Talk:Sarah Palin

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

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)

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public domain video

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

Miss Alaska in lead

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

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

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

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

Pronunciation

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

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

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

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

Please link

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

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

Election Results

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

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

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

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

Jet sale

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

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

Text moves

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

Neutrality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Winger,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neither a candidate nor a nominee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Info on Army son

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Something else

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

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

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

campaign or family edits ???

Just wondering. The User Young Trigg has been a user just since yesterday and has only contributed by editing this article. On top of that, one edit is headlined in a rather familiar tone, quoting: - Sarah returned to office three days after giving birth -.

The edits are rather positive in tone, as well.

Someone who knew the pick was coming, prepping the article??? Or am I just too suspicious?

[[User talk:Name|Talk]] (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably nothing. There are plenty of Palin fans who have been advocating this pick for months. Kelly ^hi! 16:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither is it relevant. Talkpages are for improvements in the article, not for general forum-like discussion. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems relevant to me. Just don't think it's worthy of alteration. MonkeyPillow ^pop 16:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

None has ever run for president

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

Nevermind, someone already beat me to erasing the line.

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

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

Removed Section Regarding Husband

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

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

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

article is being hacked !!! please fix photo !

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

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

Seconded

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

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

Please lock this page

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

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

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

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

"hot" governor???

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

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

also

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

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

First Major Female VP Candidate

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

quote with no context

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

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

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

Palin's ethnic heritage?

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

She's obviously of the CumonIwannalaya tribe of indigenous Alaskan peoples with some heavy doses of MILF bloodlines.  ;-) Lawyer2b (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Scandal?

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

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

This is a quote from cnn.com about Sarah Palin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grammar Edit Unsuccessful

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

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

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

Palin said creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public classrooms

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

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

Edits by user "Young Trigg"

I am by no means suggesting that the user who did this is Palins son Trigg, but considering the fact that so many favourable edits was made by this username the day before McCain appointed Palin it makes sense to question who edited this information. No media had this information at the time it was edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekologkonsult (talk • contribs) 17:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)