the party on public time and providing a sensitive email to a lobbyist. She filed formal complaints against both Ruedrich and former state Attorney General Gregg Renkes, who was eventuallly found not guilty.

• Why did Republican leaders think SHE was unethical. The wikipedia article seems to say that Randy Ruedrich was unethical, not Gov. Palin.HumanThing 00:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone put a picture of this girl up? SHES SMOKIN!

picture

can someone please put up a picture of her?-Bentley4

Well, we now have a picture of her playing high school basketball, so I suppose a normal picture isn't necessary.</sarcasm> Wikipedia in recent months has become probably the worst place on the internet to find pictures of living individuals. It's really completely ridiculous. john k 06:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree. Publicity photo's, HQ, made available on their web site - and we can't use them. And people don't even have the guts to point out problems on their own. Just send out the Nazi-bot to do their dirty work. I used to edit every day. Now maybe once every couple of months and nothing major. </vent> --Geneb1955 (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

In the Family and Personal Background section there needs to be a small edit to insert "organization", it should say she was head of the school organization Fellowship of Christian Athletes.

Relevant links

Here's a place to record links that might be useful in this article.

• "The Most Popular Governor: Alaska's Sarah Palin is the GOP's newest star", by Fred Barnes, The Weekly Standard, 16 July 2007
  (“Palin is a conservative who only last month vetoed 13 percent of the state's proposed budget for capital projects. The cuts, the Anchorage Daily News said, ‘may be the biggest single-year line-item veto total in state history.’”) CWC 11:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• "The GOP's North Star" by Patrick Ruffini (a GOP activist/columnist/blogger, so not a WP:RS), Townhall.com, 29 September 2007
  (“In a small state that generally votes Republican, the divide between Alaska's Republican elected officials could not be more clear. Palin was elected as a whistleblower, and routinely rails against the state's transactional Republican establishment.”) CWC 11:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Problems with bare links for references

I have thoroughly fixed and updated the links used as references for this article because they had quite a few faults. The essential problem is the use of bare links; i.e., a URL with no other identifying information. These frequently break, and without data like news article titles or website page titles, it is often impossible even to know where to look for a replacement source. (Archive sites like the Wayback Machine or Google sometimes help, but often do not.)

As an example, here are three problems I couldn't easily fix:

1. "Palin canceled an eleven-mile gravel road…"
   • http://ktva.com/alaska/ci_4847783 — broken link; no article title to search for; prose has no clear set of search terms with which I was able to find pertinent information
   • http://www.alaskareport.com/z45013.htm — although this is used correctly elsewhere in the article, this source says nothing clearly connected to the written prose
2. "…used her veto power to make the second largest cuts of the construction budget…"
   • http://www.gov.state.ak.us/omb/07_OMB/budget/index.htm — this is an index of information, not a specific source for the statements made in the article text
3. "[Palin] has denied rumors of running against incumbent senator Ted Stevens in next year's Republican primary."
   • Republican vs Republican in Alaska, AOL News — a opinion blog that does not mention any words from Palin, only citing her earlier election in passing
   • Conservative lawmaker’s call for GOP resignations gets mixed response, Fairbanks Daily News-Miner — the article referenced by the blog; it also only mentions Palin in passing and says nothing of her plans

Sources must provide the exact basis on which the article text is written. A document or webpage that is merely a starting point, requiring further research to find the claim made in the article, is not a source. Therefore, I have replaced these links where necessary with {{fact}} tags. If I weren't just cleaning up citations, I'd probably replace the various blog citations with fact tags as well. Blogs are almost never reliable sources.

The main point to remember is that bare links should be never be used as sources for Wikipedia articles. One doesn't necessarily have to create a fully filled-out citation, but should at least include basic title and/or descriptive information (e.g., date, author) with the reference. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sarah cancelled the road outside of Juneau...

... here is an article that gives a fairly decent explanation. However I have no clue how to do the edit thing on Wikipedia so maybe someone else can go to the article, verify the information and them post it as the citation?

http://www.seakayakermag.com/2007/Oct07/Environment01.htm

Thanks. 64.4.228.13 (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Related AfD Duscussion

I have nominated the article on Sarah Palin's husband, Todd Palin for deletion. --TommyBoy (talk) 06:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That article was deleted and redirected to the Sarah Palin on March 15.--JayJasper (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Alaska Gas Inducement Act Section

The entire section's wording seems to be strongly biased against the act. The neutrality is questionable - the section reads like a diatribe against the act, not an informational article about the act. The "references" link to blog or personal websites, not to reputable sources.

Consequently, I have deleted the entire section. TRosenbaum (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"Gay friends?"

She opposes same-sex marriage, but has gay friends and has otherwise been receptive to gay and lesbian concerns about discrimination.[17]

What does it matter if she "has gay friends?" How is this relevant to her polices toward homosexuals? I deleted the phrase while leaving in her alleged receptivenss to concerns regarding homophobic discrimination, only to find this quickly reverted. Can anyone explain to me how having "gay friends" can affect one's decisions as a leader? I strongly believe that this little phrase lends a POV to the article.Shabeki (talk) 10:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Shabeli, perhaps I can explain and put this into perspective for you. Governor Palin supported amending Alaska's constitution to ban gay marriage, and was/is willing to support allowing the people (not the legislature) to decide if medical benefits should be denied to same sex couples. However, she vetoed legislation that would have denied medical benefits to gay state employees and their partners, since she feels the citizens of Alaska ultimately should make that decision. That being said, Gov. Palin choose to campaign as someone who had gay and lesbian friends and respected homosexuals (see the cited source for more information) and this was newsworthy in her run against Gov Murkowski in the republican primary. This is not a "point of view" statement, it was a legitimate issue in the campaign, as Alaska has a large number of gay and lesbian residents. Again, feel free to read the cited source to gain more information.

I hope this answers your concerns. If not, feel free to tell me what your concern is and hopefully I can help you gain perspective. Best Wishes.

PanzaM22 (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Mike

polar bears

Links are suggested for the polar bears controversy (the suit against listing as endangered). (1) Links are suggested for the legal case. When the decision is in, there a should be a link to that. Meanwhile, I think there should be links on the status of the case. (2) The site should link to the wikipedia polar bear article. Note that the issue of listing for U.S. is somewhat distinct from the issue of whether the polar bear is threatened globally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.67.39 (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

How/Why in the hell is this considered a "controversy"?!? Ynot4tony2 (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Mat Maid controversy topic

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

Oil & Gas Policy Compared to Hugo Chavez

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anchorage Daily News

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

SOCIALIST PROGRAM?

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

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

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

Voice of the Times

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

"Palin and Chavez have a lot in common

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

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

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

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

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

Bloomberg.com

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

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

Anchorage Daily NEws

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

Legislators question Palin's energy voucher plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New photos

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

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

POV and editing by Coemengus

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

Dozens of edits

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

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

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

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

affiliation

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

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

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

Vice Presidential Edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Confirmed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public domain video

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

getting someone fired?

I'm already seeing some shit on CNN about her trying to personally get her ex-brother-in-law fired.

Welcome to the party, pal! Actually that issue has been discussed fairly heavily here lately. Kelly ^hi! 15:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Miss Alaska in lead

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

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

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

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

Pronunciation

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

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

Please link

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

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

Election Results

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

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

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

Jet sale

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

44 year old DNA

So she has a baby at age 44, its a downie, and then she returns to work three days later? Cold. Refrigerator mother. Ten years experience as mayor of a city of wow, 5000 people. And eighteen months as governor of a sparsely populated state. Wow. And sending her son off to be cannon fodder in a month's time.