Talk:Sarah Palin

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

Article incorrectly infers Palin's ethics complaint against Renkes was the major factor in his resignation

In fact, the Renkes scandal was already months old by the time Palin filed her ethics complaint against Renkes in December 2004. Gov. Murkowski had two months prior appointed his own investigator (Robert Bundy) into the matter, and a large volume of damning information had already been uncovered by public records requests from the press (http://www.adn.com/news/government/renkes/story/42104.html). Bundy finished his report January 26, 2005. Murkowski reprimanded Renkes January 29th, 2005. And Renkes resigned February 6, 2005 (http://www.adn.com/news/government/renkes/story/42125.html). The unfinshed ethics complaint investigation, now largely moot, was settled a month later. Joeljunk (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean "imply," but I see to some degree your point. Palin was ahead of Bundy & Murkowski but perhaps behind public release of the documents. I can support that change. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The Bristol Palin Part of the Main Article Ignores the Fact that Bristol's Pregnancy Was Only Announced in Response to Vicious Internet Rumors

Sarah Palin did not suddenly decided to make her daughter of 17 an issue. Vicious Internet rumors falsely claimed that Sarah was claiming the daughter's baby. Only to squelch those rumors was the announcement about Bristol made. While the press was putting Bristol Palin on the front page of newspapers, there was no mention whatever of any of Biden's kids when they were 17, and the press failed to investigate rumors which had persisted since October 2007 that John Edwards was having an affair. As Obama and Biden correctly noted, children are off limits. The press indeed left the children of Democrats off limits, but not the children of Republicans, thereby leaving the press wide open to charges of partisan bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree about Gov. Palin not intending to make her daughter an issue, but I think there was a slight correction. I think what touched that off was that some blogger claimed that Bristol was the actual mother of Trig (the baby suffering from Down's Syndrome). WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yartett (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)First entry here folks. ;-) The pregnancy is an issue given that Sarah Palin is a so-con who is into abstinence sex-ed, and that she might not have told McCain.

Actually, its appropriate for Wikipedia because the media made it an issue. Her political stands are irrelevant to Wikipedia. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

On a similar note, it's also been revealed that Sarah Palin's first child was born less then 8 months after she eloped with her husband.

now that she's in the spotlight she's trying to make Bristol's new baby seem like some kind of happy blessing to the family (that's number three for Bristol, in fact; the first one was, guess what, aborted - looks like Sarah feels her family should be exempt from her pro-life policy!) Not only that, but now that Obama went and said "children are off-limits" anyone who points out the political relevance of this pregnancy, being an extremely well-placed indicator of Sarah's inability to instill responsibility into her own child as well as the ineffectiveness of the abstinence-only sex education she advocates, will be labeled as a cruel attacker, a personal invader, etc. In other words, Obama was trying to look like a good guy, but he gave the Palins a big credibility boost and media leverage by doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.178.2.1 (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any sources whatsoever for these claims? Blackngold29 18:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Dispute #1: Alaskan Independence Party

1. The article currently says nothing about Palin's tangential association with the Alaskan Independence Party, but the mainstream news media has analysed the issue. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

We have had lengthy discussions about this material, and while no strong consensus was reached we did seem to be leaning toward not including the (minimal) factual information as not being proven to have any relevance to Palin's career/life.

We don't get to decide; the frenzy of mainstream coverage says it's notable. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually we do get to decide to an extent. We aren't a news source, so what is relevant for their purposes is not necessarily relevant to ours. This page is supposed to be a biography, so things should be relevant to the subject's life for inclusion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't be looking to evaluate topics, but edits. For example, we ought to talk about the weight of someone's treatment of Palin's AIS associations, the edit's verifiability, etc.. If we start trying to evaluate topics, it descends quickly (super fast) into mob rule, utter disregard of argumentation. The Wiki-edit guidelines exist for a reason; we should use them, and allow ourselves to be constrained by them. Catuskoti (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There was no lean toward excluding the info. In fact, it appeared to be 3 to 2 in favor of including it. The only objection to a section on Palin links to the AIP is that they are allegedly not relevant. See discussion above. But the fact that they have gotten so much media and public attention shows they are relevant to many people. Since the items are all factual and well sourced, they should be included. -Pulsifer (author of the AIP links section that was deleted).

There was previously a single sentence in the article about her connection to the AIP. That was sufficient. It's now gone. It could be put back. Anything beyond that is merely an attempt to paint her as a secessionist, which is an absurd idea at this point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I support a single sentence, preferably in the 2008 campaign section, saying that she has not been a member of the AIP, citing to Mother Jones and whatever other sources people think are important. As Bugs said, anything beyond that is merely an attempt to paint her as a secessionist, which is an absurd idea at this point.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to such a sentence. (Nor would I object to its exclusion.) That she was never a member is the one fact that seems well established and possibly relevant. All other points are either debated or irrelevant. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be a single sentence that mentions her attending the convention in 2000, Todd previously being a member and her video tape address for the AIP 2008 convention. zredsox (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There should also at minimum be a mention that her husband Todd, at member of the AIP, was the treasurer of her 1999 mayoral campaign. -Pulsifer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulsifer (talk • contribs) 01:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

One sentence about the AIP convention sounds about right. Coemgenus 01:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is highly irrelevant to the life of Palin as a whole and her BLP and also previous consensus seemed to be to not include it.Hobartimus (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Link to previous consensus? I have been watching this page for days and must have missed it... zredsox (talk) 02:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO, the 2008 convention video is the LEAST relevant of all the facts and "facts" --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The AIM thing has been widely reported by RS. The problem is decideing what exactly to write.Geni 02:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I added proposed text to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin#Palin_links_to_AIP

---

There is no controversy that Palin had links to AIP, including her husband's membership. This is different than claiming she was a member. The links are well documented and certainly relevant. This section should remain available to readers as a well-documented source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulsifer (talk • contribs) 23:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This has already been extensively discussed above. Kelly ^hi! 23:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously not enough as it was removed when it seemed quite clear that the consensus was to have at least a mention of this in the biography. zredsox (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, I have read the complete discussion above. It focuses primarily on her husband Todd's membership in AIP, which was in the end deemed relevant. Similarly, the section I added documents other links to the AIP. None of them were discussed above, and certainly they are all relevant. Your stated reason for deleting the section was that it had been "debunked". This is not the case. All of the items are both true and well sourced. It appears you are trying to hide behind the above discussion to prevent relevant information from being added to the entry. If you have any issue with the truth or relevance of any of the statements, please identify the specific statements. -Pulsifer

Kelly, you keep saying that, but what is being posted is simply *not* contradicted anywhere above. These are WP:V-referenced statements. -- Rei (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Exactly what is the purpose of including all this information on the AIP, as opposed to other organizations, like the Better Business Bureau or the Girl Scouts of America? Kelly ^hi! 23:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Does this straw man even need to be dignified with a response? No, we don't need lot of info about the AIP here. But pretending that the AIP thing isn't a huge scandal is just plain ridiculous. It's real, it's WP:V, it's WP:N, and thus, it can go into Wikipedia. By the book, if those constraints are correct, the only question is *where* it can go (there's no right for WP:N things to go into any particular article; it simply has the right to go into Wikipedia).

And seriously, cut it with the "debunked" stuff. We've all read the previous discussions. Nothing is debunked. If you think something is debunked, cite a source. -- Rei (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly many people think it is relevant because it is all over the news. When links to those other organizations also become news items, they can also be added, but that is not the issue. -Pulsifer

• Some mention MUST be made of the AIP material, it is all over the news. Censoring it on Wikipedia is pointless now. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • ZOMG censorship...please see the extensive discussions we've already have. It's a guilt-by-association attempt that has already been debunked. Kelly ^hi! 23:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Kelly: first you said "debunked", now you are saying "guilt by association". Regardless, there is no guilt by association. It is simply information. There's no claim that she is guilty of anything. -Pulsifer

(undent)It's true that Palin had well-documented links to the AIP. However, those well-documented links are so tenuous as to not be notable here in this article, except maybe a brief mention in the campaign section that her membership was debunked by Mother Jones. I feel like the tenuous links to AIP are being used not to give a neutral description of the subject, but rather to pulverize the subject.

By the way, Pulsifer, are you any relation to this guy? Ferrylodge (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If you believe the links are tenuous, that is all the more reason they should be included in the article. This allows readers to judge for themselves whether the AIP association is substantial or not, and if they decide they are tenuous, it would prove the point that there should be no controversy. -Pulsifer

There is *no* tenousness here. Her husband *was* a member for seven years. She *did* go to at least one convention, possibly two. She *did* record a message telling them to "keep up the good work" this year. The McCain campaign spokesman *did* sidestep a question as to whether she wants a vote on secession. These aren't up for debate; they're confirmed. And they are huge issues, as made clear by the explosion of controversy. -- Rei (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And her husband, a member of AIP, was the treasurer of her mayoral campaign. -Pulsifer

Palin also has tenuous links to the Democratic Party. Shall we create a section about that too? Her mother-in-law is a Democrat, so obviously Sarah Palin's Republican schtick is a complete charade, right?[1]Ferrylodge (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, the is a straw man. When Palin's links to these other organizations become so important to people that they are mentioned in the news, then we can add them. -Pulsifer

This comes up quite often, someone could add something to the FAQ about it. Hobartimus (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a straw man at all. Much ink has been spilled about Palin's willingness to cross the aisle and work with Democrats, and to encourage bipartisanship in her administartion. Smells like a Democrat to me, and I think we need a new section about her ties to the Democratic Party.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

So let's get the facts. One, a party official said she was a once a member, but had to recant when proven wrong. Two, she may have attended one or two party conventions. Three, she sent a welcome video to their convention. Four, her husband appears to have been a member in the past, later re-registered as Independent. So form these 4 facts, you think a 4000 character section, attempting to tie every possible thing she has said in the last 10 years into AIP somehow is justified. Apparently, this isn't original research in any way and is based on the length is the single most important part of her entire career, regardless that it had never even come up before 2-3 days ago? Is that an accurate summary of your position? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is irrelevant to your conclusions, but for the record the various assertions have included her being present at up to three conventions: 1994, 2000, and 2006. Dragons flight (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The only argument that has been made is that these items are allegedly not relevant. But if half of the population feels they are relevant, and half of the population feels they are not, then the material should be included so that readers can decide for themselves. Unless someone can come up with an argument other than relevance, I am going to add the material back in. -Pulsifer

Good luck with that. Coemgenus 00:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Palin has "links" to the Alaska Independent Party. The only relevancy in trying to include this is to suggest through guilt by association that Palin is an extremist who favors succession of Alaska from the Union. This argument started when officials of the AIP claimed Governor Palin had once been a member of the party. These claims have since been withdrawn, and Sarah Palin's voter registration records showing that she has been registered as a Republican since 1982 have appeared. So editors wanting to include this material have fallen back on circumstantial facts. 1) In her capacity as Governor she sent a video to the 2008 convention where she refers to "your party" in the first sentence, 2) in her capacity as Mayor she attended the 2000 convention, and 3) her husband declared AIP preference for several years in his voter registration. Using WP:SYNTH editors claim that these three facts prove that Governor Palin has ties to the AIP. They do no such thing. This is not material that is relevant to the biography of Sarah Palin. It is an attempt to imply guilt by association when there is no association. Inclusion of this material violates WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH.--Paul (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

This is what I propose adding. It accurately describes the controversy which has received much attention in the press; it correctly describes that Palin has never been a member of AKIP, but does accurately describe her association with AKIP and is properly sourced and written from a neutral point of view. It violates none of the rules that Paul has cited. Its seems some people at intent on censoring facts, but that is a violation of wikipedia rules. -Pulsifer

---

The Alaskan Independence Party (AKIP) is an Alaskan political party that calls for a vote on the secession of Alaska from the United States. The motto of the AKIP is "Alaska First - Alaska Always".

On September 1, ABC News reported that Sarah Palin had been a member of AKIP. The sources for this story later retracted these claims, and the Alaskan Division of Elections confirmed that Palin has always been registered Republican.

Palin's husband Todd however was a registered member of AKIP from 1995 to 2002, and served as the Treasurer of Palin's 1999 mayoral campaign. The McCain campaign admits Palin attended the 2000 AKIP convention, and as governor, Palin sent a video address to the 2008 AKIP convention. In addition, two AKIP members recall seeing Palin at the 1994 AKIP convention, although Palin denies attending.

• I disagree with this proposed edit as 1st) Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and 2nd) it is a classic case of "when did you stop beating your wife?" Let's start with Wikipedia is not a newspaper.

  On September 1, ABC News reported that Sarah Palin had been a member of AKIP. The sources for this story later retracted these claims, and the Alaskan Division of Elections confirmed that Palin has always been registered Republican.

  This paragraph contains anti-matter (the incorrect news report) and matter (finally finding the truth which is that the report was false). When you add them together they create a big bang but leave nothing behind. In the discussion of the National Enquirer rumor (below) the consensus is to wait to see if the rumor is true or not. If true, it will be added, if not it will be ignored. That is what should have happened here, but the ABC claim was inserted as soon as it came out, and the truth only came out a day or two later. It should never have been in the article when it was little more than a politically-charged hit, and now that we know it is false, it is not appropriate to add it.

Second there's "when did you stop beating your wife?"

Palin's husband Todd however was a registered member of AKIP from 1995 to 2002, and served as the Treasurer of Palin's 1999 mayoral campaign. and as governor, Palin sent a video address to the 2008 AKIP convention. In addition, two AKIP members recall seeing Palin at the 1994 AKIP convention, although Palin denies attending.

Palin's husband is not Palin, and what is the purpose of sneaking in the fact that he was her campaign finance manager in 1999 other than to insinuate that because a family member with AKIP ties was active in her campaign, she must "have ties to AKIP"? This is clearly POV-pushing and it is also clear WP:SYNTH. Next is mentioning that two AKIP members recall seeing her at the convention 18 years ago. She denies it. I don't know, maybe she was there to get some grocery money from Todd, or to go out to dinner with him. It certainly doesn't prove any "ties to AKIP" and is either trival or POV-pushing. As I said "when did you stop beating your wife?"

And because of the reasons above, the following isn't needed at all.

The Alaskan Independence Party (AKIP) is an Alaskan political party that calls for a vote on the secession of Alaska from the United States. The motto of the AKIP is "Alaska First - Alaska Always".

I strongly object to this proposed edit for all the reasons above and because it gives undue weight by virtue of its length. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Object as well. Serious undue weight for this "incident". Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. Then I propose deleted the 2nd para and the sentence about 1994, leaving the following. This simply states the facts and let's the reader decide the importance. -Pulsifer

---

Proposal: The Alaskan Independence Party (AKIP) is an Alaskan political party that calls for a vote on the secession of Alaska from the United States. Its motto is "Alaska First - Alaska Always". Palin's husband Todd was a registered member of AKIP from 1995 to 2002, and served as the Treasurer of Palin's 1999 mayoral campaign. Sarah Palin herself has always been registered Republican. She attended the 2000 AKIP convention, and as governor, sent a video address to the 2008 AKIP convention.

I disagree with this insertion. First off, it cites an abcnews blog, and youtube. It is also compiling a lot of stuff together that if it were true, should be available as being convered in a single very reliable source. Based on the fact that you need so many sources of questionale reliablility to make the point appears to be a case of WP:SYNTH. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)SYNTH

The multiple sources were included because otherwise you would be arguing that the information was not sufficiently sourced. Most of the sources contain the entire story. This is the first time I have heard an attempt to exclude information because it had too many references. The facts stated are NOT IN DISPUTE, by anyone, and therefore the alleged "questionable reliability" of the sources is a red-herring. The material also does not state any conclusion, it simply lists facts, and therefore WP:SYNTH does not apply. The YouTube video is the actual video Palin sent to the 2008 AKIP convention. It is also mentioned in the other sources. There is no way it can possibly be deemed to be unreliable, and therefore the caution about self-published sources that generally applies to YouTube links does not apply to this video. The reference to the YouTube video of Palin's address is also appropriate as link the reader can follow if they are interested in the content of the video. -Pulsifer

I think this is probably a bit too much weight, not to mention that it is clearly trying to POV push the AIP views onto Palin. I think the more relevant fact is her husband's participation, which if you can imagine hypothetical analogies (if Michelle Obama was Green party), is more than just trivial. I propose the following insertion in the family section right after "...commercial fishing business."

Proposal:

He was also a registered member of Alaskan Independence Party (AKIP) from 1995 to 2002; while Palin has always been a registered Republican, she attended the 2000 AKIP convention, and as governor, sent a video address to the 2008 AKIP convention.

I don't have all the refs from above so they'd have to be chosen. This retains the essential facts, which are more than notable through all the media coverage, but doesn't impose or imply any viewpoints of Palin's. (Update: I suggest using this NYT article as the source of the sentence, as all relevant info is included) Joshdboz (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

While it is better being wittled down into a smaller (single sentence), it also shows how little subtance is involved with such assertions. The article is about her, not her husband (or daughters). Overall, I do not see the significance of it? As a governor I am sure she did lots of stuff with the state of alaska, should we include a blurb for every speech or video she sent to any organization (outside of her party)? I think this is a sever stretch to be included for inclusion. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

 Declined It is clear that at the present time there is no consensus supporting any version of the edit proposed here. If such a consensus forms in the future, and is clearly stable, then it will be time to use the {{edit protected}} template. GRBerry 20:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If you read this entire section you will find many editors who have stated that some mention should/could be included, though nothing was resolved. I have thus removed your "declined" tag until further discussion. As for your comments Chris, it may be a minor detail in her political life, but the amount of media coverage it has received is anything but minor. Now, one could rightly say that we shouldn't allow the media to run our agenda here; on the other hand, we rely on them to determine notability, and these facts, which have been the soul subjects of articles in many top newspapers, are much more notable than other details of her life. Joshdboz (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have restored my own comment to the state I left it in. I declined to implement the edit protected request. The text makes it clear that such declining was a decision as of that time and if there is consensus in the future you would be free to make the request again. GRBerry 13:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There was no edit protect request. There was a proposal looking for comment. Joshdboz (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There was indeed an edit protected request. I converted it from {{edit protected}} to {{tl|edit protected}} (the latter of which displays as the former, the former of which displays as one of those beige-orange boxes) at the time I declined it. It is between Paul.h's comment of 12:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC) and Pulsifer's undated comment immediately below that. Properly used, that template is to request an admin to make the edit immediately - which is why the template says "please discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template." [emphasis in original] GRBerry 14:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As it is is now noted without dispute that Sarah Palin attended the AIP meeting in 2006 and created a video this does deserve mention. If other sources of involvment are identified they should be reviewed on a case by case bases. Proposal from the AIP Website "Sarah Palin's husband Todd Palin was a member of the Alaskin Independant party. Sarah appeared at the AIP Convention in 2006. Sarah sent a welcoming DVD to the membership at the 2008 AIP statewide convention." http://www.akip.org/090308.html Sitedown (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin was campaigning for governor in 2006 and visited the convention as part of the campaign, and as had been said many times, sent the video to the 2008 convention in her role as governor (and no doubt vote prospector). I would like to know what the rationale for including this material in this article. Please note: "There are verifiable sources for these facts" is not the answer I am looking for. I am curious as to how editors think this adds to the narrative of Sarah Palin's biography. What does it show about her? If you had to write a sentence after your suggested insert of this info that drew a conclusion, what would you write? Thanks!--Paul (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Paul, The large number of requests to include or not include this information that has been verified as fact demonstrates there is a level of importance associated with it. As the general public believe this is an important part of her history we have no choice but to include the verified fact in her biography. The only alternative would of course be to make a conscious decision and censor information that the public believes is important and I am not sure anyone believes censorship is the responsabilaty of wikipedia. Sitedown (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Censorship? No one is advocating censorship here. Certainly you aren't accusing anyone of censorship, are you? You may think that there is a wikipedia policy proscribing censorship, but there isn't. However, there are policies on verifiability, reliable sources, maintaining a neutral point of view, proscribing synthesizing opinions out of unrelated facts, and being especially careful and sensitive about accuracy and not making conjectural interpretations or implications when editing biographies of living persions. Wikipedia is not a free-for-all. Just because something is verifiable does not mean it has a free pass into an article.

The proposals to include AKIP info in the article have never achieved consensus because they aren't NPOV. First some editors tried to establish that Palin was a former member of the AKIP. Later proposals put together a bunch of unrelated facts in an attempt to establish that Palin "has ties to AKIP." Simply put, the sources provided do not back that up. I'm perfectly willing to put something in the article but it needs to be factual with a neutral point of view, which none of the prior proposals have been.

The only "fact" that is indisputable is that Palin was reported as having been a member of AKIP, but that isn't true. Beyond that we get into NPOV and the relevancy of the "facts" to this biography.--Paul (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"I'm perfectly willing to put something in the article but it needs to be factual with a neutral point of view Paul.h" Thanks Paul Thats great. I will place a request to craft the appropriate entry and ask for submision based on the facts available. Sitedown (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

---

AKIP Inclusion request

Please assist in creating a single sentence with the appropriate minimal and verifiable facts from reliable sources of Sarah Palin direct interactions with the AKIP.

{{editprotected}} As there has been no objections raised I would suggest the following for submision. Sitedown (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Sarah attended the Alaskan Independence Party convention in 2006 and sent a welcome movie to the attendees of the 2008 AKIP statewide convention.[2] Sitedown (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

N Edit declined. There is currently no consensus for the suggested edit. Please use {{editprotect}} only after a consensus for a change in the article has been achieved (see CAT:PER). The edit request is otherwise not actionable. Also, we don't refer to the subjects of our articles by their first name.  Sandstein  05:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sandstien, I made a proposal and recieved no objection after 6 hours. Could you please provide the documented and approved process to obtain concensus. Your objection to using the first name is easily fixed. Are there any other issue or concerns. ? Sitedown (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello. To request an edit, please open a new subsection and start it off with a specific, WP:MOS-compliant proposal. If there is consensus to include it after 24 hours or so (i.e., no opposition or substantial net support), then you may use {{editprotect}} at the bottom of your subsection and an admin will evaluate the request.  Sandstein  21:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

The fact that there is so much controversy both for an against the exclusion or inclusion of this information then it is obviously important. I believe if there is documented evidence of Sarah Palin attending multiple events for the AIP this should be noted as this I believe is simply a documented biography of noteworthy facts. {99.228.151.16 (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)}

Just as a BTW, there is a claim near the beginning of this topic claiming that it is significant because of the frenzy of media attention it is receiving. A query on Google Trends returns the following: Google Trends: Palin "alaska independence party" - do not have enough search volume to show graphs.--Paul (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Try a Google News search for "Sarah Palin" "Alaskan Independence Party". WP:NPOV says "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves," and I don't see how anyone can claim that it is not a fact that the Palins' links with the Alaskan Independence Party have been the subject of extensive media coverage worldwide, and that it is a campaign issue that deserves mention. --Stormie (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The only "fact" about this "campaign issue" is that Palin does not have any ties to the AKIP even though it has been falsely reported that she did. Since there's nothing about this in the article at the moment, and in the interest of closing this dispute, I propose using an update version of Ferrylodge's sentence as follows:

Members of the of the Alaskan Independence Party suggested that Palin was a member at some point, but have since retracted that claim.

This mentions Palin and AKIP and uses as a source for the correction, the same ABC source that was used for the original incorrect charge.--Paul (talk) 06:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact Palin attended multiple conventions either in person or via video raises controversy and is relavent to her biography. Sitedown (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see much of a controversy. I think it'd be a great thing if every governor of every state sent welcome messages to the conventions of the other major parties in their states. What I think is problematic here is that after a flare up of media attention, this is now a dead story, especially since the veracity of the claims has since come under a cloud. I think including it here is just not biographical, and would place wp:undue on the matter.   user:j    (aka justen)   02:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

---

AKIP Inclusion Proposal For Review

Proposed Palin attended the Alaskan Independence Party convention in 2006 and sent a welcome movie to the attendees of the 2008 AKIP statewide convention.[3] Sitedown (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Support If you support this with minor modifications please included the modified version you would support.

1. I support this text, but would like additional material, as shown in my addition to Talk:Sarah Palin/sandbox. --Zeamays (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)--Zeamays (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   I think the idea of a sandbox is a bad idea, just opening up another avenue for edit warring and potential libel. Could you please move your suggestion here and ask an admin to remove that page?--Paul (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   It wasn't my idea. I saw a note on this pages asking to place proposals for edits via admins to be placed ion the sandbox. --Zeamays (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)--Zeamays (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

2. She not only attended, she was a member, and only switched her party affiliation when she ran for governer, according to Dexter Clark in this video from last year (jump to 6:00).

Oppose If you oppose please either include a supported version or state your reason for not including anything in relation to the AKIP

1. It's a McCarthyistic attempt to prove "guilt by association" with a fringe party which is not even accused of doing anything illegal, but only of having a fringe viewpoint - and with no evidence that Palin herself agrees with that viewpoint. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   The simple fact that multiple meetings were attended by her makes this worth mentioning. There is no reason to try to prove guilt by association but if you believe a statement to be added in relation the rumors then please provide a suggestion. 99.228.151.16 (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Are people still pushing the debunked "secessionist" meme? I thought even dKos had given up on flogging that. But Bugs is correct - there's no need to give undue weight to a trivial relationship with one particular group. As governor, she attended and greeted many organizations, from the Better Business Bureau to the Girl Scouts of America. Kelly ^hi! 15:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   Even if the rumors had never been raised this still warrants a mention. If she has attended multiple conventions for other parties I beleive this would also deserve a mention. 99.228.151.16 (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

3. It might have had some relevance when it was suspected that Palin had once been a member, but since that has been debunked, the only reason for inclusion would be to imply "guilt by association." She attended the 2006 convention while campaigning for Governor, and sent a welcome video to the 2008 convention in her capacity as Governor. And even though it isn't mentioned above, she attended the 2000 convention in her capacity as mayor of Wasilla. Inclusion of the proposed sentence violates NPOV and UNDUE WEIGHT.--Paul (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   If a governor attends multiple conventions for a seperatist group and submits a video then it is worth a mention. I recall you previously agreed that a statement could be included. 99.228.151.16 (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   Rebuttal to 1-3: This is well-documented material. AN AIP leader can be seen on video at their convention stating that their aim is to "infiltrate" other political parties, so this is relevant. My proposed addition doesn't mention "secessionist". More importantly, she expressed support of AIP aims in the video. Did she also send a video to the Democratic Party Convention that year supporting their aims? Wikipedia policy for Well-known public figures reads, "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." [emphasis mine] --Zeamays (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   Have you watched the video? "Your party plays an important role in our state's politics. I've always said that competition is so good. And that applies to political parties as well." Very sinister!--Paul (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

4. As I said above, the story is dead. If she had been a member of the party, I think there would be something here, but those claims (made by that party itself apparently) have since been debunked. Addressing the convention of a competing party is interesting (and something I think should be encouraged), but it's trivial and not biographical, and thus including it in the article would be wp:undue. Should further facts on the matter emerge, though, I reserve the right to change my mind.  :)   user:j    (aka justen)   02:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

   Rebuttal to 4: Once agin, this is not a dead issue. The facts have been documented that she and her husband have been associated with the AKIP, he as a formal member, she as a sympathizer, who stated in the welcome video a sympathy for the party and support for its success. --Zeamays (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Jillyan2008 (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Palin's ties to the Alaskan secessionists are neither irrelevant nor too thin to be worthy of mention. Whether found on You Tube or blogs across the internet, the video of Sarah Palin is real evidence that she did in fact say she was "delighted" to address the 2008 convention of secessionists and advised them to "Keep up the good work!" Her sentiments were made clear by her own words and are available for anyone to see on tape. It's a fact. And it most certainly is relevant to her political career as she was serving as a governor at the time and was charged by the electorate of her state to serve them and represent them. And now she seeks to be the vice president of the nation from which the members of the organization she told to "Keep up the good work" wish to secede. It is factual, relevant and one of the most important issues in the 2008 campaign. No, she was not an official member. No suggestion to say she was on Wikipedia has been made. But her remarks in her words should be included in her biography. To do otherwise is to present an unbalanced press release for a political candidate and ignore the fair, factual, complete picture of this historic figure. A brief explanation of the organization and its official beliefs and activities, that she deemed good work worth keeping up, would be appropriate.

It seems pretty clear that Sarah Palin was in bed with the AIP. Her husband Todd was a member, they attended conventions together, she addressed them at their convention speaking of them positively and voicing support for their philosophy. If those six things were all we said about the matter and didn't even get into how it affected the $40 billion dollar natural gas pipeline that would be fine. The pipeline could go in its own section. Rktect (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This is another opposition research fringe issue. Sarah Palin was never a member of the AIP; she's been a Republican since 1982. Politicians talk to a lot of people; that's sorta their jobs. Her husband's views are irrelevant; would you put Michelle's views into Barack's bio?... Unhhh .. no. Leave this out; include in her political positions article if you want. Freedom Fan (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the media coverage on this issue and the widespread misinformation that she was a member of this party, it is important to mention that she has just sent a welcome DVD to the members of 2008 AKIP statewide convention. Nevertheless there must be some sympathy for this secessionist party or would anyone send such a movie to a movement he/she doesn't like? M0s6p (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you watched the video? Palin: "Your party plays an important role in our state's politics. I've always said that competition is so good. And that applies to political parties as well." Then she lists a few issues and says "and I know you agree with that" and then wraps it up. There is nothing at all here that is the least bit notable or out of the ordinary.--Paul (talk) 13:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not the party is secessionist is unclear. Merely sending a video-taped greeting to a meeting of a prominent minor party sounds like a politician reaching out for votes and not particularly noteworthy. I see no compelling reason to include this material. Ronnotel (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please be more clear on 'high approval rating'

"maintained a high approval rating throughout her term.[43]" can we please be a bit more specific and include some numbers? I heard some say she had the highest of any governor, if this is true (and I don't know if it is), that certainly warrants a mention.

Recap of Political positions

Political positions (current mainspace version)

Main article: Political positions of Sarah Palin

Many of Palin's political views are of a strong social conservative nature: she opposes abortion except when the life of the mother would otherwise be imperilled, and is a member of Feminists for Life; she backs capital punishment, and opposes same-sex marriage. She is also a member of the National Rifle Association and is a strong supporter of the right to keep and bear arms.

Palin is known for her support of "individual freedom and independence", and her endorsement for the minimal state and economic liberty of classical libertarianism: she is known in Alaska for her strong opposition to what she views as excessive government spending and corruption. She has strongly supported development of oil and natural gas drilling in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Comments on Political positions (current mainspace version)

• This version is currently in mainspace. It is way too short. QuackGuru 22:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - This version is fine for now, written in summary style, and comparable to Joe Biden#Political positions. I would much rather see incremental improvement to it via {{editprotect}} than to replace it with one of the laundry lists of controversial issues below. Kelly ^hi! 22:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Expand - A featured article has a very well written political positions section. Barack Obama#Political positions This article would easily fail to be a WP:GA because of the very short political positions section. QuackGuru 23:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Expand. "Controversy" doesn't have any meaning; as long as there are no BLP violations, and care is taken to follow the sources, why shouldn't it be in the Positions section? QuackGuru, please find us a few reliable sources that say that Palin took these positions deliberately, to forestall any claim that a position is a slip of the tongue or something. We do not need Palin's campaign website to also say what positions she takes, but if there is such a source, please add it, so that nobody can say it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Also, please note that only 10,000 people a day visit the Political positions of Sarah Palin article, but 500,000 visit this page, so the "they can just click through" argument must be tempered to allow more in the summary. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - There is no need for a main biographical article of a politician to give lots of political positions on particular issues. For example, see the John McCain article which is a featured article that only addresses two particular issues: the economy and Iraq. John McCain#Political positions mostly covers broad themes, and leaves particular issues for the sub-article. It's very difficult to describe a particular issue position in a very brief sound bite, and that's why we have the sub-articles. Also, doing it all in the main article will prevent the main article from ever becoming stable; people will constantly be arguing about which issues to include, and how to describe her position.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The article is protected, so stability shouldn't be a problem. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Note - Talk:Joe Biden/GA1 Either expand "Political positions" or get rid of it. It has a separate article, and that's fine, but the one in this article is way too short for its own section. The Joe Biden article failed to become a Good Article in part because of the short political positions section. The goal for this article can easily be a WP:GA. This can happen when we work together in good faith and are reasonable. QuackGuru 23:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• This is not enough on her positions. Social issues are not the single, monolithic important aspect to her campaign. She ran as governor as a fiscal conservative, and has said on numerous occasions that she opposes pork-barrel spending. There is plenty of evidence to suggest her past history with lobbyists contradicts her statements. With that in mind, the "Political Positions" part of the article should be split into Social Issues and Fiscal Issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.227.162 (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The current short summary is fine, it's the same as Joe Biden. If someone is intrested we have a full article dedicated to political positions, no need to duplicate the whole thing here. Time to focus on improving other parts of the article. Hobartimus (talk) 04:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you read my note above? The Joe Biden article failed GA in part because of the short political positions section. QuackGuru 05:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Expand I think people just want to conveniently ignore this fact although it is obvious that the section needs to be expanded. 66.186.173.180 (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note The wikipedia blurb claims that she is against abortion except when the mother's life is in danger, yet the cited article claims she is against it except when the mother's health is in danger. This is a fairly big difference, policy-wise. Porcupine8 (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions (draft 1)

Main article: Political positions of Sarah Palin

Palin has described the Republican Party platform as "the right agenda for America," adding "individual freedom and independence is extremely important to me and that's why I'm a Republican."

She has called herself as "pro-life as any candidate can be " and would permit abortion only in cases where the mother's life is in danger, and supports mandatory parental consent for abortions. Palin is a member of Feminists for Life. Palin has been described as supportive of contraception. She backs abstinence-only education and is against "explicit sex-ed programs" in schools. She supports capital punishment and opposes same-sex marriage and supported a non-binding referendum for a constitutional amendment to deny state health benefits to same-sex couples.

Palin has said she supports teaching both creationism and evolution in public schools, but not to the extent of adding creation-based alternatives to the required curriculum. She has strongly promoted oil and natural gas resource development in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). She has opposed federal listing of the polar bear as an endangered species warning that it would adversely affect energy development in Alaska. Palin does not believe that global warming is human-caused.

Palin, a long-time member of the National Rifle Association, strongly supports its interpretation of the Second Amendment as protecting individual rights to bear arms, including handguns. She also supports gun safety education for youth.

Palin's foreign policy positions were unclear at the time she was picked as McCain's running mate. When asked for her views about troop escalations in Iraq, she replied "…while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place…"

Comments on Political positions (draft 1)

This draft is very well written. QuackGuru 22:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I like #1 since it is shorter than #2 and to the point. I would tighten it up bit more by:

• Delete the mention that she is a member of Feminists for Life. It should certainly be mentioned in the article, but not here. Membership in an organization is not a political position.

• State simply that “Palin is pro contraception. “ That is the clear message in the cited reference. There is no need to qualify it with “it has been reported that”. This is an encyclopedia article. Everything we post has been reported by others.

• Delete the mention that she is a member of the NRA for the same reasons above. It should be in the article, but not here. Instead simply say that “Palin strongly supports an individual’s right to bear arms, including handguns. “

• Regarding foreign policy, simply say “Palin supports the current administration’s policies in Iraq”. There is no need to mention what we don’t know (i.e. her positions are unclear). When they become clear, we can add them. There is also no need to mention that she wants to know we have an exit plan in place. That’s not a policy position.

• Add that she is pro Israel--Nowa (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If you would like, I can go ahead and make the above edits, or leave it to the original poster to decide which of these, if any, to incorporate in his/her proposed draft. Just let me know.--Nowa (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I started a new section below for you to draft a similar version to draft 1. Anything is better than the current mainspace version. QuackGuru 05:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions (draft 1.5) (shortest draft)

Main article: Political positions of Sarah Palin

Palin has described the Republican Party platform as "the right agenda for America," adding "individual freedom and independence is extremely important to me and that's why I'm a Republican."

As governor of Alaska, Palin has been a strong supporter of reducing state government spending, including cutting $1.6 billion from the Alaskan construction budget. Nonetheless, she has been strongly in favor of increased federal funding of construction programs for her state.

She has called herself as "pro-life as any candidate can be ", would permit abortion only in cases where the mother's life is in danger, and supports mandatory parental consent for abortions. Palin is supportive of contraception but she backs abstinence-only education and is against "explicit sex-ed programs" in schools. She opposes same-sex marriage and supported a non-binding referendum for an Alaskan constitutional amendment to deny state health benefits to same-sex couples.

Palin supports allowing the teaching of both creationism and evolution in public schools, but not to the extent of requiring the teaching of creation-based alternatives.

Palin has strongly promoted oil and natural gas resource development in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). She has opposed federal listing of the polar bear as an endangered species warning that it would adversely affect energy development in Alaska. Palin does not believe that global warming is human-caused.

Palin strongly supports an individual’s right to bear arms, including handguns. She also supports gun safety education for youth.

Palin supports the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq.

She supports capital punishment.--Nowa (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments on Political positions (draft 1.5)

I added draft 1.5 to the draft article.[4] QuackGuru 19:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.--Nowa (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions (draft 2)

Main article: Political positions of Sarah Palin

Palin has described the Republican party platform as "the right agenda for America," adding "individual freedom and independence is extremely important to me and that's why I'm a Republican."

In 2002, while running for lieutenant governor, Palin called herself as "pro-life as any candidate can be." She opposes abortion in cases of rape and incest, supporting it only in cases where the mother's life is in danger, and suggested that requiring parental consent for abortions be added to Alaska's constitution. Palin is a member of Feminists for Life. A 2006 article in the Anchorage Daily News refers to Palin as supportive of contraception but does not go into detail. She is a "firm supporter of abstinence-only education in schools", saying, "explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support".

Palin supports capital punishment for some crimes. "If the legislature passed a death penalty law, I would sign it. We have a right to know that someone who rapes and murders a child or kills an innocent person in a drive-by shooting will never be able to do that again."

Palin opposes same-sex marriage and supported a non-binding referendum for a constitutional amendment to deny state health benefits to same-sex couples. Palin has stated that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

In a televised debate in 2006, Palin said she supported teaching both creationism and evolution in public schools. She clarified her position the next day, saying that if a debate of alternative views arose in class she would not want its discussion prohibited. She added that she would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum. Palin does not believe that global warming is human-caused. Palin opposed federal listing of the polar bear as an endangered species on the grounds that the "population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation," and supported a controversial predator-control program involving aerial hunting of wolves to increase moose populations for hunters.

Palin, a long-time member of the National Rifle Association, strongly supports its interpretation of the Second Amendment as protecting individual rights to bear arms, including handguns. She also supports gun safety education for youth.

Palin's foreign policy positions were unclear at the time she was picked as McCain's running mate. When asked for her views about troop escalations in Iraq, she replied "…while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place…"

Comments on Political positions (draft 2)

This draft has the most detail. QuackGuru 22:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If this is going to be a summary of what is described in more detail on Political positions of Sarah Palin, there probably should be a mention of her position on energy and the environment. --Crunch (talk) 23:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a transcript of an interview with her on CNN earlier this year. In it, she carefully outlines her strong opinions that the environmental activists are using the Endangered Species Act as a tool to prevent oil and gas development that will not really harm the environment. It is clear that this is a political position she believes in. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment- In an (probably archived already) discussion, we hashed out better language than "Palin, a long-time member of the National Rifle Association, strongly supports its interpretation of the Second Amendment as protecting individual rights to bear arms..." which makes it sound as if Palin holds the position because the NRA does. Better wording would be more like "Palin strongly supports the individual right to bear arms and praised the 2008 US Supreme Court decision in Heller that interpreted the Second Amendment as an individual right.(cite) She is a long-time member of the NRA.(cite)" etc. Kaisershatner (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC) NB this discussion is still several sections above, not archived yet. Kaisershatner (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I simplified it a bit more. See v 1.5 above.--Nowa (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The reference for the predator hunting program does not confirm that Palin supports the program, nor does it support the POV-clause "for hunters." Also, this is mostly a list of wedge issues and doesn't really tell us anything about Sarah Palin's political principles or political accomplishments. It is well documented that she is a fighter for ethics in government, and against wasteful spending, having vetoed 300 spending items so far as governor. This summary is not balanced. --Paul (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is equally well documented that she has been a fighter for earmarks, and has helped to appropriate vast sums of money for her town, and later for the "bridge to nowhere" that she later changed her mind on. So are we talking about the dictionary definition of "balanced", or the FOX News definition? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer a summary that doesn't address any specific positions. I would prefer the summary only deal with her political philosophy and possibly decision making process. I prefer this for two reasons: one it avoids unnecessary duplication of info and two it discourages people from adding more specifics and more specifics as is bound if the article becomes unprotected again. The section will inevitability expand until it is basically a copy of the daughter article again. (This already happened multiple times despite the hidden comment asking people not to expand it.) All of that said, I think this is a well written, reasonable, and fair summary. However, I feel it is at the very least too long and detailed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"A summary that doesn't address any specific positions" doesn't make any sense at all. How can you have a section called "Political positions" that doesn't specify any? While I agree these sections have a tendency to expand, that is not a good enough reason to keep important details out of the summary. There are plenty of editors who can step in to provide guidance, perform "good faith reverts" and/or perform regular pruning as and when necessary. This particular version is reasonable, accurate and non-controversial summary of the key details. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Biden doesn't address any and McCain only addresses two, so certainly it can be done. To be clear I meant that the summary should be something like it is now (only bigger) in that it explains the general principles behind her positions without addressing the finer details. A few sentences on her philosophy on social issues, a few on her economic view (with ~1 on her view of the environment.), a few on her view of governments role, and maybe a few on what she is know for/how other view her. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I added her views on government spending to v1.5 above.--Nowa (talk) 12:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Manticore55 (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC) I think it is very relevant to her bio. It appears in many of the summaries in which people talk about her. It is also the first issue I heard about her after, "Troopergate." How exactly is it NOT relevant to her bio?

Manticore55 (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC) The wolf thing, by itself is not 'excessive'. The placing of the wolf thing next to the whale thing seems....interesting to me.

Beluga whales

Currently, the last line of "Energy and Environment" states:

Palin also disagrees with strengthening the protection status of the beluga whales in Cook Inlet, Alaska, where oil and gas development has been proposed.

Recommend replacing with:

Palin also opposed the placement of beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet on the engangered species list, on economic grounds. Palin cited state scientists who claimed that hunting was the only factor causing the whales' decline, and that the hunting has been effectively controlled through cooperative agreements with Alaska Native organizations.

I believe it's more neutral and specific. This is the additional source being cited for the info, in addition to the source already on the sentence. Kelly ^hi! 09:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose That source is the government of Alaska's own page. Since Palin is the governor, that is a decidedly non-neutral source; she could well have written it herself. Please find a newspaper or other independent secondary source that says what you (and Palin) are claiming. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

  Here is another source regarding the whale population and the agreements with the Eskimos. I think the state press release should also be kept as an additional source though, since it contains the scientists' statments. Kelly ^hi! 09:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• • That source is acceptable, it says "Gov. Sarah Palin already has come out against listing the whales because of the potential for long-term damage to the local economy." and clearly blames overhunting (now curtailed) for the decline. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• I see where you're coming from, Kelly, but it's not really more neutral since it gives her rebuttal but no argument for. The NMFS doubtless have their scientists too. How about

In 2007 Palin urged against a proposal by the National Marine Fisheries Service to place beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet on the engangered species list. Such a listing entails vetting of all actions under the scope of federal agencies. Palin argued that there was evidence that the whale population was on the increase, and warned against damage to the local economy by the costs of added delays in process.

? 86.44.29.35 (talk) 10:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, including the NMFS opinion is a good idea. What do you think of the mention of the Eskimo whaling agreements? Kelly ^hi! 10:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to suggest:

... the hunting has been curtailed after federal negotiations with Alaska Native organizations.

because that is what the source says, and I don't think Alaskan Natives would like to see themselves described as "controlled." Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If we want to be loquacious, we can add "She pointed to collaborative hunting agreements in place between the State and Alaskan Native organizations, and asked the NMFS to work with the State in implementing alternative plans to ensure the conservation of the Inlet's whales." Rather wordy though. 86.44.29.35 (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it was the feds who negotiated it. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The hunting agreements, you mean? 86.44.29.35 (talk) 10:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, I presumed otherwise from the .gov source. OK, substitute "federal agencies" for the first instance of "the State", i guess? 86.44.29.35 (talk) 10:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• May I direct your attention to this document containing more recent from the NMFS research that addresses Palin's scientific claims. The document states that despite hunting controls beluga whales in Cook's Inlet remain severely depleted and at high risk of permanent extinction. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 10:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep but we're just saying what she said, we're not saying it's true. Give the reader some credit.86.44.29.35 (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The NOAA source is okay, but ideally we'd need a newspaper or magazine that says that, or better yet assesses all the claims. State scientists vs federal scientists, who is right? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, but if we state her position we should also state its rebuttal in a scientific document by the NMFS, a branch of the US department of Commerce. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Do they call it a rebuttal of the Alaskan/Palin claims? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Read the document for yourself. It clearly rejects the claims of the Alaska state scientists that are being considered here. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 10:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why get into the rights and wrongs of it? It will be its own article! The NMFS proposed it, there was obviously good reason for doing so, she rebutted them thus. And we're out. 86.44.29.35 (talk) 10:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that's only half the story. The NMFS proposed the listing. Palin argued against the listing it on the grounds the hunting restrictions adequately protect the beluga population. And then the NMFS review was published which rejected those grounds. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's 134 pages long, I just read half of it. Please find a secondary source. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There already is a secondary source: the Time article. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 10:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• To clarify: the NMFS proposed listing belugas and held a public discussion. The Alaska scientists put their case at the public forum. And then the NMFS published this review which rejects the claims of the Alaska scientists. And seeing as its federal scientists who get to decide whether or not the belugas get listed as endangered, that's pretty important information. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 10:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• • But I don't even mention scientists in my proposed version. We really don't want to give claim and counter claim to infinity. Don't you like my proposed version? *is hurt* 86.44.29.35 (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • FWIW I don't think it's a case of claim and counterclaim. The NMFS held a public discussion at which Palin and presumably others put their case, and then published a review synthesizing the current status of research. The NMFS is a public body, its not a bunch of animal rights loonies. As I'm sure you know.

[Absolutely accept that it's not claim & counterclaim, loose language on my part, i meant to indeed imply that the NMFS has some weight, and giving their proposal with a politician's response to it was sufficient and npov.] 86.44.24.95 (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say this discussion really needs to take place on the "Political positions" page where we can maybe do some proper wiki editing on an unlocked page, and then when we have consensus we can summarize it here. The version currently up there has already benefited from a bit of back and forth between Kelly and myself.

Here is the version as it currently stands on "Political positions":

Palin also opposed the placement of beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet on the endangered species list, on economic grounds.[36] Palin cited state scientists who claimed that hunting was the only factor causing the whales' decline, and that the hunting has been effectively controlled through cooperative agreements with Alaska Native organizations. [37] More recent research by the National Marine Fisheries Service suggests that despite hunting controls beluga whales in Cook's Inlet remain severely depleted and at high risk of permanent extinction. [38]

As an intermediate step, I propose the first sentence of the above for this page, sourced to the Time article which is the ony secondary source we have at the moment:

"Palin also opposed the placement of beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet on the endangered species list, on economic grounds."

This avoids mentioning oil & gas which are not the main economic considerations (it's really about fishing) and is generally a bit more neutral. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Should we specifically say "fishing" instead of simply "economic grounds"? Kelly ^hi! 14:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, the statement that Palin put out doesn't specifically mention fishing. I would say it's probably on the safe side not to single out the fishing industry. But I don't have a strong view on that. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Are there any more suggestions? I'd like to build consensus towards an edit because I think we have made some progress here and it would be good to see that reflected in the page content. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Pending any further suggestions: I propose Palin also opposed the placement of beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet on the endangered species list, on economic grounds in place of the current sentence. 79.74.252.173 (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC) I support the sentence change since it is more accurate than the current one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yet another proposed revision:I agree with the basic idea that scientific arguments should be included (both sides) or excluded. Giving only one side, as in the original proposal in this thread, would be wrong.

A few suggestions for improving the wording proposed above (by 79.74.252.173 at 23:07): This and other versions say something like "placement of beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet". This would make the reader think first of some kind of program to stock the inlet with whales, until he or she reads on, and then has to go back and re-understand the sentence. Also, the version above might give some readers the impression that the listing was on economic grounds -- not reasonable under the ESA but some people wouldn't know that. Finally, "the endangered species list" most logically means the species designated as "endangered". I've only skimmed the references but it seems possible that NMFS was considering some kind of listing under ESA, which could include listing as "threatened" rather than "endangered".

{{editprotected}}

For these reasons, I suggest: "Palin also opposed, on economic grounds, a proposal to list beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet under the Endangered Species Act." JamesMLane t c 02:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(in place of Palin also disagrees with strengthening the protection status of the beluga whales in Cook Inlet, Alaska, where oil and gas development has been proposed.) T0mpr1c3 (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Approve. Could maybe wikilink beluga whales. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 08:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Approve This is definitely an improvement (more neutral and more accurate). --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Done by somebody; I haven't checked the history to see who or when. GRBerry 19:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Disapprove The main argument is not "on economic grounds", Palin said it was a concern. By only listing this reason it is implied it's the only one! The Time's article doesn't source this reason of "economic grounds" - it implies it about Palin. Remember, the NMFS decided to NOT list the whales in 2000 with the same population numbers. That's why they are taking the six month extension to do another population estimate. The reasons are given here. This is a bias POV.

Decision to list Cook Inlet belugas delayed

Theosis4u (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if all that is so (and it isn't, quite) this is was still an intermediate improvement on the sentence it replaces. 86.44.24.95 (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The only accurate piece of information in the above is that the protection status of belugas is still under review. 194.83.141.23 (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please point out what is "wrong" with assessment?

"In 2000, the agency [The National Marine Fisheries Service] refused to list the whales." source

'Rod Hobbs, leader of the beluga whale research project at NOAA's National Marine Mammal Lab, also in Seattle. Hobbs said the long view shows that this year's [2007] estimate of 375 beluga whales is about what it was in 1999." ... 'In June, NOAA biologists flew five surveys of waters in the upper Cook Inlet where the whales tend to be most often and recorded video of the belugas in groups. The biologists came up with the new estimate of 375 whales _ up from 302 whales last year _ by examining the video and from counts made by researchers. ... This year's increased estimate is the largest since 2001 when 386 whales were counted."source

Besides - economic impact. "Palin said ... However, the state is going to closely review all the scientific information in the proposal to be sure it meets the requirements for listing under the Endangered Species Act, she said. Additionally, the state will study whether existing federal law, such as the Marine Mammals Protection Act, provides sufficient protection, she said." Proposal to list belugas as endangered has leaders wary over projects

1. wants to confirm population in light of restraint on whale hunting over the years

A. doesn't address the issue of why whales haven't had an increase when compared to other whale population growths of 2-6%/year.

2. be sure to meet requirements for ESA (the beluga whales in cook inlet I believe still haven't been demonstrated as genetically unique.)

3. whales are covered by existing laws - question is if it's sufficient.

4. and of course, economic impact due to the possibility of how the ESA is enacted. There would be a difference if the habitat is including in the policy verses not being including.

Theosis4u (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Approve Manticore55 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Just to keep us all up to date, what are the plans to get this page down to semiprotection? This is supposed to be a Wiki. I remember reading somewhere that we were going to give it a try on Saturday. This is Sunday and the page has been fully protected for three days. I think someone on this page seriously proposed keeping it locked until after the election, which is a laughable suggestion and diametrically opposed to Wikipedia's mission to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There is currently a proposed temporary injunction at the ArbCom case regarding this. Admins are waiting for a determination, which I think is prudent. Kelly ^hi! 19:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That's got nothing to do with my question. The proposed temporary injunction only concerns how admins should handle the page while it's protected. This seems like a silly question if the page will be unprotected before that question can be settled, like it should be. What steps are being taken to get the page unprotected? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue was discussed by administrators at WP:RFPP (sorry, no link), but the sense of the conversation was that any admin who screws with the protection of this article now risks being added as an involved party to the ArbCom case. Kelly ^hi! 19:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Very nice catch-22 we've blundered into here, protect the page and then make it procedurally impossible to unprotect it, thereby indefinitely enshrining a situation that runs directly counter to Wikipedia's mission. Very well, how can the community voice its views on getting this page unprotected, notwithstanding the activities at arbcom? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

For now, the best way forward is to draft proposed edits and propose them here at the talk page, for consensus. This process actually seems to have become fairly civilized and is working well so far. Kelly ^hi! 19:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Your edits will then be reviewed and if they are positive towards Sarah we will add them. If they are in anyway negative despite the fact they are current and in the MSM and verified correct we will not include them. We will do this by continually declining updates based on wording or other semantics that would normally be resolved through the wiki process. Sitedown (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Is the above meant as some kind of sarcasm? Obviously, including only positive edits but no negative edits would be an NPOV violation. Wikidemon (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Afraid not. There is plenty of material in this article that people could regard as negative - i.e. the Alaska Public Commissioner dismissal and other things. But those things will only be accepted if they comply with WP:NPOV and have multiple, reliable, sources. This is the same reason you don't see garbage about being a secret Muslim or Mob-associated at the Barack Obama article. Kelly ^hi! 20:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm well acquainted with NPOV policy. That would suggest that any contentious material, positive or negative, and particularly anything challeneged by another editor, must be reliably sourced. The notion of multiple sources is a bit unique but I would go along with it as a mater of weight for hyper-notable people (on the theory that if it's truly notable a lot of sources would agree on it). The only policy I'm aware of that goes one-way to admit only positive and not negative stuff is BLP, and that is only under limited circumstances. Most negative things about major politicians are POV issues, not BLP issues. For example, the "troopergate" and "bridge to nowhere" matters as they affect Palin are matters of her public record in office and definitely not BLP concerns (though I suppose where they affect the officer himself, the kid, the divorce, etc., they raise BLP questions for other people). Wikidemon (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I absolutely agree. In terms of multiple sources, I was thinking of WP:REDFLAG as regards controversial or unlikely claims. Kelly ^hi! 22:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

And I thought Troopergate was Bill Clinton's baby. Glad I always read talkpages too.Die4Dixie (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Background on Traffic

I have just finished writing this summary of the traffic and activity on this page. It remains the most visited page on Wikipedia. I plan to propose a reduction in protection once the evidence shows this page falls out of the top spot, but we aren't there yet. Dragons flight (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the high level of traffic on this page. That is an excellent argument in favor of lowering the protection level as soon as possible and not waiting for the traffic to abate. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be available to edit by anyone. The fact that our most-trafficked article is locked is a mockery of our purpose. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work, Dragons flight. The problem with this article is that the volume of editing simply overwhelmed the normal wiki procedures of warning and blocking for quality control. There were simply so many edits that it was hardly possible to read them all, much less check out the supplied sources. I was going to do an analysis of edits per minute, but your work is good enough so that I think I'll do something else this afternoon. I'm sure there were long periods of time with edits at more than one per minute. Thanks again.--Paul (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, as you know, Paul, that describes what was happening three days ago, before the article was locked. Furthermore, the number of page views tells us nothing about the editing pattern. Looking at that part of the summary shows that the edit rate on the day before it was locked (Sept. 3) was about half what had been on Aug. 29. Also, the page views were down yesterday to 207,000 yesterday from a high of 2.5 million on the 29th. There's obviously no more reason for this page to be locked. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I get your point, but you'd probably be better off making your point at the Arb case page. No decision will be made here, it's just wasted bytes. Kelly ^hi! 02:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Anderson makes a wondeful point. Mrs. Palin's page may be receiving an enomorous ammount of attention and be suseptable to vandalism, but the irony is, that by receiving such focus the chance of removing slanderous and untruthful comments also proportionally increases. For Wikipedia to place this page under full protection is a basic violation of one of their basic strengths, an "open and transparent consensus." To reject the word is to reject the human search. ~Max Lerner —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aruhnka (talk • contribs) 06:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Anderson and Aruhnka make fine utopian agruments, but they've never edited the Sarah Palin article, and presumably weren't here at the height of the attacks that led to fully protecting the article. Poke around on the Adminstrator's pages there is plenty of evidence as to why the article is locked at the present. As disagreements are solved here on the talk page, and as interest falls back to normal levels (on Friday Aug. 29, this page had more page views than any wiki page ever). the protection will be removed.--Paul (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't Obama's page get the same protection she does? Are the wiki admins being paid by the republican party or something? I've notive alot of things with this presidential election and wiki and alot of things I've observed have been pro republican themes and reverts. This needs to be put out on main stream media on how wiki has change to being evil now.--Ron John (talk) 11:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama's page isn't fully protected at the moment, because it isn't being attached by 100's of POV-pushers. Though if you look at the protection log, it has been fully protected at times in the past.--Paul (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You're a nut! Need help adjusting that tin foil cap of yours, son? 68.46.183.96 (talk) 04:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Have you got any friends who are reporters you can contact? We know that reporters watch Wikipedia talk pages for juicy stories, maybe a story is in the works. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 12:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

NPR already did a story on how the article was edited by one volunteer the night before the Palin announcement. What seems to be missing is the followup story on how the article was so heavily attacked by partisans of the other side inserting libel and NPOV and BPL voilating materials, that the article has been locked for editing ever since; a very much bigger story which has not been reported.--Paul (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if people outside Wikipedia would find it surprising that an article with millions of views would attract a few NPOV edits, since this is the "Encyclopedia that anyone can edit". My comment to Ronjohn above was tongue in cheek, although not unsympathetic. I was trying to convey that unless a reporter is very familiar with Wikipedia's internal workings, they would not understand how unusual the behavior of the admins has been lately. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridge To Nowhere

As this is locked, I cannot add this. According to http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/675/ and an NPR story here she said "thanks but no thanks" after Congress actually had reneged. The bridge plan was already cancelled when she asked for it to not continue. This is notable in the artilce. Qermaq (talk) 01:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"after Congress actually had reneged" what do you mean by this? Hobartimus (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Basically, Palin said "Thanks, but no thanks" after Congress had already removed the funding for the bridge to nowhere.. Well, after Congress had changed the earmark from a specific funding of the bridge to a general funding of Alaska's transportation system. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I understand the funds were in place and it was a specific Alaskan decision not to build the bridge. Congress had nothing to do with not building the bridge they merely passed the responsibility to the Alaskan government to build it or not. Then Alaska decided not to build the bridge and spend the money elsewhere where it's less wasteful. Hobartimus (talk) 01:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This is already pretty thoroughly covered in Sarah Palin#Gravina Island bridge. DId you have a specific change in mind? Kelly ^hi! 02:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think your link is correct, Kelly. Do you mean Sarah Palin#Bridge to Nowhere? I'm thinking the issue at hand is that the way the section is worded, it gives the impression that Palin was the one that was responsible for getting rid of the earmark, when in reality it was Congress that did that.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, yeah, wrong link - it apparently got changed sometime, or my brain is scrambled. What rewording would you suggest? Kelly ^hi! 02:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly clear that Congress removed the earmark in 2005, leaving Alaska's general transportation grant available for whatever purposes the state chose. [5] The current wording gives the impression that this happened after Palin became governor, which of course is false. (For that reason, I agree with Bobblehead's criticism.) In 2006, campaigning for governor, Palin supported funding the bridge and referred to the power of the state's congressional delegation. The clear implication is that she wanted to keep the general transportation grant but get bridge money added on top of it. (If all she had wanted to do was spend the grant money on the bridge, then the state could do that without intervention by Stevens and Young.) Thus, she was still hoping to get bridge money from the feds. She canceled the bridge only when it became clear that there would be no additional appropriation for that purpose from Washington. In that respect, I think that Hobartimus's summary above, although accurate as far as it goes, is incomplete.

As for rewording, I'm too tired right now to draft something. I do think that the section should go roughly in chrono order, beginning with the pre-2006 developments rather than beginning with Palin's campaign. She wasn't involved pre-2006, but it's essential to give the reader the background. JamesMLane t c 08:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Your theory that Palin somehow wanted to get the bridge money twice out of Congress is interesting to me. Why would Congress pay more after they already paid the full price of the bridge? After they pay the 2nd time and again Alaska finds that the bridge is still as wasteful and still spends the money much better elsewhere would there be a 3rd run 4th etc? I think your theory about bridge money on top of bridge money becomes weak at this point because it makes the assumption that Congress would even consider handing out more money for a bridge they already paid for in full. And in the end they didn't. Why would they? They'd look stupid at that point paying say 1B$ for a bridge with a price tag of 400 Mil. We know that the earmark was cancelled in late 2005 but when did the money arrive? The previous administration of Alaska should probably also get some credit if they also recognized the wasteful nature of the bridge and directed some funds at better projects however the extent of this is not known. But even if they get some more money from Congress why would they build the bridge. Say the bridge costs 400$ and it's benefit to Alaska is estimated at 50$ (thus being a huge waste of money), clearly they will direct the money building other projects(as they did). Let's say Congress goes mad and pays them 2-3-4 times for the whole price of the bridge as you speculated. Now they have 1600$ but the bridge still costs the same 400 with the same lousy 50 benefit and still if they build anything else they will be better off. If they have the choice they will never build the bridge they know it's simply not worth 400. If Congress forces the bridge on them with an earmark and they have no say in it then Congress can take credit or blame for how the project turned out. But here Alaskan government had the choice and they deserve full credit (possibly shared between the two administrations who handled it) for recognizing that the bridge is not worth it's cost. Hobartimus (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no issue of paying for the bridge twice. The 2005 transportation bill, which provided money to Alaska for transportation projects, was originally considered in a version that required $442 million to be spent on the two bridges. That requirement was removed. According to the Times article from 2005 that I linked:

The change will not save the federal government any money. Instead, the $442 million will be turned over to the state with no strings attached, allowing lawmakers and the governor there to parcel it out for transportation projects as they see fit, including the bridges should they so choose.

It was a year later that Palin, running for Governor, called for funding the projects and referred to the power of the state's Congressional delegation. If she meant only that she, as Governor, would choose to spend the federal money on the bridges rather than on other projects, then the Congressional delegation wouldn't be a factor. As the Times points out, the person elected Governor would have the power to do that without Congressional action. Her reference in 2006 to the power of the state's Congressional delegation must mean she wanted additional federal funding -- money for the bridges on top of what would otherwise be appropriated. (If Congress added bridge money with a restored earmark, that would eliminate the problem you describe of paying for the same bridge over and over again. The additional money would have to go to the bridges.) It was only when it became clear that no such funding would come through that she canceled the projects. JamesMLane t c 19:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest changes to the Bridge to Nowhere section; it's currently a bit unclear and does not make note of recent press on the subject. The sentence "Palin made national news when she stopped work on the bridge" should probably be removed, as I don't see it supported in the cited sources (both from Aug/Sept 2008). Also, most of the sources suggested an element of exaggeration or oversimplification in the claims made by the McCain/Palin campaign: such sources include, but are not limited to, the Anchorage Daily News, the Associated Press, the New York Times, NPR, the Guardian, Politifact (from the St. Petersburg Times), FOX News (!), the Los Angeles Times, UPI, UPI again, and of course Newsweek. This huge weight of reliable sources should be more accurately reflected. Currently, the article makes it sound like only a couple of local Alaskans noticed any disconnect between the rhetoric and the reality, which is not the case. MastCell ^Talk 20:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal has a new article about Sarah Palin and the Bridge to Nowhere that could be used in the article. Here's a quote in the article about her stance on the Bridge to Nowhere:

She endorsed the multimillion dollar project during her gubernatorial race in 2006. And while she did take part in stopping the project after it became a national scandal, she did not return the federal money. She just allocated it elsewhere.[6]

Here's a little quote from the article about her earmark requests:

Gov. Palin has requested $750 million in her two years as governor -- which the AP says is the largest per-capita request in the nation.[7]

Also, here's an interesting photo of her, but it would probably cause an edit war if placed in the article. --JHP (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen the photo and I suspect I will again before November. Probably a little too pointed to be encyclopedic here. I'd add the WSJ to the list of sources indicating that there is a notable element to this story that is not well-covered in our article at present. Thoughts about proposed wording changes? MastCell ^Talk 23:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"Too pointed" is not anything close to a reason for barring a photo from Wikipedia. See Michael Dukakis#Public relations failure: The "Tank/Helmet" disaster, which reproduces the photo that damaged Dukakis. In other words, we can use significant and accurate photos of candidates for national office. What's sauce for the Democratic gander is sauce for the Republican goose. The Palin t-shirt photo has been uploaded under a fair use rationale, which is defensible, but I'll feel more comfortable about adding it once we have more information about its provenance and licensing. JamesMLane t c 00:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed with agreed-upon text from political positions. See talk page there.GreekParadise (talk) 02:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The text may or may not have been agreed upon in that discussion, which I haven't had time to follow. What I can tell you with confidence is that the current version (notably in the first two paragraphs) is rife with false statements, chiefly of timing. It is incorrect as to the order of events, which was actually, in rough form:

• bridge is proposed
• bridge gets name "Bridge to Nowhere"
• opposition causes Congress to cancel earmark (note that this occurred in 2005, before Palin was Governor, not afterward [8])
• Palin runs for Governor on pro-bridge platform
• Palin, in campaign, expresses hope that Alaska's powerful Congressional delegation can restore Bridge to Nowhere money
• Palin is elected
• Congress does not restore federal money for bridge
• Palin doesn't want to spend state money for bridge, and so gives up on project.

I guess this exemplifies one problem with trying to deal with some many comments about so many issues on one talk page. Nevertheless, much of the correct information is in this very thread. I'll try to do a first-draft fix but I don't have time tonight to polish it, so merciless editing will be welcome. JamesMLane t c 04:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't forget that although the bridge was canceled, the money was just diverted to other projects. It's not like there was any benefit to U.S. taxpayers. --JHP (talk) 06:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean there was no benefit? How about the transportation projects that were completed with the diverted money? Your point is that every taxpayer should build their own roads or that Alaskans are not US citizens? Hobartimus (talk) 07:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin Article Is Going Stale

This process is obviously not working. There was a total of 1 updates in the past 16 hours to the article and this was made by a passing admin who made a change without concensus. The review process to decided who did what will take a long time as the article gets older. The editors are losing interest over having to debate over a minor update. As a result no updates are happening. Sitedown (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "perfect" article at present, but it's not bad either. If you contrast it against [9], it appears the hard work over the past ten days paid off in reaching accuracy through consensus. What specific issues do you think make it "stale" and warrant immediate inclusion? Fcreid (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked, WP was an encyclopedia. How can an encyclopedia article go stale in 16 hours? Ronnotel (talk) 12:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been days since any edit of substance has been made. And one doesn't have to look far for issues that require resolution. Spiff1959 (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So, chip in and help forge consensus on the outstanding issues.--Paul (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It is impossible with the majority blockers in place. I have given up. 66.186.173.180 (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So you are asserting your right to add material that has not gained consensus? Ronnotel (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Are there any edits of substance and WP:CONSENSUS that have been ignored? If so, let me know and I'll be happy to add them. Ronnotel (talk) 12:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ronnotel, do you think we have enough consensus on beluga whales yet? T0mpr1c3 (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's getting close. Can you please make an edit request with specific language. If no one bleats I'll consider adding. Ronnotel (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

AdminPedia I have no idea what needs to be added or removed because I am not a subject matter expert on Palin and I can not imagine any of the administrators here are either. Millions of people will visit this page and a percentage of people who do are subject matter experts and have important verifiable facts that need to be added or changed. This is the whole purpose of a wiki. It is not the responsibility of the admins to make an article "perfect" before it is unlocked and since information changes by the minute on a person it would be impossible to ever make it "perfect". My understanding is the reason the article was locked was due to hacking of the page and that maybe valid for a very short period of time (although it is quicker to press undo then argue about what should or should not be included). I am disgusted by this behavior and believe it is not in the spirit of wikipedia, democracy or freedom of speech. Sitedown (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS is non-existant and unattainable. Incontrovertible issues of unsourced bias, or easily verifiable factual errors, go unchanged if a single person lodges opposition. Proving that opposition unwarranted bears no fruit. WP:CONSENSUS apparently means that in order to replace blatant flaws in this article, one must produce a perfect edit that garners universal approval. For the shortest read in my list, review the merits of "Edit request: 2008 vice-presidential campaign - Convention speech" 216.170.33.149 (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC) (Pardon, I neglected to login) Spiff1959 (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you point to any "easily verifiable factual errors" in the article? I highly doubt admins would raise objection to correcting such an error. Hobartimus (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not what is in the article but what is not. Until the article is unlocked no one will know what that information is. I can't believe this argument is still ongoing. I have not heard one valid reason why the article can not be semi protected. Sitedown (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If anyone's bored after that firxt read, look at the major edit that took place just before the lock to the text discussed in this talk-page section and subsection: "Suggested edit to Public Safety Commissioner section" and "Gripes" Spiff1959 (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC) You'd of thought I'd of at least been able to correct an unsourced global assertion of total media praise attributed to the Palin speech in over 2 days? Or put sentences into a chronologically-correct order to properly portray the factual order of events in the Public Safety Commissioner section in 2 days? Both of continuing violations impart a particular bias. This page need to be unlocked now, or have a bright shiny POV tag pasted smack on the top of it.

You are only furthering the beating of the dead horse into glue. It's been largely discussed at AN, ANI, AE... with consensus to keep the page fully protected for the short-term. You're a pretty new user (judging from your contributions), so it is understandable you didn't read the countless threads on this topic. seicer | talk | contribs 14:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed the Arbitration discussion, the war wheeling pages, most of the on-and-on discussions about unlocking, semi-locked, full-protection a long time ago. I'm not sure what I saw is what I would call consensus. So, this flawed article is to remain intact, in it's current state, indefinately (beyond Nov. 4th?) due to turf wars amongst the admins, to the detraction of providing a quality, accurate product to the millions who pass through WP? (I'm a WWII buff, I had a WP login years ago which I've forgotten and contributed somewhat to those civil, less-ugly topics within WP) Spiff1959 (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am a new editor but a regular user. My reason for creating an ID was simply because I could not believe this was occurring. I have read and already commented on a lot of the locations you mentioned where this is being debated and I continue to raise it either sarcastically or directly as it is not being resolved. When I stated it should be left locked until after the election it was obvious sarcasm to show just how ludicrous this is but now it appears this is actually the opinion of some people. This is CENSORSHIP BY LACK OF CONCENSUS.

I can only assume the majority of people who want to make updates do not have the time to debate for 2 days on if Palin was a member of the PTA or basketball team captain and then spend another 24 hours trying to get the wording correct so everyone agrees. Sitedown (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I will desist with any of my opinions as to the locked/unlocked status of this page as that is not within my purview. But you have to be kidding, you relegate the flaws demonstrated above to the triviality of PTA membership? Spiff1959 (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Pardon, I'm a bit frustrated and your sarcasm (temporarily) went over my head ;) Spiff1959 (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually that time was not an attempt at Sarcasm and I am concerned that anyone would refer to community work such as PTA membership as Trivial. Education of children is one of the key issues and Alaska has the highest drop out rates in the country [10]. So this is very important, so important Sarah has mentioned this several times in her speeches as the turning point in her career. I am not here to debate this though, my objection is to the fact this record is locked and neither Biden or Obama’s records are locked. This is very one sided politics and should not be occurring.Sitedown (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Spiff1959 I should not have lost it like that but I like you am frustrated and everyone has different views on what is or is not important. That’s kind of why wikipedia works so well. BTW I am neither a republican or a democrat or even an American for that matter so I am in no way biased either way. All I want is a wikipedia article on a potential VP of one of the most powerful countries in the world to have a neutral point of view so the people who do vote can vote responsibly knowing all the facts and not just the ones that were “approved by consensus” for submission. Sitedown is taking a break. Sitedown (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I apologize. I in no way meant to belittle the importance of the PTA or even High School sports. I, too, am frustrated, and misunderstood your statement. I'd thought you were discounting my documented instances in this article of unsourced personal opinion, and a fictitious timeline, as trivial. Spiff1959 (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• By saying "I understand the editors are in a bind, sorting out rumors, with Dems wanting to add truthful negative information and Republicans desperately trying to keep readers from knowing the truth." and more, you are clearly indicating your own bias, and may not be in a position to offer an objective opinion about what is neutral or not regarding this article. PHARMBOY (TALK) 15:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm misunderstanding, a BLP article is not a "debate" forum, right? On the issues you mentioned: there was extensive talk regarding the book removal incident above with a multiple of sources cited and examined. Have you participated in that discussion? Just because you see it one way does not mean everyone does, and you will invariably find multiple reliable sources that interpret the event entirely differently than you. There was (or was approaching) consensus above. Why should your interpretation now trump all other editors and reliable sources? I don't recall discussion or proposal on the other issue you mentioned (the Wasilla budget), but have you proposed an edit for discussion and consensus? I think the fundamental problem is what I mentioned above. People are trying to use this person's biography to grind their political axes. Certainly that's not appropriate when multiple RS provide entirely different conclusions (and often entirely different "facts"). The article must strive for neutrality. Fcreid (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Misunderstaning and jumping to conclusions. Again, when someone makes a comment (regardless of topic) requesting neutrality, and the statement itself is based in bias, you have to question their motives. As to my participation or editing of this article, that doesn't matter as your opinion isn't more important than mine (which I didn't state, by the way...) by virtue of the number of edits you have made. What I am tired of is all the wannabe political hacks in all the articles on candidates, and all the bias hiding inside of "we need to make it NPOV!" comments. There is as much dishonesty in the political articles as their is in the campaign. PHARMBOY (TALK) 12:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality will not and can not be acheived until the article is unlocked like every other politician. Sitedown (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, POV tags should be added until this article can undergo a through assessment by the community, which will take time. Right now its neutrality is in dispute and that should be clearly noted.Neutralis (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I agree, sadly. A "disputed" tag is appropriate. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether I agree or not is irrelevant, as I have nothing to do with that decision. Based on my understanding, the admins were going to wait until the page hit volume subsided, as BLP violations can be much more egregious when tens of thousands of users are reading that content. It looks like the "Political Positions of Sarah Palin" article is unlocked... why don't you work on that one? Fcreid (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we go work on a spinoff? A good response might be that the majority of the readers will get their misinformation from this page, and not bother delving into the sub-articles Spiff1959 (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC).

• Any editor can join in the discussions on the talk page to propose changes to the article and to help achieve consensus on any changes. Those that claim that the article is biased without participating, and those who continually post poorly-sourced and libelous charges on this talk page are only prolonging the protection of the Sarah Palin page. It is partisan anger that got the page protected in the first place.--Paul (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The right reason for the temporary use of a POV tag is to alert the reader that an article may fail to adequately reflect all points of view, with the intention of encouraging more participation in consensus building. Once consensus has been reached, the tag is removed. The wrong reason to add a POV tag is when one side in an editing dispute fails to gain consensus on their preferred version. In this case, it's difficult to argue that all points of view are not being adequately represented. That some feel their input is not sufficiently represented in the consensus version that is adopted would fall under the wrong reason to add a POV tag. Ronnotel (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is there is zero consensus on the stuff that's up here. I have tried to change it several times and I can't get consensus on my change because everyone wants to assert POV. My earlier changes were all reverted without any explanation and then the page was locked thereafter. I tried to work on the talk page several times (and many archives ago) and my suggestions were just ignored. Not responded to. Every change I've made, all duly sourced by reputable sources, has been reverted back without explanation and locked. And people have been extraordinarily uncivil. If you want me to name names, I will, but I'd rather not make it personal. This is a more systemic problem.

All I'm saying is that let's post truthful, balanced information. If you want to balance the positive with the negative or the negative with the postive, fine. But what we have here is the locked remains of Young Trigg, the probable political operative who created this puff piece to begin with.

These early changes then locking the door is kind of like someone stealing my money and then saying, "The case is closed. I won't discuss giving the money back unless you and I agree on whose money it is." And I say, "The money is mine!" And you say, "Sorry bud, no consensus. Case closed."

Right now, I'm not arguing for a particular edit. I've learned the hard way it's practically impossible. Every well-sourced edit I put in gets reverted and people refuse to dicuss why. I'm just saying there is ample disagreement that the version of this article represents anything close to neutral POV. And that disagreement should be reflected with a POV tag until we can all agree (consensus!) that the article expresses all the truthful descriptions of this woman's life, including things she's done that can be perceived in both a negative and positive light.

Once we at least acknowledge disagreement, we can work on our differences. But to pretend, in an Orwellian kind of way, that there is no disagreement, makes me think any attempt at working out our differences is hopeless.GreekParadise (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"But what we have here is the locked remains of Young Trigg, the probable political operative who created this puff piece to begin with." I don't know who is pushing this argument, but here is the Early morning Aug. 28, 2008 version of article. I would think that any unbiased observer would conclude that current article is VASTLY more critical of Palin than it was 10 days ago. and "Young_Trig" didn't "create this puff piece" he (or she) started with an existing 2200 word consensus article.--Paul (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll make you a deal, slap a POV tag on Obama until you include mention of black liberation theology in his article and I'll support a POV tag here....sound good? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

POV

<de>

• {{editprotected}}

--Proposed edit until consensus is reached for reasons stated above. Otherwise, people who go to this encyclopedia will think that consensus has been reached when it clearly has not.--

GreekParadise (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw my original request. Now that wikipedians are fully able to edit article, I think we're resolving conflicts nicely. (Knock on wood!).GreekParadise (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose:Disagree for now, can you be more specific? Kelly ^hi! 16:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: As above, I think this is a poor reason to insert a POV tag on this article. Ronnotel (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I don't like most of her politics, but the article is neutral in regard to the facts. The debate about adding additional content that doesn't favor her is a separate issue. While the article isn't as up to date as it could be (and Wikipedia policy is clear that it is better to be out of date than to try to be a news source) doesn't make the article POV. Again, I am not a fan of hers, but there does seem to be a fair amount of people determined to turn the article into a political tool, which is NOT the purpose of Wikipedia. PHARMBOY (TALK) 16:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The typical wikipedian: a white male under 35, who favors legalizing pot, is a tekkie, leans socialist, is pro-obama, despises conservatism....of COURSE you think its POV. You want to shove more controversy in it...like talking about speaking in tongues, etc. Funny how the words "black liberation theology" is no where to be found on Obama's article. But Palin/McCain now have a 10 pt lead in the polls, and I understand how desperate you are. You have to save Obama! You got to get that controversy stuffed in this article.....these are desperate times!! 17:09, 8 September 2008 24.18.108.5 (Talk)

Reminder: comments like this do not factor into consensus.--Tznkai (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, for the time being .... someone should condense what the issues are and then the validity of a tag can be weighed. CENSEI (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose no valid reasons have been given for the adding the tag - this seems to a request based on frustration that the article is locked rather than actual material problems --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose -- I don't see how this would help resolve anything, and I'm not sure what particular POV you're suggesting exists. Coemgenus 17:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose -- Seems to be lacking a lot of substance, but it sure doesn't seem biased to me. Manticore55 (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Oppose with caveat While small portions here and there are subtly unbalanced (in either direction!), I don't see any overall problem with neutrality. The disjointedness present here is very common with a high interest article with polarized perspectives. I would revisit this if someone was more specific. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - NPOV icons are an admission of defeat, that we can't work out how to edit an article. Page protection more or less says as much. The very idea of consensus on a POV tag is baffling, and asking for an NPOV tag to go in under page protection seems doubly odd. POV tags are usually added only after one fails to gain consensus for something. If we had consensus together to say that the article has a POV violation we might as well get consensus together to make a protected edit to fix it? Wikidemon (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose on the basis of what is being proposed as POV problems below. Kaisershatner (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I do not see what the proposal states as being a POV bias in the article. It seems we've removed the major POV problems are are chipping away at minor problems now. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose any tags on one of our highest trafficked articles, but more on principle than anything else (I think tags are evil and unprofessional, and are too self-referential). Of course the neutrality is disputed. It always will be, from one side of the aisle to the other, depending on who's editing. Political articles are pendulums, which by laws of physics, eventually will settle into a very nice article with smaller and smaller undulations. With or without a POV tag. I will always "vote" without, for any tag, especially for a highly visited article. Keeper ǀ 76 22:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The only complaint I see is that some editors want to lard up the article with every single Dem talking point about her. Sorry, that's not what Wikipedia is for. A.J.A. (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree

Agree I would prefer the article was unlocked but if we can't get that then this is a good start. Sitedown (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree Wholeheartedly. Spiff1959 (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree The objectively of the article is in dispute even though the majority might think it is fair. In reading though the talk page archives it is clear that many of the changes made were based on democracy rather than clear consensus. It would be best at this time to denote the article does not represent a neutral point of view and begin working to achieve it.Neutralis (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree -- A POV tag would not be unreasonable, considering the ongoing discussion here. On the other hand if people want to help get either Senator Obama or Senator McCain elected they will probably do much better to volunteer at their local campaign office rather than fooling around on WP. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree -- Just putting in a vote for my own proposal. Now it's 7-5.GreekParadise (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC) See above note.GreekParadise (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, and in a case like this, it shouldn't be a vote, but an indication. The current situation is that enough people are concerned about POV for it to be POV-tagged. Our concerns should not be dismissed. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree only if equal treatment This article deserves a POV tag only if Barack Obama and John McCain also get one. 3 or 4 articles have POV. Only Joe Biden's article is decent. Even that has POV but it's not nearly as bad. 903M (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC) The end result will be that this will get a POV tag and the other POV articles won't have it as others will cite "other crap exists". This article is not more POV than Obama and McCain.903M (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree The continued lock on the door would indicate we are either not worthy or not welcome. Is there another choice?--Buster7 (talk) 09:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Comment Can you provide some specific examples of POV within this article? Just because there is a content dispute it doesn't mean that the article itself is POV. Heck, the content dispute could be over things that make a NPOV article POV... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

it doesn't bash her enough...we need to talk about speaking in tongues, and being 'saved'....more controversy! Scrolling up you can see several people wanting to include more about her pentecostal religion and controversial items. But I'm reasonable, I'd support to slap the POV tag on if the Obama article will put one on too (or talk about black liberation theology, which is nowhere mentioned in the Obama article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If you don't agree with something in the Obama article then change it and I will change the areas I don't agree with on Palin's article. Oh yeah thats right - I can't cause it's locked. This is why we need to put the POV flag on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitedown (talk • contribs) 18:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, Bobblehead. My problem is I'm trying not to get into any specific content war but simply get people to admit that a dispute exists. Right now we have a 7 - 5 vote saying that no controversy exists. But I don't think majority rules. If 5 say a controversy exists, a controversy exists!

Here are some of the things I would change if allowed. They are all well-sourced facts. They are admittedly not a very positive portrayal of Sarah Palin, but as postive portrayals have been included, the more nuanced truth (including negatives) should be included as well. Warning: I am not now trying to argue for this or that point. Only to note that these are points on which consensus has not been reached. While this list is far from complete, there is no mention currently of the following indsiputable facts in the article.

Wasilla had 5,450 people when Palin was mayor, not 7000.

Palin hired city administrator to run Wasilla when mayor

Palin raised sales taxes 38%, including tax on food

Palin began with 0 debt and left town in $22 million debt

Palin flew annually to Washington to get earmarks

Palin's earmark request for Alaska was largest (per capita) of any state

Kilkenny allegations of cronyism and incompetence (similar allegations in Anchorage Daily News too)

Troopergate: Palin denied calls before admitting them

Troopergate: Legislative investigation starts before Palin admitted to calls —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiff1959 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Controversy over going into labor in Texas then flying 4000 miles to Alaska to have baby there without informing airlines

Banning book scandal is definitely NOT consensus. Who pretends the firing of the librarian was not due to her refusal to ban books? Show other side.

Palin had harsh history with Republican State Senate President Lyda Green, a former cancer victim. Palin called her a "bitch" and a "cancer to Alaska" on live talk radio

Palin's flirtations with the Alaskan Independence Party - I know this is controversial. That's why there's no consensus, but husband's membership, plus attending two or three conventions, plus giving welcoming address six months ago? You can't argue it's nothing.

Palin's supporting Buchanan, according to Buchanan. Both sides of controversy should be mentioned.

Again, I'm not trying to argue for inclusion at this time. Just trying to. say there's an obvious controversy. Others can add things that they feel are disputed or NPOV. Let's just add the POV tag until we arrive at a conensus on at least most of these.GreekParadise (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A good example would be the political positions which does not seem to clearly reflect the factual ascertations of the daughter article. The selective inheritance of views which make up the summary seems to be pushing a point of view by what is not included. Neutralis (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Two points. 1) The daughter article has become quite unbalanced in places, so this comparison may not wash. 2) I appreciate the list of controversies, but point out that threading that list in in a contextually readable way would greatly unbalance the article. To really assess the overall article, one would have to hold up a similar list of controversies included, as well as similar lists of noncontroversies both included and not. At least in proinciple.

Perhaps a better solution is to prioritize this list: rank the top 10 (say) topics for proposed inclusion with ranking reasons and open for discussion. Some might be better in. Many won't. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Per *Restore_large_protection_notice*, replacing the protection tag would serve the purpose by informing readers & would-be editors why "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" cannot be edited and explain generally the unresolved disagreements between editors. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

GreekParadise, the issue I have is that many of those things you list are debunked or misleading in their formulation (have you stopped beating your wife?). The debt, for example, which I believe was a result of the town's decision to build a large capital project. The "support for Buchanan" which is a total red herring (she is on record as working on the Forbes campaign and has also stated she wore a Buchanan button when he spoke in her town not because she was behind his candidacy). The Lyda Green stuff is also, as you have presented it, slanted (she called a cancer patient a bitch! OMG!). Harsh words for a political opponent but not exactly like she ran to the cancer ward to pull the plug on her or something. Those are just the three most obvious (to me) places where your list is misleading. Some of the other stuff (not informing the airline?) IMO doesn't exactly rise to the level of controversy, and isn't treated as such in other wikiarticles (Obama. Ayers. Black Liberation Theology.) Kaisershatner (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically, only $15 million of the debt was for the sports center. Although, $1.3 million of the cost for the sports center was because they started building the infrastructure before they actually owned the land and someone else snatched it up and they claimed eminent domain on the land.[11] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the solution to speech more free speech? Say that the debt is caused by the sports center. Say that Buchanan remembers her and Todd as being "brigaders" at a fundraiser in 1996 and that she said she worked for Forbes then (but never addressed Buchanan's claims. They can both be right you know.) This is more than the button. This is Buchanan personally saying it happened in 1996. The button incident was 1999. The Lyda Green stuff is true. Maybe Palin thought she was a "bitch." Give Palin's point of view on why she hates Green. But the comment was recorded on live radio. It's a fact. We could even provide an audio link. The airline thing was discussed at length in the Anchorage Daily News, but it's not on my top list of priorities. My point is I'm all for giving both sides. But to include only the positive things said about her and none of the negatives seems to me unfair.GreekParadise (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

At any rate, my point is there should be a POV tag, NOT to argue the specifics. I'm saving that for later. Can we at least agree to disagree, i.e. agree there's no consensus?GreekParadise (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

From someone who was listening to that live radio broadcast when it first aired, Sarah Palin never called Lyda Green those things. It was the DJ who was doing the interview, (who says he did not know Lyda was a cancer survivor at the time of the remark).Zaereth (talk) 23:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

New Biography about Sarah Palin

A suggested link under "External Links" to a new biography about Palin, scheduled to release October 10, according to the press release.

New biography: Sarah Palin: A New Kind of Leader by Joe Hilley

Finz7 (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely, to say the least. We'd only include it if the biography itself was available online, and only afterwards. We won't include spam links. GRBerry 17:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point. When I see that content is available, I'll write back.

Finz7 (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please be advised that Sarah Palin eloped with Todd Palin as a result of pregnancy, rather than financial concern, as noted in this article: [12]--Barclay080808 (talk) 03:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Restore large protection notice

There was never consensus for Jossi's change to the small padlock icon. Please restore the large notice. Previous discussion here, here, here and here. Mike R (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - I actually think is also the proper resolution for the POV-tag request issue being !voted on above. The large protect tag contained the specific reason why the article was locked. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Support, users need to know that the article can't be edited, why, and what to do to get it edited. The only argument I've seen for not having it is "it is embarrassing for Wikipedia", not an appropriate agrument for such a high visibility article--part of the strength of Wikipedia is to admit it is a work in progress, with disputes that in the end built better articles. There are raging disputes here, but this fact is being concealed for the sake of Wikipedia's "image". Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per reasons I gave at the POV tag vote. Too self-referential (to my knowledge, I didn't participate in any of the prior discussions, I don't recall seeing them until Mike R linked them here now). Of the millions of people that come here to get information about any subject, the first thing they read shouldn't be an internal tag, no matter what the tag says. Find me a tag that spans all the way across the browser window that says "This is one of Wikipedia's best articles!!" for our featured articles (this certainly isn't one of them) and I'll perhaps change my mind. Keeper ǀ 76 22:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should nominate the tag template for deletion, if you feel that way about all articles, Keeper76. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Just an additional comment if anyone is looking for non-Palin specific rationale(s) for not including this, or any tag, can be found at this user essay. Just an essay, one I agree with. I did not say I want them deleted, just not used, especially on high profile articles. I've used them myself, on NPP for example, or for general cleanup issues. 2 million visitors to a high profile article should not be immediately presented with a meta-tag instead of a lead paragraph about the subject article. Keeper ǀ 76 22:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - risk of vandalism is no higher with this article at this point than with any other article about a prominent politician. We may disagree and the article may change shape as a result, but that's wikipedia. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin's views on creationism

So, who and why censored out Palin's view on creationism?!! There was once here a short and seemingly objective report on this, apparently censored by Palin supporters afraid of truth?

Those that find vice/presidential candidates views on major issues as being outside of scope of Wikipedia seem to want to censor the most important information about them. Surly more important and relevant, than exact birth date, picture, etc...

Why not adapt this quote from [OnTheIssues.org] which seems to be well documented and unbiased: see: http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Sarah_Palin_Education.htm  :

"Teach creationism alongside evolution in schools

Earlier this year, she told the Anchorage Daily News that schools should not fear teaching creationism alongside evolution. "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. And you know, I say this too as a daughter of a science teacher." Source: Boston Globe, "A valentine to evangelical base", p. A12 Aug 30, 2008

76.247.105.217 (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey I agree! There is alot of censoring on this page , which in itself is POV, by limiting what can and cannot be posted.--207.232.97.13 (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Fred

You are aware that there is an article called Political positions of Sarah Palin and that article has a section on education and creationism? While you could argue that summary of her views on creationism being taught in school should be included on the main article, I wouldn't say her opinion on the matter is being hidden. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

50 times more people read this article than that one. There are numerous calls for an expansion of the political positions section. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

...which is why it says "Main article: Political positions of Sarah Palin" right in that section, so if someone does come here first (and 50 to 1, they do, probably more like 1000 to 1), and they are specifically interested in her political positions and not her personal biographical article, they know exactly where to click. Per Weight, the section looks fine. Keeper ǀ 76 21:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Request Edit for More Accurate Summary on Palin's Views On Creationism

I support you in an edit to this page of a more accurate summazation on her views on creationism. write you summary and submit for others. --207.232.97.13 (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Fred

• Support, the latest AP profile mentions it, does not mention her support for other things, such as K-12 funding. Certain policies are more noteworthy than others, if the secondary sources are to be followed. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment Why is creationism being singled out? Many many other positions aren't included either. I see no "censorship", just a article that currently address no specifics and directs interested people to another page for those positions. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking creationism being taught in school alongside evolution is being pushed because it is one of those "hot button" views. Certainly not as up there as abortion, but certainly higher than where she stands on drilling ANWR. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment What is the proposed change? Everything depends on that.--Paul (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

How about something along the lines of the following. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest this:

Many of Palin's political views are very social conservative: she opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest with the only exception being when the life of the mother is at risk , she is a member of Feminists for Life; she backs capital punishment,, opposes same-sex marriage, and favors teaching creationism alongside evolution in schools. She is also a member of the National Rifle Association and is a supporter of the right to keep and bear arms.

--207.232.97.13 (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Fred

Many of Palin's political views are of a strong social conservative nature: she opposes abortion except when the life of the mother would otherwise be imperilled, and is a member of Feminists for Life; she backs capital punishment,, opposes same-sex marriage, and favors teaching creationism alongside evolution in schools. She is also a member of the National Rifle Association and is a strong supporter of the right to keep and bear arms.

Palin is known for her support of "individual freedom and independence", and she is known in Alaska for her strong opposition to what she views as excessive government spending and corruption. She has strongly supported development of oil and natural gas drilling in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Her views on abortion need to be more specific. She opposes abortion even for rape and incest victims. --207.232.97.13 (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)fred

Isn't that already covered in "She opposes abortion except in cases where the mother's life is in danger"? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't : http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/101906/sta_20061019031.shtml --207.232.97.13 (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)fred

I suggest this:

Many of Palin's political views are very social conservative: she opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest with the only exception being when the life of the mother is at risk , she is a member of Feminists for Life; she backs capital punishment,, opposes same-sex marriage, and favors teaching creationism alongside evolution in schools. She is also a member of the National Rifle Association and is a supporter of the right to keep and bear arms.

--207.232.97.13 (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Fred

Object to the edit that was just recently done by Bobblehead. She clarified about the difference with the creationism issue in regards to allowing "debate" to happen versus curriculum material. "favors teaching creationism alongside evolution in schools" doesn't make the distinction and actually implies official curriculum material. Sliming Palin Theosis4u (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The referenced article in the Anchorage Daily News states that "Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, '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.'" Then later states "In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:

'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.'

She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum."

Given this, I'd suggest rather than "Palin supports allowing the teaching of both creationism and evolution in public schools, but not to the extent of requiring the teaching of creation-based alternatives" it should be "Palin supports discussion of creationism when evolution is taught in public schools." Nothing in the ADN article indicates she supports it being taught as part of the curriculum, and nothing indicates that she believe creationism should be brought up by teachers. DB1958 (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

VP Campaign

There is nothing here about her campaign besides the selection process and her speech. How about some more details. Here is some biased info I added that got RVed.

In sharp contrast to her Democratic opponent, Palin has avoided media interviews during her vice-presidential campaign. Her campaigning has been confined to public appearances. Therefore, Palin has thus far avoided answering questions about her public sector experience.

--Pgp688 (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, sounds kinda early to making this kind of blanket assertion, doesn't it? Also have problems with WP:POV & WP:UNDUE. Ronnotel (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ronnotel on this. Let's give it a week or two. Wellspring (talk) 04:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Details and Fact Checking

The campaign speech with its details along with fact checking need added.

--207.232.97.13 (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)fred

I find it very interesting how Wiki editors immediately clamped down on Edwards' wiki page when the only thing but truth was being added, yet they continue to allow this page to be subjected to partisan falsehoods. So much for that moral high ground (and political neutrality) you claimed to hold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.172.231 (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is mention of the $22 million dollar debt she accrued while Mayor Details are being ommitted

Palin, who portrays herself as a fiscal conservative, racked up nearly $20 million in long-term debt as mayor of the tiny town of Wasilla — that amounts to $3,000 per resident. She argues that the debt was needed to fund improvements. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12987.html

She also claimed to have balanced her budget but omitted that during her six years as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over 33%. During those same six years the amount of taxes collected by the City increased by 38%. She inherited a city with zero debt, but, despite the increase in taxes, left it with debt of over $22 million. http://www.opednews.com/articles/Sarah-Palin-A-Wolf-in-Moo-by-Anthony-Wade-080904-936.html

Also did anyone mention that funds she acquired from Congress, of 27 million dollars was for a little town of 6,500 people. http://www.opednews.com/articles/Sarah-Palin-A-Wolf-in-Moo-by-Anthony-Wade-080904-936.html

There are serious details being ommitted from this article.

--207.232.97.13 (talk) 02:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)fred

Since this is a biography of a living person, a higher standard of reliable sources is required, which OpEdNews.com is not. If you can find a proper source, propose an addition here and try to build a consensus for its inclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• It was $14.7M not $20M and it is already 1/3 paid off. These details are in the article already.--Paul (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Question

I added a more reliable source to the bit about smoking marijuana, though this edit removed undid it, replacing the link with what appears to be a blog-type article rather than CBS news. Thoughts? Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

See this edit. The user didn't use sectional editing and undid a number of edits in err. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

In Her Two years In Office she has requested $750 Million In Special Federal Spending

More News Associated Press http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ici5RhMkh6-9V07yckpLBEEjzf6QD932MU100

The governor has cut back on pork-barrel project requests, but in her two years in office, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation.

And as mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million.

--207.232.97.13 (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)fred

You do realize that the governor doesn't directly request any earmarks right? You also realize that the bit from her mayor days is already in the article right? --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Levi's age

I was admonished for added back Levi Johnston's age as 18. Here is proof; [13] but I don't want to put it the article since it is a court record (for a fishing violation). The vast majority of the sources say he is 18. Any probs? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Paritcularly, you were admonished for going against a consensus that you knew about and for marking the edit as minor despite knowing that there had been a consensus to remove his age completely. The archive is at Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 13#Levi Johnston's age. Accuracy was not at issue in the admonishment, nor is it really the issue in the consensus. GRBerry 03:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I missed that consensus, but I agree with it. I've removed the age per that discussion. MastCell ^Talk 03:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Consensus was that if we didn't know his age, we shouldn't get it wrong. If this source had been presented in that discussion, the result would have been different. Accuracy was at the core of that discussion, not any BLP violation, since dozens of media outlets were already saying he was 18. Do you doubt he is 18, MastCell? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, did you read the linked discussion properly? All people in the canvass who said remove said so because it was irrelevant to Sarah Palin. Some also mentioned the discrepancy as a factor although some said the discrepancy wasn't a major issue. No one in the straw poll said to remove based solely on the discrepancy Nil Einne (talk) 06:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• I hereby request that his age be added back, take your time to develop a new consensus. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The detail is irrelevant to Sarah Palin's bio and should stay out. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? You haven't really provided any good reason and you appear to have misread the existing consensus Nil Einne (talk) 06:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Phlegm Rooster, I gather that your reference to "a new consensus" means that you're hoping people will change their minds now that better information is available. Can you explain why we should? I think most bio article don't give the ages of the bio subject's in-laws, let alone prospective in-laws. For that matter, I still think we should delete the guy's name. JamesMLane t c 09:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no need to give his age. But he's not an unknown, he's appeared on TV with John McCain. So I think we can give him a name. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

article proposal

With the protection continuing and admins insisting on concensus that will never come before making edits. I propose that all but the first sentence of the article be blanked. It's the only thing that can be agreed upon:--Rtphokie (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Louise Heath Palin (pronounced /ˈpeɪlɪn/; born February 11, 1964) is the governor of Alaska and the Republican vice-presidential nominee in the 2008 United States presidential election.

A) The full protection was removed several hours ago. B) Your proposal is silly.

So please go forth and edit in good faith toward a neutral point of view. Dragons flight (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Lengthy text copied from subarticle

Over 3000 bytes worth of text was copied into the article in this edit however this was only discussed at a different article talk page and not here [14] I oppose this addition as this article should summarize the life of Sarah Palin and not serve as a dumping ground for text from other articles. It should be the exact opposite, text should be moved FROM here to subarticles and then summarized briefly for providing proportional weight. As a result now we have a longer section on the "Bridge to nowhere" than the whole Vice Presidential campaign, or political positions or family life. I understand that intrest in this is high but how about linking to the article on "Bridge to nowhere" and not rehasing different subarticles here in extreme detail. Hobartimus (talk) 04:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur. The section is WAY too long. Resummarize as you see fit. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What's needed here is a new article, akin to Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney. I don't have time to start it myself, however.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

See Governorship of Sarah Palin, now we need a good WP:SUMMARY here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for starting new article.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The summary needs a lot of work. I am retiring now (late here), so go ahead and tweak it if you would want to. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The former text was grossly inaccurate, as I commented at the bottom of the #Bridge To Nowhere thread above, so I made major changes to correct the timeline. I didn't restore the paragraphs that had been deleted -- about the political impact of the bridge issue (some people hailing her as an anti-pork reformer, some denouncing her as a liar). We might try to craft a short, neutral summary to indicate that the bridge got her a lot of attention, pro and con. On the issue itself, though, the fiscal contortions stretching over a couple years have to be reflected in the summary. The earlier version was nice and short, a quality it achieved by omitting key background facts such as the Congressional deletion of the earmark before Palin was elected. That's why the information here can't be confined to just what happened during her governorship. JamesMLane t c 06:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Because there's now a governorship article, I've copied my corrected chronology there, and trimmed the section in this article. JamesMLane t c 06:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Redlink in my edit summary

MOS:QUOTE says blockquotes are for quotes of four lines or more.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"Lobbyists" section

This section seems highly messed up. First of all, two sentences are not enough for a separate section. But that's the least of the problems. We are told that Palin "appointed lobbyists" but the Governor does not appoint lobbyists. We are told that Richter was a lobbyist, but she was not; she was a fundraiser for Palin. We are told that Cora Crome oversees an industry, but she does not; she's merely an adviser to the Governor. And why just focus on Richter and Crome? Newsweek says: "As her attorney general, Palin chose Talis Colberg, a friend who specializes in insurance law." The Colberg appointment seems equally as notable, which is to say not very notable at all. I will remove this section.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This has become kind of moot, now that there's a new article on her governorship.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Mayoralty of Sarah Palin

Just thought I would inform you of the above page which was created (not by me) a few minutes ago. Dont know if you think it is notable to have a page of its own? I have no opinion. Perhaps if people think the page shouldnt exist there would at least be some info on it that could be added to the main Sarah Palin page? Willy turner (talk) 06:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There are now separate articles Mayoralty of Sarah Palin and Governorship of Sarah Palin. They are both summarized here in this article, per WP:Summary style. This seems to me like a very good idea.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see this section before. See my note below. Subarticles should be created only after discussion and consensus on the talk page. Much of this material went through a lengthy discussion above. I restored that material that went through discussion to the main page. I am not arguing against the creation of subarticles as a general policy, but in this case, consensus should be taken before making such a move. I would argue for including the restored material in the main article. -Classicfilms (talk) 11:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Election : City Council Member, Mayor of Wasilla

Addition Information. Mayor Sarah Palin. Term of Service. Sarah Palin was first elected to a seat on the Wasilla City Council in October of 1992 and was reelected in 1995. In 1996, she ran for and won the Office of Mayor and was reelected in 1999. She concluded her public service as Mayor in 2002 and was unable to run again due to term limits. City Council Member, Seat E, Term October 1992 - October 1995 (First Term)

   October 6, 1992 Election Results 

http://www.cityofwasilla.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=451

City Council Member, Seat E, Term October 1995 - October 1998 (Second Term) Please note, Sarah Palin only completed one-year of this term before she was elected Mayor.

   October 3, 1995 Election Results

http://www.cityofwasilla.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=452

Mayor of Wasilla, Term October 1996 - October 1999 (First Term) October 1, 1996 Election Results http://www.cityofwasilla.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=453

Mayor of Wasilla, Term October 1999 - October 2002 (Second Term)

   October 5, 1999 Election Results

http://www.cityofwasilla.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=454 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poohwinnie11 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Mayoralty, no, miscongeniality, no....

The article tells us that In 1984, Palin won the Miss Wasilla Pageant,[9][10] then finished second in the Miss Alaska pageant. Plus a few links. One of these links is to Miss Congeniality. Wondering what this term meant, I clicked on the link. The "article" (disambig page) "Miss Congeniality" is completely uninformative. Perhaps somebody who knows what 'Miss Congeniality" means could revise that "article", or perhaps the link there could be removed from this article. Tama1988 (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The second usage given at the dab page is "A special award given at beauty pageants". That would be the sense in which it's used here. -- Zsero (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. So Palin finished third ("second runner-up")[11] in the Miss Alaska pageant,[12] at which she won a college scholarship and the "Miss Congeniality" award.[13] And what might that mean? It's A special award given at beauty pageants -- something that the reader can infer from the very sentence from which it's linked. I suppose it means that she's "congenial", but the world of beauty pageants is such a bizarre one that I don't know what "congenial" means in this context. There are three links to examples; two have no explanation whatever, but this tells us that in that particular context it reflects the respect and admiration of the delegate's peers, who voted for her as the most congenial, charismatic and inspirational participant. This suggests that it has less to do with physical appearance than it does with, uh, what -- Christian devoutness or something? Until the article Miss Congeniality is informative, I think the link to it should go. (By contrast, a red link would be OK: the reader would know there's nothing to see.) Tama1988 (talk) 05:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Restore mayor section

I just restored the text to the mayor section which was moved to a new subarticle. That portion of text went through a lengthy discussion (see above). There should be a discussion on the talk page before it is moved to a subarticle. I, for one, would not support moving it off of the main page to a new article. -Classicfilms (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed the post

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin#Mayoralty_of_Sarah_Palin

and added to that section. Sorry about that...it's early. -Classicfilms (talk) 11:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Pregnancy with Trig

I apologize if this has been brought up already, however I propose the addition of this in the personal life section (added after "Palin's youngest child ... prenatally"):

Palin had difficulty coming to terms with Trig's illness and concealed her pregnancy, continuing to work up until she gave birth and returned to work three days after Trig was born. She has since been accused of exploiting her child's illness for political gain.

Normally I would go WP:BRD but this is article is quite contentious. Also, can anyone suggest wording to balance the last bit? The sources (New Zealand Herald New York Times) suggest that supporters are glad a child with special needs is "in the spotlight". Thanks, ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 11:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence is unacceptable in a whole load of ways: how do we know (apart from human sympathy) that Gov. Palin "had difficulty in coming to terms" with her child's "illness"? in what way did she "conceal her pregnancy"? What does "return to work" mean for a State Governor?

The second sentence is simply not supported by the cited source. Physchim62 (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"She was, it seems, struggling to come to terms with the fact that the baby would be born with Down's syndrome." "... some accuse her of exploiting Trig for political gain." You did actually look at the sources, right? ~ Ameliorate! _{U T C} @ 14:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

How much informational value does this add? A.J.A. (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it says a lot about her personal life. The world's media appear to agree. ~ Ameliorate! _{U T C} @ 23:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"She was, it seems, struggling to come to terms with the fact This is supposition and in a WP:BLP it isn't allowed regardless of the fact that a WP:RS is doing the supposing. The second quote from the source is just repeating attacks. How does that help anything? What _is_ missing from the article is the quote from Palin that "she and Todd feel blessed and chosen by God" to have this child. Now that really does say a lot about her personal life and deeply-held beliefs.--Paul (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Fiscal conservative

I added that Palin was a fiscal conservative to her positions section to give context and structure. I'm worried that some people might object to calling her that. Others might want to rephrase it to incude her time as Mayor. I'm on the fence on this, and am looking for a source right now that says she is a fiscal conservative. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sources are actually not looking good for her being a fiscal conservative, I'm going to remove it for now. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 12:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Template?

Template:SarahPalinSegmentsUnderInfoBox Now that there are subarticles linked in the main article, should we make a template for them like {{JohnMcCainSegmentsUnderInfoBox}}? Coemgenus 12:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Hobartimus (talk) 13:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone beats me to it, I'll hash something out this afternoon. I'm going to use Category:Sarah Palin for my article list; are there any article not listed there that should be included? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The only articles I included are the articles on her Policies, her governorship, her terms as mayor, and the McCain Campaign article (since Gov. Palin lacks a Palin Vice Presidential Campaign, 2008 article. (Don't get ideas!) So, with fewer links (and lacking a "Family of" and "Early Life" article), I used the format for the similar template at Barack Obama - which turns out like this. Thoughts? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"Originally baptized as a Roman Catholic"

It's been a long time since I took instruction, but I seem to recall that in RC theology, one is not baptized "as a Roman Catholic". That is to say, in RC theology, baptism is baptism regardless of who performed it, or where or when. There is by their lights no such thing as a "Roman Catholic" baptism. It would be more accurate to say that SP's parents had her baptized in an RC ceremony, or by an RC priest.

Also, Assemblies of God appear to prefer adult (or at least non-infant) baptism [15]. Also they distinguish between "water baptism" and "baptism of the Holy Spirit," as evidenced by speaking in tongues. [16]. If the AG baptism is notable, the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" is the more notable date of concern.

In my opinion, however, the baptism section is not notable, and its inclusion is a little NPOV and even a little snarky. --nemonoman (talk) 14:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Relative size of sections

Right now, the sections are are about the same size except the Mayor of Wasilla one, which is quite long. Now that there is a subarticle, can this section be trimmed? I wouldn't know where to begin. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Why trim this section? Why not add to the other sections? The subarticle was created without discussion or consensus. The current mayor section is partly composed of material which was created by a number of editors over a period of days through consensus in the sections above. While it's fine to tweak it, it should not be radically edited or removed without discussion or consensus. I'm not against subarticles but I'm not certain this section is long enough to have one yet. I think it is fine the way it is. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Now the other sections have grown, the issue seems less pressing. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridge to Nowhere: Focus on Young and Stephens or Palin?

The Bridge to Nowhere section has been modified, with a lot of additions about the role of Ted Stephens and Don Young in it. I wouldn't mind that so much but then most of Palin's positions on the bridge were cut, including her direct quotations. It seems very strange to me that anyone would want to cut the direct quotations of the subject of the article on the subject of the section and replace them with a long discussion of what other people had to say about it. I insist we include Palin's positions. If we cut anything for space, we can cut Stephens and Young. I will restore Palin's positions on the bridge and delete Stephens and Young. If you feel Stephens and Young should be there, fine, but please do not cut Palin's positions, including her quotations. Feel free to go at length about Stephens' and Young's roles in their entries or in the Gravina Island entry. Make sense? (Working on it now)GreekParadise (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The section is now a summary of the full article of Governorship of Sarah Palin and as such lengthy direct quotes are not appropriate just like too much detail. Instead the section should briefly summarize the information from the subarticle and the readers can click through if they need more detail. Duplicating material from subarticles wont "make sense" and also contrary to SUMMARY style. Hobartimus (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. Didn't notice there was a whole new "governorship" page. (No mention here on talk page.) OK. I'll get out my scissors and start cutting stuff from the main article that is too much detail for the main article. I'll start with a road to a mine.GreekParadise (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Family & religion headings have reappeared

I thought consensus was that these subheadings were unnecessary? --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have removed them. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • And have to remove them again, it seems. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Summarizing Mayoralty section

Yesterday, new articles were created for Governorship of Sarah Palin and Mayoralty of Sarah Palin. According to WP:Summary style, those articles are now supposed to be summarized here in this main article, and indeed the governorship article is summarized here. However, the summary of the mayoralty has been reverted.[17] I hope that people will weigh in about this, because the present mayoralty section is very bloated, and does not summarize the sub-topic article. Following is the present version of this section here in this article, followed by the removed summary version.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Present version of mayoralty section

"Sarah Palin served two terms as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, which is a city of 7,025 located 47 kilometers (29 mi) north of the port of Anchorage.[19] She served as mayor from 1996 to 2002. Palin began her political career in 1992, when she won a three-year term on the Wasilla city council, supporting a controversial new sales tax and advocating "a safer, more progressive Wasilla." She was re-elected to a second three-year term on the city council in 1995.

"In 1996, Palin ran against and defeated three-term incumbent mayor John Stein, running on a platform of "fresh ideas and energy".[20] In the campaign, she vowed to replace "stale leadership"[20] and criticized Stein for wasteful spending and high taxes.[21] She also introduced campaign issues such as abortion, religion, gun rights, and term limits.[22] Although the mayoral election was non-partisan, the state Republican party ran advertisements on her behalf.[22]

"Shortly after taking office in October 1996, Palin began to make leadership changes. She eliminated the position of museum director and asked for updated resumes and resignation letters from Wasilla police chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton, finance director Duane Dvorak, and librarian Mary Ellen Emmons.[23] Palin stated this request was to find out who supported her.[23] She temporarily required department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters, stating they first needed to become better acquainted with her policies.[23] She hired a new city administrator and reduced her own salary from $68,000 to $64,000.[22]

"According to Emmons, she and Palin twice discussed the question of library censorship: first in early October, then in detail on October 28.[24] Emmons stated Palin asked her if she would object to censorship, and Emmons replied "it would not be just me ... the American Civil Liberties Union would get involved, too."[24] Palin raised the possibility of people circling the library in protest, to which Emmons replied "it would definitely be a problem the ACLU would take on then."[24] In early December, Palin spoke publicly about the issue, using it as an example of a discussion she'd had with her department heads,[24] and stated, "many issues were discussed, both rhetorical and realistic in nature."[24] She further added that censorship "was discussed in the context of a professional question being asked in regards to library policy" and that she did not have a specific list of books in mind.[24] No books were removed from the library.[25]

"Palin gave signed letters to Emmons and Stambaugh on January 30, 1997, that stated: "I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern the city of Wasilla. Therefore I intend to terminate your employment..."[26] Palin rescinded the firing of Emmons the next day after meeting with her and after what the Anchorage Daily News called "a wave of public support for Emmons."[25] Palin stated that her concerns had been alleviated when Emmons agreed to support Palin's plan to merge the town's library and museum operations.[26] Palin also spoke with Stambaugh at least three times about the matter, but ultimately he was fired as planned. Stambaugh filed a lawsuit which was later dismissed by a court that found the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason, including a political one.[27]

"Despite the rocky start, Palin gained favor with Wasilla. She kept a jar with the names of Wasilla residents on her desk, and once a week she pulled a name from it and picked up the phone. She would ask: "How's the city doing?"[28] She cut property taxes by 40%[29] while improving roads and sewers and strengthening the Police Department.[22] She also reduced spending on the town museum and opposed a bigger library.[29] Palin ran for re-election against Stein in 1999[30][31] and was returned to office by a margin of 909 to 292 votes.[32] Palin was also elected president of the Alaska Conference of Mayors.[33]

"During her second term as mayor, Palin introduced a ballot measure proposing the construction of a municipal sports center to be financed by a sales tax increase.[34] The Wasilla Multi-Use Sports Complex was built on time and under budget. The total cost escalated due to an eminent domain lawsuit growing out of early planning errors.[34] She also hired the Anchorage-based lobbying firm of Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh to lobby for earmarks for Wasilla. The effort was led by Steven Silver, a former chief of staff for Senator Ted Stevens,[35] and it secured nearly $27 million in earmarked funds. The earmarks included $500,000 for a youth shelter, $1.9 million for a transportation hub, $900,000 for sewer repairs, and $15 million for a rail project linking Wasilla and the ski resort community of Girdwood.[36] Some of the earmarks were criticized by Senator McCain in 2001 and 2002.[37]

"In 2002, term limits prevented Palin from running for a third term as mayor.[38] Her stepmother-in-law, Faye Palin, ran for the office but lost the election to Dianne Keller[39] after Sarah Palin endorsed Keller.[22]"

Proposed summary version of mayoralty section

"Sarah Palin served two terms as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, which is a city of 7,025 located 47 km (29 miles) north of the port of Anchorage.[19] She served as mayor from 1996 to 2002. Palin had begun her political career in 1992, when she won a three-year term on the Wasilla city council, supporting a controversial new sales tax and advocating "a safer, more progressive Wasilla." She was re-elected to a second three-year term on the city council in 1995.

"In 1996, Palin ran against and defeated incumbent mayor John Stein, whom she criticized for wasteful spending and high taxes.[20] The state Republican party ran advertisements on her behalf.[21]

"Shortly after taking office in October 1996, Palin began to make leadership changes, and she temporarily required department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters, until they had become acquainted with her policies.[22] She hired a new city administrator and reduced her own salary from $68,000 to $64,000.[21]

"She started a debate about censorship and library policy, though she did not have a specific list of books in mind.[23] No books were removed from the library.[24] Palin asked subordinates to support her plan to merge the town's library and museum operations.[25]

"As mayor of Wasilla, Palin was in charge of the city Police Department, consisting of 25 officers, and Public Works.[26] She was praised for cutting property taxes by 40%[27] while improving roads and sewers and strengthening the Police Department.[21] She also reduced spending on the town museum and opposed a bigger library.[27] During her first term, the state Republican Party began grooming her for higher office.[28]

"Palin ran for re-election against Stein in 1999[29][30] and was returned to office by a margin of 909 to 292 votes.[31] Palin was also elected president of the Alaska Conference of Mayors.[32]

"During her second term as mayor, Palin put a measure on the ballot to increase sales tax to finance the construction of a municipal sports center.[33] Though the center was built on time and under budget, the total cost escalated due to an eminent domain lawsuit growing out of early planning errors.[33] She also hired the Anchorage-based lobbying firm of Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh to lobby for earmarks for Wasilla. The effort was led by Steven Silver, a former chief of staff for Senator Ted Stevens,[34] and it secured nearly $27 million in earmarked funds. The earmarks included $500,000 for a youth shelter, $1.9 million for a transportation hub, $900,000 for sewer repairs, and $15 million for a rail project linking Wasilla and the ski resort community of Girdwood.[35] Some of the earmarks were criticized by Senator McCain.[36]

"In 2002, term limits prevented Palin from running for a third term as mayor.[37] Her stepmother-in-law, Faye Palin, ran for the office but lost the election to Dianne Keller[38] after Sarah Palin endorsed Keller.[21]"

Do you support summary of mayoralty section?

This cuts the section down from 825 words to 473 words, and I think it's a good summary, perhaps in need of improvement, but adequate for now. Who agrees or disagrees?

Support. For reasons described above.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't support what you are proposing but maybe we could shorten things up with a bulleted list as proposed in the following sectionRktect (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Your proposals have nothing to do with the mayoralty section, and therefore are not relevant to the mayoralty section.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: For the past few days, a number of editors collaborated on material for this section. The discussion began here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_15#Book_Banning

was moved to here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_15#Proposed_change_to_Wasilla_section

and found consensus with this draft:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_15#8th_draft

The version approved by consensus was added yesterday. My argument has been that this version created via consensus was moved to a new article without discussion or consensus on the talk page first. As I indicated here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin#Mayoralty_of_Sarah_Palin

I reverted back to the consensus version because there had been no discussion on the talk page about turning the section into a summary and moving to a new article. I believe the move was a Wikipedia:Assume good faith attempt to improve the main article and I appreciate the fact that we are starting a discussion here about the possibility of turning it into a summary.

I am not opposed to the idea of creating a subarticle for this section, but I do believe that just as we went through consensus for the existing material, we need to achieve consensus for a summary.

The current summary is a good start but I cannot yet support it because the section on the library does not discuss both Emmons and Palin's points of view as the consensus version does.

I will be open to a rewrite and to further input from other editors as to an acceptable summary for this section. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The suggested summary says that Palin, "started a debate about censorship and library policy, though she did not have a specific list of books in mind. No books were removed from the library." I think this is preferable to going into all the details about Emmons (the librarian) right here in this main article. It's all in the sub-article.

The material that you're suggesting to include here is the following, which obviously includes a large amount of unnecessary detail for a main article like this one. "According to Emmons, she and Palin twice discussed the question of library censorship: first in early October, then in detail on October 28.[24] Emmons stated Palin asked her if she would object to censorship, and Emmons replied 'it would not be just me ... the American Civil Liberties Union would get involved, too.'[24] Palin raised the possibility of people circling the library in protest, to which Emmons replied 'it would definitely be a problem the ACLU would take on then.'[24] In early December, Palin spoke publicly about the issue, using it as an example of a discussion she'd had with her department heads,[24] and stated, 'many issues were discussed, both rhetorical and realistic in nature.'24] She further added that censorship 'was discussed in the context of a professional question being asked in regards to library policy' and that she did not have a specific list of books in mind.[24] No books were removed from the library.[25] Palin gave signed letters to Emmons and Stambaugh on January 30, 1997, that stated: 'I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern the city of Wasilla. Therefore I intend to terminate your employment...'[26] Palin rescinded the firing of Emmons the next day after meeting with her and after what the Anchorage Daily News called 'a wave of public support for Emmons.'[25] Palin stated that her concerns had been alleviated when Emmons agreed to support Palin's plan to merge the town's library and museum operations.[26] Palin also spoke with Stambaugh at least three times about the matter, but ultimately he was fired as planned. Stambaugh filed a lawsuit which was later dismissed by a court that found the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason, including a political one.[27]"Ferrylodge (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view issue which applies to the main article just at it applies to the subarticle. It is important that all perspectives of all issues appear in articles including this one. The quote you gave above was agreed to via consensus of a number of editors here as I indicated through the links above. At the same time, if you can offer a way to further condense the information, perhaps removing quotes but remaining with NPOV, I will be open to it. I also think that other editors who contributed to the creation of this material need to give their opinions as well in line with Wikipedia:Consensus. This is why I suggested keeping the section as is - as the links above indicate, it took a number of days for everyone to agree to what is currently in the article. That doesn't mean it can't change - this is a wiki after all. However, there needs to be consensus on changes. Can you give me a shorter version that captures the essence of the above? -Classicfilms (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you would briefly explain why the following is POV. Palin "started a debate about censorship and library policy, though she did not have a specific list of books in mind. No books were removed from the library." Please don't say it's POV merely because it is different from the longer version. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of it being a different version. The version currently on the main page was agreed upon by a number of editors through Wikipedia:Consensus. It offers both Emmons' and Palin's versions of what happened - that is what makes it NPOV. To offer only one version of the events would be POV - which is why I would make the same comment if only Emmons was mentioned and not Palin. The WP is an encyclopedia and thus gives all points of view so we need to mention both. It took a number of days for us to reach consensus on how to convey both Emmons and Palin as you can see by going through all of the threads. So the comment that I am making here isn't my opinion, it is a reflection of all of the discussions which have been happening over the past few days. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - There isn't enough content to justify a sub-article for her time as Mayor yet... I'd be in favor of changing the Mayor article into a redirect here. Seriously.. 825 words does not warrant a sub-article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The question was not whether to delete the sub-article. If you want to start a thread about that, then please go ahead. Seriously, have you taken a look at the sub-article? It's larger than most articles.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, this thread is not about whether to delete the sub-article or not, nor am I saying the page should be deleted. It's about whether or not I accept the summary you've made and I oppose that summary for the reason given. The sub-article has 4.5kb of readable text and is just a mirror image of what was in the mayor section at the time the sub-article was created. That can easily fit in this article for now. This does not mean that a sub-article for her time as mayor in Wasilla can not be created in the future, it just means that it is not needed right now. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - The earlier consensus seemed to include both points view on the library issue. The current summary does not. Manticore55 (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And for the record, I agree the mine road, while personally amusing is not of the same magnitude as the library issue. Manticore55 (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Palin's time as mayor is not significant enough to have a separate article. The current version is of appropriate length to be included in whole in the main article (and currently is an exact copy of the main article) and thus the sub-article should be deleted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The section is inelastic; it cannot be expanded enough for a subpage, nor shortened enough for a summary. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I would like to support this as I think the summary is accurate, shows a NPOV, and is concise as it should be in a biographical article. Being Governor is more important than Mayor, and should be given more weight, but it's almost the other way around now. However, 800 or so words is not that much, there is a lot of controversy about the librarian and we did come to consensus which I'd like to protect, and finally, spinning off this material into another article doubles the amount of effort to keep things accurate and non-biased. (This means I'm also in favor of deleting the daughter article) --Paul (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose all versions because it is original research to comment on the size of Wasilla. The part of the population and the location can be obtained by clicking a link to the town's article. In other political debates, when information was added by synthsizing information from many articles, this has been shot down. 903M (talk) 04:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Try again. I second Classicfilms comment. 194.83.141.23 (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Contoversy's, Scandals, Charges of Malfeasance in Office, Corruption and Mismanagement section

It would be nice to have a section somewhere near the top with a bulleted list of the proven, documented, well researched and attributed Contoversy's, Scandals, Charges of Malfeasance in Office, Corruption and Mismanagement that are at least as much a part of the history of Sarah Palin as her acheivements in high school. Even the neutral observers are finding that as with the Bush administration its getting hard to keep track of the lies and the cover ups.

Getting rid of the chef charging for meals

Gov. Sarah Palin knows how to cook.

And her children are capable of making sandwiches.

That said, Palin has told chef Stefani Marnon that the Governor's Mansion in Juneau won't be needing a professional cook until the legislative session this coming winter.

"Bottom line is, the governor does not need a gourmet chef at the mansion," said Meghan Stapleton, the governor's spokeswoman. "From the start, she's been very uncomfortable with a gourmet chef. It's a luxury she doesn't think Alaskans should be paying for."

Folksy! And yes, she was right. There was no reason for Alaskans to be paying for a gourmet chef for the governor. That was $45,000 she saved the state.

Except she then charged Alaska $16,951 to eat at her own place.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has billed taxpayers for 312 nights spent in her own home during her first 19 months in office, charging a "per diem" allowance intended to cover meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business.

Rktect (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't do "controversy" sections - instead the material is integraated into the article in a logical fashion (as is currently done) --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Doesn't do CONTROVERSY??? Really?? What is this? Oh, it looks like about 69,000 article search results...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=*+controversy&go=Go —Preceding unsigned comment added by T1n0 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The chef thing is not notable. The per diem has been covered by reliable sources - see the thread below - so please don't cite Daily Kos. MastCell ^Talk 18:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The chef and the per diem thing is no big deal; $17 grand a year she embezzels, so what? She lies or intentionally misleads about what she is doing and why; so what? Well it speaks a little bit about the greed that supports the bridge to nowhere, gets the pork from my tax dollars, then doesn't build the bridge and keeps the money. I see it as in the catagory of lying to Congress and getting money under false pretenses. The Daily Kos is breaking a lot of this news, is a perfectly reputable source, is being covered by the MSM, MSNBC covers many or most of its front paged articles. I'm not sure what the proper NPOV is on lying. I WP:AGF until proven otherwise and then when the lie is outed I think it should be noted for the record. When you take the sum of everything covered here and compike it its a different picture than WP:BLP requires; underreporting I believe its called. Rktect (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It's hopeless, my friend. Personal attack deleted - Wikidemon (talk) will edit and delete you stuff while you are at work. I have tried several times to bring to light the stuff about the dairy that she used to funnel funds to her friends and family, and it is deemed unimportant or crap It wasn't in the best form because I spent the little time I had collecting information and then just posted a timeline WITH references. Personal attack deleted - Wikidemon (talk) If they really wanted to state things clearly they would have helped me clean up the article, but no, it was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T1n0 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Hey, do you want this article protected again? Stop the revert warring. Discuss. Attempt to reach consensus, or at least compromise. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Chef & per-diem

While I doubt the notability of this topic in it's entirety, in the interest of compromise I have reverted this section to reduce the incendiary and POV tone of the original version that is being revert/restored. Can we please discuss why this section is even necessary? Let's get consensus on this before it goes into the article. In particular what's been shown is that Palin re-assigned her personal chef to another position in the state government and has elected to draw on a per-diem while working away from her primary work location. What's notable about this? Ronnotel (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Note to Bobblehead - I think there is an idiomatic distinction between fired and terminated. For instance, you can be "fired" from a job without being terminated from the organization (i.e. a transfer). I'd like to give Palin the benefit of the doubt and assume she was using the idiomatic use of the term (not too surprising since she was giving a political speech, full of colloquialism). Thoughts? Ronnotel (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The idea is to just be able to list them and a link to to a more detailed source without long discussion. The problem is there are so many of them coming so fast its hard even just to list them.

The Alaska National Guard Commanding General changes his story about Sarah Palin and is promoted for it to a rank which isn't approved.

The notability of the per diem charged for working at home is that its an example of corruption, like cheating on your tax return. It amounts to an embezelment and is a felony. Its one of many examples of things that might be considered negatives about Sarah Palin. Above is another example. There are a lot of things about her worth some discussion. I don't see that the tone needs to be incendiary or reflect a POV. All that is being requested is a simple listing to compliment other possible overly positive impressions and give a fair and balanced assessment Rktect (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please don't cite Daily Kos. Re: the per diem, the Washington Post reported here that Palin charged the state a travel allowance for 312 days spent at home in her first 19 months in office. She billed the state about $25,000 for her daughters' travel expenses, which the state finance director suggested was a bit iffy. She later went back and deleted some log entries indicating that she'd stayed home, but still claimed the per diem. The Post suggests that this is relevant because the campaign has positioned her as a "crusader for fiscal rectitude". The story has been picked up by a handful of other outlets, including the AP.

Whether this is notable enough for a biographical entry, or just the campaign-news-tidbit-of-the-day, is unclear to me. I think that if this is included, it should be very briefly mentioned. One could also make an argument against including right away on the basis of WP:NOT#NEWS, and wait to see if this particular issue gains traction and a -gate suffix, or simply fades away. MastCell ^Talk 18:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

More or less agree with Mast's assessment. Ronnotel (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, it may be too soon to include it in the main article, but I'd argue in favor of retaining the detail of the travel expenses in the sub-article regardless of whether or not it catches on. As far as the distinction between "fired" and "terminated".. Umm.. That's a bit far fetched, IMHO. One is not "fired" from your position when remaining within the same company, you are "transfered" or "demoted". Regardless of the definition Palin uses, it is clear the intent of the statement was that she reduced expenses for the state by getting rid of the chef. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Well, presumably the chef filled a vacancy when transfered. Unless we have more information, do we really have enough information to determine that she didn't reduce expenditures? Seems like WP:SYNTH Ronnotel (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't have any evidence that she did cut expenditures either. Notice that I didn't mention an impact to the budget in the article. Just on the talk page.;) Also, speaking of WP:SYNTH, I disagree with this edit. The private jet was obviously not a customary perk for an Alaskan governor considering how much flak Murkowski received for purchasing the jet. We're still at one right now, that being the executive chef... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Nor do we have any evidence that she said she "fired" the chef. The quote from her acceptance speech is "And I thought we could muddle through without the governor's personal chef." Until she gives some of the per deim back or is convicted of embezzlement or corruption this is completely non-notable and doesn't belong in this article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper.--Paul (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

← Somewhat separately, I have made this edit removing a contention that "all of Palin's charges were allowed under state policy." The source (the Washington Post) doesn't say this; in fact, it specifically quotes Alaksa's comptroller as saying she "can't imagine" how Palin's children could be conducting official (reimbursable) state business. MastCell ^Talk 20:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I am all for removing the whole paragraph as not noteworthy. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I am going to be bold and claim consensus here and put in this NPOV version:

Palin continues to live in Wasilla eschewing many of the perks of her office. She does not use the the Governor's private chef, who was transferred to the lounge of the State Legislature. though she has charged her travel expense account for the nights she spends at home with her family.

If someone wants to remove the whole thing while we wait to see if this is just the campaign-sniping-of-the-day, or something more substantial, that's fine with me.--Paul (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Go crazy. ;) Too soon to see if it is important enough to make the main article. I've already moved it over to the governor article, so if it does blow-up, a summary of it can be put back here. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

So "rumors" get dropped in wiki as edits even before a 24 hrs cycle is allowed by the valid media to run the story 6 times to get it right - I get that. My growing concern though is that when the "rumor" gets turned on it's head the response here becomes to remove the whole thing. This is a good example of that. She was required to do the per diem, it did show fiscal conservative judgements- especially in comparison - and so forth. [I'm saying that it means it's always warranted...but to remove the context outright when wiki allowed the rumor to exist seems a double standard]

"Gov. Palin has spent far less on her personal travel than her predecessor: $93,000 on airfare in 2007, compared with $463,000 spent the year before by her predecessor, Frank Murkowski." WP - Palin Billed State for Nights Spent at Home Scrutinized

So, in this case I think a proper "correction" should go on the page and should reference past administration expenses. Theosis4u (talk) 05:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Three Palin-related content forks need watching

Here are three Palin-related content forks that have been edited by only a few editors:

• Matanuska Maid Dairy controversy -- just one editor. Needs substantial clean-up, wikification, etc.
• Governorship of Sarah Palin
• Mayoralty of Sarah Palin

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's worth periodically checking the list of 500+ articles that link to Sarah Palin for new forks, some of which may be non-neutral (such as the Matanuska Maid Dairy controversy "COATRACK".) --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Governorship of Sarah Palin and Mayoralty of Sarah Palin are sub-topic articles. See WP:Summary style. Sub-topic articles are perfectly fine. Only a small fraction of sub-topic articles are content forks.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey I am all for Forks , Forks are an excellent way to expand on a topic. --MisterAlbert (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not what is meant by a Wikipedia:Content fork. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, forks can be a good way to expand a topic without getting an unwieldy main article. My main point above was to get lots of eyeballs on these articles to prevent POV-pushing.

FYI, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayoralty of Sarah Palin

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

These type of articles are not very common, though. For comparison, [18] and [19]. Cenarium ^Talk 00:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palins Church Controversy, her Pastor, Her Relilgous Beliefs now Aired on CNN

Request Edit: Larry Kroon delete that took place after a 40 minutes consensus {very quick} be added back to the article. I find it quite pointless to omit his name now, it is all over the airwaves.

More Information has surfaced, CNN Anderson Cooper aired last night on Palins Church and it Cotroversial Position on the Jews, and this Morning CNN headline News aired more info along with viewer phone ins discussing the subject.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/08/palin.pastor/index.html

"MCCain must Embrace Palin's Beliefs, evangelical leaders say Link below:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/09/perkins.ga/?iref=hpmostpop --MisterAlbert (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2008

--MisterAlbert (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The title: you can google the title below or go to you tube,

Palin church: Alaska 'refuge' for Armageddon

http://www/youtube.com

--MisterAlbert (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC) --MisterAlbert (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The article Sarah Palin: Dominionist Stalking Horse discusses some issues relating Sarah Palin's religion, stance on abortion and other antifeminist FFL positions. Lets allow we are all familiar with the Dominionist movement and believe strongly in freedom of religion.

Joel's Army believers are hard-core Christian dominionists, meaning they believe that America, along with the rest of the world, should be governed by conservative Christians and a conservative Christian interpretation of biblical law. There is no room in their doctrine for democracy or pluralism.

Dominionism's original branch is Christian Reconstructionism, a grim, Calvinist call to theocracy that, as Reconstructionist writer Gary North describes, wants to "get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God."

Notorious for endorsing the public execution by stoning of homosexuals and adulterers, the Christian Reconstructionist movement is far better known in secular America than Joel's Army. That's largely because Reconstructionists have made several serious forays into mainstream politics and received a fair amount of negative publicity as a result. Joel's Army followers eschew the political system, believing the path to world domination lies in taking over churches, not election to public office.

Isn't it reasonable to consider putting a warning lable on Sarah Palins page that this is what we are putting a heartbeat away from the most powerful position in the world? Rktect (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not reasonable to put a "warning label" on a WP:BLP, nor is it appropriate to cite Daily Kos for such an article. So please don't. WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well, so I'm going to ask that you don't make any more poorly-sourced contentious claims here. MastCell ^Talk 22:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The Daily KOS is one of the most timely and accurate sources on the web. I frequently see its stories covered half a day later in the press because it reports and breaks a lot of real news. Its far from the only source I use but when it comes to politics, global warming, the environment, economics, peak oil, the housing crisis, hurricane coverage, its got a lot better batting average than say AP. Obviously you have a different POV so perhaps the way we should settle this is to stick to just the facts. WP:BLP say's

The writing style should be neutral and factual, avoiding both understatement and overstatement

Rktect (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"The Daily KOS is one of the most timely and accurate sources on the web" - with all due respect, that is the funniest thing I've read all day. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears you are not a regular reader of the Daily KOS and yet have a POV about it.Rktect (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Kos is for the kool-aid drinkers, not thinkers. Weekly World News is more trustworthy.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 02:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Easy, fellas. The point is simply that Daily Kos is not a reliable source for a BLP. If something they report subsequently gains traction to the point that a reliable source is willing to put their name and reputation behind it, then it becomes BLP-worthy. If you've read WP:BLP and come away thinking that Daily Kos is an acceptable source, then please read the policy again. MastCell ^Talk 04:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well biologists are on the verge of creating life from non matter! don't know where this leaves the creationists.

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/biologists-on-t.html?npu=1&mbid=yhp

--207.232.97.13 (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)fred

New (And I believe harmful) Edits to "Bridge to Nowhere" Section

A single wikipedian editor has made several important changes to the Bridge to Nowhere section which I believe delete important information.

1. He has removed five words at the beginning indicating Palin supported the bridges. 2. He has taken out the information about the location of the bridges (where the bridges are). 3. He has removed the name of the second bridge ("Don Young's Way" named for Alaskan Congressman) 4. He removed the amount of the earmark ($454.4 million). 5. He has removed 6 of the original 15 sources to the incident in the reference section. 6. He has removed the fact that Palin changed her stance less than one month after McCain criticized the bridge. 7. He has removed Palin's many references to the "Bridge to Nowhere" on the campaign trail. 8. He has removed Newsweek's comment on Palin's references on the campaign trail.

You've probably guessed I'm not pleased with the changes. I think the section was not very long and that the location and name of the bridges, the amount of the earmarks, and the many references, etc. should remain in the article.

But I want to see if other wikipedians agree before I revert back to the original. And if the editor that I disagree with wants to add his two cents, fine by me.GreekParadise (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You'd have my support to revert. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Supported. 216.215.233.66 (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ditto, let him come to the talk page. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I edited for length only (the section was longer than ANY other in the ENTIRE article). Palin's support is made clear in the next paragraph (objection #1)- no need to mention it twice. I changed the bridge to its correct name not its nick name (#3) and removed excess background info (#2). The section is way too long and somethign had to go. The background info seemed to be the best candidate. The exact timing of the change also seemed unnecessary. (#6) Three commentaries about here comments was quite excessive, I removed 1 and someone else removed a second. (#7-#8) --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Also there was no need to reference every fact 3 times. Once is suffient. (#5) Objection #4 is just plain false - the $ amount is still there. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's now been an hour and a half since I posted to the talk page and an hour since Thaddeus wrote his response. Hearing no further discussion, I will revert with the support of the three wikipedians. However, in deference to Thaddeus' concerns about length, I'll see if after reverting, I can cut some of the fat without losing the bone (content). Still Thaddeus you should know that "Don Young's Way" is the official name of Knik Arm Bridge, not the nickname. The name is in the earmark legislation.GreekParadise (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering others edited the section in the interim, I don't think going back to the old version was justified. You undid my changes and the changes of several other people all at once, to restore the version you wrote. Why not just work with what's there instead of insisting on your version? I have undid your revert. If any details are missing from the current version, by all means add them back in - but I don't see any missing other than the unnecessary background info. In reference to the bridge's name - wikipedia and most news articles call it the Knik Arm Bridge, so that is the name that should be used. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

NO ONE but you Thaddeus edited it in the interim. Don't believe me? Check the history. I undid no one's changes but yours. And, as I explained on my talk page, I can't work with what's there because you've been busy throwing away sources. Do you even know what are the four references you deleted? Can you tell me why you deleted them? If you want to delete a reference, please tell me why, but that's not tightening. I can't add details and references and everything and have you willy-nilly delete them without telling me what you're doing. As for the name of the bridge, I can't help that. In the earmark bill, Congress named it "Don Young's Way." I would explain it further but you wanted the article kept short. However, if you prefer I am happy to use both names, even though the article will be a little longer.GreekParadise (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What relevance does the bridge collapse in Minnesota have to Sarah Palin's biography? Adding that quotation serves solely an incendiary purpose, and was *not* discussed above. Does anyone else agree that it should be removed?JoeyCG (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I also felt it non-relevant and deleted it. GreekParadise, however, had a cow about my edits and undid them all. Please feel free to re-delete it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not autoconfirmed, so I cannot delete it. BTW, as written the quotation appears to be by John McCain. In the source, it is *not* ascribed to John McCain as a quotation.JoeyCG (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The quote is by John McCain and was ascribed to him. Thaddeus thought the section was too long and so I was trying to cut as many words as I could. I have no problem removing it, however. See? All you have to do is ask.GreekParadise (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I would ask that no one remove any more references or content from this subsection on the bridges to nowhere without explaining what and why on the talk page first. If you want to move stuff around, tighten it, edit it, etc., go ahead. But removing detailed references without telling the talk page which onesyou did makes it a real chore to re-create (and messes up subsequent references too). And if you want to remove content, please say why (as Joey did). You'll find I'm quite flexible if you'll just work with me.GreekParadise (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the McCain quote. I left the first half of the line, since I wasn't sure if that was OK to ditch, although I feel it adds nothing and could easily go too. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, changed my mind. Sorry 'bout that. Reason on my talk page. Suffice to say that it's inaccurate without full quote since McCain had condemned bridge prior to 2007.GreekParadise (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Would like to see this:

"The next year, Palin ran for Governor on a "build-the-bridge" platform, attacking "spinmeisters" for insulting local residents by using the term "Bridge to Nowhere."[72][73][74] In October 2006, she said build "sooner rather than later. The window is now - while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."

become:

The next year, Palin ran for Governor and she supported the bridge, but was non-specific about the details. "She told local officials that money appropriated for the bridge "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." Fact Check: Palin and the Bridge to Nowhere

Any objections to that? Theosis4u (talk) 05:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I object. The original quotation has four Palin quotations in two sentences. It shows her platform, her attacking opponents, her reaching out to locals, her discomfort with the nickname of the bridge, her pressure for time, and her work with the Alaska congressional delegation. So I would be very resistant to deleting these two sentences which convey a lot of information in a small space.

So then there's the question of whether the quotation you wish to add should be added to, rather than substituted in place of, what's there. I read your submitted quote several times and frankly had trouble understanding it. "Access process as we continue to evaluate the scope"???? Huh??? Sounds like bureaucrat-speak to me. So I went to the yahoo article which unfortunately gave no context. Perhaps you know the full context? What's your point of including it? That she was open to changing bridge details? That she was "non-specific about details"? Why is that notable? The project was in early stages, just getting funding. I've been criticized for making this part of Palin's bio too long. So I'm really hesitant to add to it with something that frankly, to me, doesn't seem to say all that much.

On the other hand, if you want to add it to the longer, more detailed Governorship article, I would not fight you on it. But I guess at the end of the day, I don't believe in adding every quotation the subject of a bio makes on a subject unless I feel she's actually saying something important. And in the case of this quotation, I can't quite figure out what it is so important about the quotation.

On the other hand, if you just want to add another reference in the footnotes, fine by me. I like multiple references, although I know ThaddeusB is not as fond of multiple references as I am.GreekParadise (talk) 07:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Material $750 million dollar request for earmarks request undo

Why delete of the this page and govener's wiki fork??

Alaska's Federal congressional representatives cut back on pork-barrel project requests during Palin's time as governor, however Alaska is still the largest per-capita recipient of federal earmarks, requesting nearly $750 million in special federal spending over two years and obtaining $295 per citizen from the federal government. --MisterAlbert (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26611103/ The Associated Press, Woodward Calvin, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ici5RhMkh6-9V07yckpLBEEjzf6QD932MU100

Still request the undo...The delete appears to want to hide the information from the reader --MisterAlbert (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted it was moved to the sub-article because the federal budget is beyond Palin's direct control and therefore is not relevant enough to be mentioned in the main article. Surely you aren't saying that Palin requested those earmarks herself? --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit request: Public Safety Commissioner Dismissal

Please edit the following sentence:

"Monegan alleged that his dismissal was retaliation for his failure to fire Palin’s former brother-in-law, Alaska State Trooper Mike Wooten, who was involved in a child custody battle with Palin’s sister and had been accused of threatening Palin's father."

To read:

"Monegan alleged that his dismissal was retaliation for his failure to fire Palin’s former brother-in-law, Alaska State Trooper Mike Wooten, who was involved in a child custody battle with Palin’s sister, Molly McCann."

The tertiary party, with no direct involvement in this investigation, had already been sufficiently identified. Thanks. Spiff1959 (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Done, but you can do these edits yourself now. The article is only semi-protected. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd had a WP account a few years ago, and did a few edits of WWII pages. Since then I've moved, gotten a new ISP, and forgotton my old login. I'd attained no special privileges back then. This account I created only a few days ago, and there is no "edit" tab showing on this article for me. I do very much appreciate your assistance. Spiff1959 (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I emphatically disagree with that edit. Thousands of current news reports indicate that Wooten was accused of threatening to kill Palin's father.[20] It is also mentioned in the lead of the sub-article. Why is it necessary to wash this fact out of the main article?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And thousand of articles note that Wooten had already been suspended by the State Troopers for what he did... It's an unnecessarily biased addition to the sentence. It's also curious that the most egregious of the offenses committed by Wooten is the only one that is included. What would the reaction be if the sentence had ended with "and had been accused of illegally hunting moose." --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's right, the sentence does not end with the type of shampoo that Wooten uses, or that he once jaywalked. Is that really a problem, Bobblehead? Aren't we supposed to focus on what is most notable? The fact that he may have been threatening Palin's family also indicates why Palin and her staff may have had a legitimate reason to be contacting Monegan about him. That's the main reason she has provided. She has not argued that she and her staff were contacting Monegan to complain about Wooten's moose-hunting.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin herself hasn't even made the argument that she sacked Monegan because he was lax in dealing with Wooten's death threat. Her position is that Wooten's misconduct had absolutely nothing to do with her firing of Monegan. It would be extremely misleading to the reader for us to mention the death threat without more. It would readily create in the reader's mind that false impression that the dismissed Commissioner was lax about dealing with trooper misconduct. If we mention Wooten's 2005 misconduct, we must also report that he'd already been disciplined for it. JamesMLane t c 06:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Environmental issues

The version currently showing readily to the public has no references to ANY environmental problems with Palin: nothing about her suing the Department of the Interior over the listing of polar bears on the ESL; nothing about aerial hunting of wolves; nothing about beluga whales; nothing. Her environmental record's abysmal and that's something important to know about any state governor, particularly one charged with the stewardship of a state with the natural resources of Alaska, which still, even now, has an abundant wildlife population and relatively unspoiled scenery. Right now, Alaska is undergoing the obvious and very rapid signs of global warming because of its proximity to the melting polar ice caps. For a governor of Alaska, these issues are very important. Alaska's beaches are eroding and some traditional native villages, which've been inhabited before there was a US, are being flooded or are soon to be under water. She doesn't believe global warming is man made with an environmental catastrophe all around the state. This section needs to be put out there. It's too important to ignore this and just keep it out.Jolly momma (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Jolly, see Political positions of Sarah Palin, and Governorship of Sarah Palin ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Somebody should add a piece on Palin's earmark reduction

The the title of the article I am linking to is misleading, I believe that its content would be a very important addition to the Palin page.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080903/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_earmarks

Under Palin, the state of Alaska earmark requests have dropped from more than $800/resident in her first year as Governor (a continuation of the status quo before her governorship) to $295/resident in her second year. Yes, this is still significantly above the national average, but Alaska has ALWAYS been significantly above the national average due to unique circumstances and conditions (geography, weather, sparse population) that lend themselves towards a demand for funding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfeenswiki (talk • contribs) 01:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the sub article about her governorship. Since she doesn't deserve full credit for the reduction (AK's congressional delegation does) it is probably not notable enough for the main article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Besides, that figure can be affected by one or two big-ticket items. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Article milestone

The article just went 30 minutes between edits. Stick a fork in it... Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Proof that the system works when it is allowed to function unencumbered.Neutralis (talk) 01:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Another might argue that it is proof the full protect allowed time for people to cool down and thus served its purpose. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Neutralis. Full protection for this article was a complete mess and lost wikipedia serious credibility. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. The thousands and thousands of edits since her candidacy was announced cast severe doubts about the authenticity of the article first, notably here.--Happysomeone (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That source is about Young Trigg's edits, as if people wouldn't click on it. That article was not fully protected for days afterwards. Full protection is useful to allow time for people to cool down, but this article stayed full protected for far too long. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 05:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

We'll never known if full protect was good or bad because of the side-show involving the admin's and their internal wars. I can show a thread that BECAUSE of full protection it worked to produce a better write up and avoided false data that was out there during the time of the talk article discussion. Full protection seems to work when people work the talk page appropriately. Full protection doesn't seem to work when people want to avoid talk page consensus in favor of fast edits. Encyclopedia's [in print] aren't weekly magazines for a reason. Theosis4u (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This Talk page has more freedom and information than the Sarah Palin ever had or ever will have. I, myself, will refer here for information and open vibrant discussion. Can we send the reader/visitor here for a better view and let them make up their own minds as to what the facts are???--Buster7 (talk) 09:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

husband part Innuit or Eskimo

According to press reports, her husband in part Innuit or Eskimo. Might be worth inclusion as, if true, this makes Sarah Palin's children partly non-white, presumably relevant as the Democratic president candidate is of mixed race. Redhawk69 (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a pretty fine line between being half-African American and being "partly non-white", but even then - why would you assume that the race of the children of a Vice Presidential nominee is noteworthy because the race of a Presidential nominee is? --danielfolsom

By blood her children are a 1/16 native. Culturally they might be more engaged than that suggests, but you'd need sources for that discussion. Dragons flight (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It is included in Todd Palin which is where it belongs. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Religion Section

Can be augmented with material from: "Sarah Palin, the pastor and the prophecy: judgment day is not far away - Times Online". Retrieved 2008-09-09. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Video Footage: Look I don't know how accurate this the comments claims this: " This is reportedly video footage from the Pentecostal church Sarah Palin belongs to, clearly showing dozens of members of the congregation speaking in tongues and wandering zombie-like through the aisles, also occasionally thrashing on the floor in front of the pulpit. I've seen barely anyone online mention this video so far, or even Palin's connection in general to this church (including a pastor who preaches that God put George W. Bush into office), so thought I'd bring it to your attention."

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/09/04/video-footage-of-sar.html

--207.232.97.13 (talk) 05:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Fred

That's a seriously boring but blessedly [yeah!] short video. People wobbling their arms to the sound of fourth-rate rock music. Move along, nothing fascinating to see. Tama1988 (talk) 05:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This is better (forgive the cuts...) http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/9/5/03830/11602 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Mm-hmm! Enrapturing! Tama1988 (talk) 06:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Macro Bias on Wikipedia: Obama lacks a Religion Section

There is macro bias. Having a whole section on religion for Palin while having nothing of the sort on Obama....mentioning the theology of Palin's churches while Obama's article never mentions once "black liberation theology" is macro bias. The excuse "well thats over THERE and this is HERE" is precisely the point, and does not justify or excuse that all wikipedians have a dual responsibility to fairness. This is a politician in an ACTIVE election. Not only are you to be fair in this article on a micro level, but you also have a duty to the image of NPOV for Wikipedia as a whole. Here you are so armed to stuff Palin's article full of religious controversy, creating a whole section just to thump on her religion (and it IS bigotry), while you completely protect Obama! And don't throw at me the excuse that these are two different articles that is PRECISELY THE POINT, and you are using that excuse as a loophoole to denigrate the entire image of wikipedia as being POV. If you are honorable wikipedians, you will choose one of two options: you will either include a section in Obama's article for religion and make mention of the fact that he attended a black liberation church (like you make mention of Palin attending a pentecostal church), or you will remove the religion section from Palin. Right now, all of you are complicit on pervasive macro-bias on wikipedia. You have a duty to fairness and NPOV and in an active election, that duty extends beyond this one single article, but must take into account the individuals Palin is competing against and their articles as well. The excuse of "thats THEIR article" is just a sham and an utter double-standard, and is a terrible discredit to the reputation of Wikipedia. I am posting a similar notice on Obama's article. Because what is happening on Wikipedia right now is POV, and no amount of fallacy and rationalization will change this objective fact. I am a fair person, I support including a religion section on Palin, if it is done on Obama. If it is not done on Obama, your duty to macro-fairness demands that you remove it from this article. Far more press coverage exists over Obama's religion than Palin, and you simply cannot justify including Palin's theology (pentecostal) while not including Obama's (black liberation). Do the right thing, and be fair! Though, considering the typical wikipedian is a white male aged 35 and under, a tekkie, and socialist-leaning, I don't expect fairness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.2.202 (talk) 06:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to propose a Religion section on Obama's article, but most probably we will end up here with a spinoff article about Palin's religion controversy, along the lines of Jeremiah_Wright_controversy ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Lame excuse. You know what wikipedia is doing, and you cannot logically justify stuffing Palin with a religion section (I see you even want to EXPAND it) while keeping it nearly COMPLETELY out of Obama's article. But this is the predictable way of the white male socialist-leaning wikipedian. Why is wikipedia so horribly and systemically biased? Are there any wikipedians who are not white males under 35 and not socialist-leaning? Seriously, I mean that in all honesty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.2.202 (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I posted a far more patient response on the Obama talk page, but please do not insult other editors around here. Either be civil, and try to work within the goals and rules of the project, or take your complaint somewhere other than this talk page. Wikipedia is not biased, it simply does not contain the content you wish it to contain. If you have a specific proposal for adding, removing, or changing content to a specific article feel free to make it. If it is neutral, well-sourced, and otherwise fits our content guidelines then people will take the proposal seriously and arrive at a consensus on whether or not to include it. Generalized gripes about Wikipedia or other editors will likely be shut down so that we can actually edit and improve articles. Wikidemon (talk) 06:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Further, socialism is so rampant among Wikipedia editors that they, uh, insist on removing all negative information from this article. (See the section immediately below, about some dairy). -- Hoary (talk) 08:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Palin has been a Pentecostal for 22 years, and just a few months ago delivered an interesting speech at her former Pentecostal church in Wasilla. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There's some mention of Obama's religion beliefs and upbringing, using words like atheist and muslim, at the end of his personal life section. His infobox says that he is in the United Church of Christ. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of material that is not favorable to Sarah Palin.

I have tried to bring up the subject of the matanuska maid dairy BS that she was involved in on this age, or actually revert it back to the way it was before she was nominated and her followers decided to whitewash her whole article.

So I went and created a seperate page where I had several articles referenced and was working on it, and it seems to have been deleted yesterday as unencyclopedic crap by User:moreschi User:pharmboy and User:thaddeusB.

Some of us have day jobs and cannot spend endless hours on a page. I hade looked up and collected as much as i could, created a timeline from which to work from and cited about 13 newspaper articles, but insted of marking the page as 'need to be improved', these Gestapo (because that's what you are when you abuse you role here) just simple deleted the page.

It is utterly amazing to me the amount of effort and discourse you people have put into her daughter pregnancy, and you don't wake and look into what happened at the Matanuska Maid Dairy, and how it affects her political position. Why was the article so quickly deleted and marked as soap box? Because you didn't like the content? Well, let's rephrase it and help me work on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T1n0 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC) As stated above: "just one editor. Needs substantial clean-up, wikification, etc". Instead of helping me, you simply delete an article that I worked on by myself for several hours to piece together the different sources. Your bias is showing, ThaddeusB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T1n0 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, now it DOES NOT EVEN APPEAR IN HER ARTICLE ANYMORE. THERE IS NO LONGER any reference to Gov Palin 'replacing' the board that disagreed with her, replacing the board with associates, who had family members that would benefit from additional funding, and the closed sessions where friends where given favorable leasing on the equipment. The whole topic has now disappeared. WTF?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by T1n0 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Governors throughout time have made decisions that are unpopular with some people. I don't see how it is unfavorable to Palin. I haven't heard one mention of this dairy issue on TV, or read about it in my researches. Looking around now, it is still barely covered. This article mentions Wikipedia's take on the dairy, and essentially says it's a not notable executive decision. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It is still in the Governorship of Sarah Palin sub-article, and in my opinion it does not belong here. If others feel differently, then it can be put back. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That article you cited calls her leadership style 'fire and replace those who disagree with you'

I did not know it existed, but how is "The Governorship of Sarah Palin" the sub-article ?? If you take everything about who she is as a gov out of this article, the only thing left is her upbringing and her family?? I think it should be the other way around, but that a separate issue.

This was the sub-article, titled 'Matanuska Maid Controversy'. It may not be pretty, and it has not been laid out, but this happenned. After reading all of the articles I could find on this topic, this is the timeline I could piece together. If someone doesn't like it, then help me clean it up, but if someone states that it is not important, with all of the other crap that is on Wikipedia, they are censoring behind 'standards', and if someone states that it is not up to par with Wiki standards then help me clean it up.

---

1) The Alaska state-run dairy, Matanuska Maid, had been suffering financial losses for years.

2) In the spring of 2007, the 20 year CEO, Joe Van Treeck, citing strong competition from private dairies, and rising fuel cost that would directly impact distribution costs, recommends to the Alaska Creamery Board of Directors to either privatize to regain competitiveness, or close and liquidate to cover debts.

3) The director of the State Division of Agriculture, Larry DeVilbiss, resigned on May 31.

4) Governor Sarah Palin disagrees with the plan to close the Dairy, citing concerns for dairy farmers and employees.

5) Governor Palin fires the existing board over the weekend, and replaces them with associates, most of which had family and friends with a vested interest in the continued operation of the Dairy. Of special interest is the newly appointed Director of Agriculture, Franci Havermeier. Her father in law, Bob Havermeier, was one of the dairy farmers to benefit from the continued payouts by Mat Maid.

6) The new Creamery Board reverses the decision to close the dairy. There is a closed session during which CEO Joe Van Treeck is fired, and an additional $600,000 in aid is approved.

7) This aid is from a $25M grant that the US Federal Government had approved in 2002.

8) When asked why the Board of Agriculture did not act on Mat-Maid dairy president and CEO Joe Van Treeck's requests last year to privatize, Ronda Boyles, chair of the BAC, said that they had not acted due to the impeding change in administration.

9) The Dairy is eventually closed, three months later after more losses, in debt, and facing litigation for pension lawsuits.

10) It is put to auction at $3.5M, but there are no offers.

11) Eventually a Storage Company purchases the site and structure for $1.5M, to convert it to a heated public storage facility.

12) Competing private Dairy businesses that were also given approximately $600K in federal funding, are given no-bid leasing contracts for the dairy manufacturing equipment.

In Summary: The controversy stems from vested interest be the parties involved, and the disbursement of Federal funds. Governor Palin, under the auspices of protecting farmers, used executive powers to appoint a favorable board in order to keep a failing business open, to disburse federal funds to said business which then paid out to vendors that are family and associates, and her Agriculture Director appointee Franci Havermeier then leases leftover equipment to preferred farmers in a closed negotiation at very favorable prices in closed session, and under direct gag-order to staff. [edit]== Begin References: Approval for funds could lead to sale of Mat Maid dairy AK JoC, Sunday, April 29, 2007 [1] http://www.webcitation.org/5act9Rnjf

Mat Maid a step closer to becoming a private-sector dairy AK JoC, Sunday, May 13, 2007 [2] http://www.webcitation.org/5acsBLvMD

Mat Maid board rejects Palin plea to stay open Anchorage Daily News (Anchorage, AK), 13-JUN-07 [3] http://www.webcitation.org/5acsE8XHu

Palin looks to Mat-Su for board. Anchorage Daily News (Anchorage, AK), 19-JUN-07 [4] http://www.webcitation.org/5acsMwJJ7

Creamery board cuts loose longtime chief. Anchorage Daily News (Anchorage, AK), 03-JUL-07 [5] http://www.webcitation.org/5acsOzILn

State to put Mat Maid dairy up for sale. Anchorage Daily News (Anchorage, AK)29-AUG-07 [6] http://www.webcitation.org/5acsQa4gW

Equipment Auction: [7] http://www.webcitation.org/5ad7CqjM0 Andrew Halcro, of Alaska legislature, Harvard Graduate, and Local Businessman, questioning the new board: [9] http://www.webcitation.org/5acttlFqf

The $600K disbursement: [10] http://www.webcitation.org/5aiycCb3D

The state audit which shows Mat Maid kept paying farmers another $39K, and that he 600K check was put into a general checking fund, and consequently comingled with other funds: [11] http://www.webcitation.org/5aiyfmod9

Mat Maid private attorney and Ass't Attorney General both resign, no proper Request for proposal, and equipment is being auctioned off: [12] http://www.webcitation.org/5aiyi8uR2

Agriculture Director Franci Havermeier tells the staff to refrain from discussing Mat Maid Dairy: [13] http://www.webcitation.org/5aiyprqE6

---

Now since it wasn't allowed to be in the Sarah Palin article, I created an article named 'Matanuska Maid Dairy Controversy' which would have allowed this to be edited, and also other pertinent facts added. I am sorry that I am not at liberty to write much more, but I thought I would start with the facts of the controversy. Some of these accounts come from Andrew Halco, a local legislator up in Alaska that seems to be intimately familiar with the workings of this situation. I will be contacting him about this event, and I will be asking for him to provide as many sources as possible.

The question is: Why are the admins so quick to delete instead of allowing someone to edit and improve? —Preceding unsigned comment added by T1n0 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's an easy one. Because admins are just typical editors, and "the typical wikipedian is a white male aged 35 and under, a tekkie, and socialist-leaning" (as revealed by the IP who got so incensed in the section immediately above). -- Hoary (talk) 08:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I'm white, educated, just over 40, and a capitalist pig. However, I do get very incensed when a) admin use their position to exercise their bias.

b) my tax dollars are scammed away to politician's friends. If you don't care, maybe it's because you don't pay taxes. t1n0 09:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Damn, I knew I was in the wrong place. Tvoz/talk 08:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, the material was seen by millions of people, including reporters doing research, but it hasn't gained any traction. It failed to sell in the marketplace of ideas, and it was read by 1% of the population of the US. Nobody is reading this article anymore, so its not being here now is not such a big deal as it would have been the first week. Improve it in the Governorship of Sarah Palin first, and see if there is consensus for a mention of it to be put back here. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, sounds like a reasonable plan. But not esta noche.t1n0 09:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin's proudest of it, and it's not in the article

Palin has said that her greatest accomplishment as governor is the natural gas pipeline through Canada, and there is no mention of it in the article. Truly, why am I the one noticing this, and not the Palin boosters? Anyway, in case I missed some (surely mistaken) consensus earlier to remove it, doesn't it deserve to be in the article? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

True, that was a great thing. It should definitely be included...how ironic. t1n0 09:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably an over-site. Maybe one of our fellow editors that could not get in would have included it. We'll never know.--Buster7 (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It was there yesterday (or the day before). Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to mention the $40 Billion Palin Pipeline feel free. The Palin Pipeline just goes to Boundary Lake, Alberta!!! Thats because it doesn't bring energy to heat peoples homes. it brings energy to an oil field. It was certainly very controversial during her 2006 run for Governor so one would hope you would touch on some of the reasons for contraversy.

it involves running a natural gas pipeline through one of the worlds most active fault zones.

It runs to Albertas tar sands not the US Its designed to spend $40 billion dollars of taxpayer money to build oil and gas company infrastructure so they can develop a resource for which they will then charge the taxpayers inflated prices which kick back to Alaskan families thousands of dollars every year.

The oil and gas companies would use the natural gas to heat the oil tar and combine this with a large amount of Albertas potable water that presently supplies drinking water to many western states to create a dirty fossil fuel by burning a cleaner and cheaper fossil fuel so as to increase their bottom line. It benefits Alaskans beciase its construction pork for Alaska. Its environmental costs are huge and it brings no energy to the US.

Now Canada has the world’s second largest reserves of oil. Estimates are that our neighbor to the North is sitting on over 179 billion barrels of oil. Unfortunately for Canada and our planet, 95% of those reserves are embedded in the tar sands of Alberta. To pull oil out of those tar sands requires up to 4 barrels of fresh water per each barrel of oil and up to 1000 cubic feet of natural gas to heat the water and separate the oil from the tar sands. As thing stand today, pulling oil from tar sands requires about 0.6 billion cubic feet of gas per day. By 2015 the natural gas needs are projected to need 1.6 billion cubic feet of gas per day. By the time the Palin Pipeline comes online in 2017 the gas per day requirements are projected to be higher—and energy needs to pull oil out of the tar sands will only keep growing if our only energy policy is to always feed our oil addiction until the system collapses.

The environmental costs from tar sands oil extraction are high. Tar sands open pit mining and drilling are Canada’s fastest growing source of global warming emissions. Looking just at the production process, to produce a barrel of tar sands oil costs the climate three times the emissions as a barrel of conventional oil. For mining, up to four barrels of water are drained from the Athabasca River to produce one barrel of tar sands oil, resulting in tailings ponds of toxics that can be seen from space by the naked eye. Aboriginal communities downstream from the tar sands are concerned about high cancer rates.

Its a deal put together by Jack Abramov and Stephen Silver with McCain’s advisor Randy Scheunermann out of which we first get mention of Sarah Palin as a possible VP choice and McCain gets $160,000 in campaign contributions from the Trans canada the pipeline builder and oil sands developer. Its a deal that couldn't be done by an administration that cared about the environment so its sort of a now or never proposition.

If its in the article those concerns should be mentionedRktect (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Newsweek reports Palin admonished by judge that her disparagement of Wooten constituted child abuse

Warned by the Court Palin and her family continued to disparage Wooten.

Court documents show that Judge Suddock was disturbed by the alleged attacks by Palin and her family members on Wooten's behavior and character. "Disparaging will not be tolerated—it is a form of child abuse," the judge told a settlement hearing in October 2005, according to typed notes of the proceedings. The judge added: "Relatives cannot disparage either. If occurs [sic] the parent needs to set boundaries for their relatives."

It is the mother's [Hackett's] responsibility to set boundaries for her relatives and insure [sic] they respect them, and the disparagement by either parent, or their surrogates is emotional child abuse," Judge Suddock wrote. He added that: "If the court finds it is necessary due to disparagement in the Mat-Su Valley [the area north of Anchorage where Palin and her extended family live], for the children's best interests, it [the court] will not hesitate to order custody to the father and a move into Anchorage."

Do Warnings about Palin behavior characterized by a judge as child abuse belong in the article? I expect they bear on her temperment and becaues of questions about John McCains temperment raise questions about the tickets suitability for a position where remaining cool calm and collected in a crisis is a matter of life and death for thousands and Palins suitability to be McCains pick.Rktect (talk) 09:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not very clear. How would statements made in a court proceeding be child abuse? This is reasonably well reported in quite a few sources but the significance and context is not all that clear. It is not up to us to decide what raises questions about Palin's suitability for office and what does not. We can't take sides there. If a lot of people decide Palin's involvement in the case is important to the election, that sentiment will be reported in the press and it may be worth mentioning in the election article. If they report it as a major event in her life then it might be relevant for this article about her biography, but that's not obvious from the sources I could find. The argument to include something here is not that it tells us something bad about Palin, but rather than a lot of people (as evidenced by the weight of reliable published sources) think it is worth reporting. If it is reported as a campaign issue then it might be good for the campaign article, and if as a life issue for the bio article. But if it is reported as the blog / news tidbit of the day we really have to take a longer view and not report every last rumor or political argument. Wikidemon (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What's more, our own Wikipedia article states "On March 1, 2006, Wooten was notified of the results of an Alaska State Trooper internal investigation. The probe found that Wooten violated internal policy, but not the law, in making the death threat against Heath (the father of Sarah Palin and Molly McCann). Wooten denied having made the threat, but the investigation decided that he had in fact done so. The trooper investigation concluded that the death threat was not a crime because Wooten did not threaten the father directly; therefore, the investigator deemed the threat to be a violation of trooper policy rather than a violation of criminal law. " police investigation found that Wooten did actually make a death threat against Palin's father. So what was called "disparagement" against this trooper at the time may very well have been simple statements of fact. (btw the "disparagement" wasn't done by Palin, she is only included in the "McCann and family" category) Hobartimus (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, my reading of the issue is that the judge warned Palin's sister Molly Hackett that Molly's family and friends should not be demeaning/ridiculing Molly's ex-husband during the course of everyday life because doing so was harmful to the children Molly and he shared. Or put more directly, it is not okay for one parent (or her family) to poison the child against the other parent. What the significance of the judge's statements are with respect to Sarah Palin in particular (as opposed to Molly's family in general) is unclear to me. Dragons flight (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Controversial position on morality issues

Sarah Heath eloped with Todd Palin Aug 29, 1988. Her marriage was followed 7 months later by the birth of their first child, Track, in April 1989. Her daughter Bristol became pregnant at 17 and a baby is expected late 2008. Despite these family issues proving that abstinence-only is ineffective family planning and pregnancy prevention, Ms. Palin staunchly supports abstinence only sex education. Katwiki229 (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)katwiki229 sept 2008

Your point? Clearly some people do connect the dots in this way. But this article is supposed to chronicle her life, not be a judgment about it. Wikidemon (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasilla Police Billed Sexual Assault Victims for Their Own Rape Kits

hi there, my english is not good enough to insert the informationes to the text. but i found some stuff about "Wasilla Police Billed Sexual Assault Victims for Their Own Rape Kits" during Sarahs time as mayor. can some native speaker insert it to the text?

• [21]
• [22]

thx --Moneybrother (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The first link does not mention her name. The second link does not work. And the report is biased. "In the past we've charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible" and it is being spun into a "victim must pay" story. It has no place in her bio. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

the first link mention a date and a place. thats not enough? ok. --Moneybrother (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Readers may be interested in this from the Frontiersman. It does not mention Palin, but Police Chief Charlie Fannon was hired by her after she fired his predecessor. I also don't know whether Fannon was fired the day after this article was published or not, but that action certainly would have earned her points on my ledger.--Appraiser (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops; sorry I didn't realize it was the same link.--Appraiser (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin#Reception

This section seems overly positive and fluffy and seems to violate WP:NPV. Any suggestions on how to make it more neutral? I am not sure the section is even needed. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I would not be too fussed if it were sixed. Ronnotel (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a notable reaction from Ed Koch. [23] --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The section is very much needed. Please also restore the time article cover that was there but deleted somehow. If you have some proposals that could be added to the section, bring them up here. Hobartimus (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

66.156.63.234 (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)At the least it should mention that she was the focus of major media attention for the first two weeks.

Apart from little known Ed Koch, Rudy Guiliani who is a much more known figure did infact made a notable reaction but others seemed to object to including individual people's reaction. [24] [25] Hobartimus (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the Time cover, and am leaving a note on User:Fasach Nua's talk page regarding his removal of the image. I think the reaction section is an important one, and if you see an area in which it needs to be defluffed, defluff away. But the public reaction to her candidacy has been notable, and biographical, and should be included as such.   user:j    (aka justen)   15:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The section needs expansion. I will tag as such. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It requires additional viewpoints for NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO this section will be a magnet for every bit of news trivia and commentary imaginable. The reaction section on the McCain campaign page is dreadful. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sofixit. Just because a particular section is prone to problems doesn't mean it should be deleted altogether. The public reaction to her selection is notable and has become biographical. Four years from now, whoever is in the White House, the public reaction to her candidacy will still be relevant. The section absolutely needs to be kept under control, but the first few days have had a clear focus: strong and sometimes unflattering media attention, an apparent bump in the polls for McCain due to her, and concerns over very limited media access.   user:j    (aka justen)   15:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I can not see this section ever being neutral. Lets face it, the Republicans love her, the Dems dislike her. We can find sources all over the place to prove those points but they are not needed in her bio. This section currently discusses the press bashing her, her affect on the polls, and her magazine covers. The last section on the magazines and interviews can be moved up to the 2008 Vice-presidential campaign section. The rest violates WP:NPV and should be removed.

Time Cover

As presently constructed the inclusion of the Time Magazine seems to fail the non-free content criteria. Specifically, point #8. As far as I can see showing her face on the cover of Time doesn't appear to add anything to the article that isn't already accomplished by the text saying she was on the cover of Time. Fair use images are expected to contribute in ways that exceed what the text accomplishes, and I simply don't see that here. We already know what she looks like, and we already stated that she was on a cover, so I'm not sure what additional encyclopedic value comes from showing the cover. Dragons flight (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it fails WP:FU ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The image helps illustrate, specifically, Time magazine's fairly unique reaction to Sarah Palin. Take a look at the back and forth between Time magazine and the McCain campaign. On the one hand, Time has been one of the most vocal media outlets criticizing the campaign (correctly, in my opinion) for the lack of media access to Palin. On the other hand, they slap her face on their cover. A few other newsmagazines have included her as well, but Time's is somewhat unique in criticizing her on the one hand and putting her on their cover on the other. We're not going to have paragraphs about the Time piece, but I think the critical commentary there now on the cover satisfies wp:nfcc.   user:j    (aka justen)   15:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Still disagree, nothing you've said depends on the look of the cover, merely the fact that it exists. The cover can't be included unless its appearance (and not merely its existence) is contributing to understanding the issue. Dragons flight (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in these matters but shouldn't alleging some sort of infringement or violation of criteria be debated at the image talk pages and not here? I mean if it really infringes on Time's copyright in some way then the image should be deleted right? I think there is no question that this image is appropriate for this or this type of article (infact it's unlikely that it'd ever be placed in any other article but ones related to Palin) so the only question is if the picture itself is allowed to stay on Wikipedia servers. Hobartimus (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

We can always ask the good folks at WP:FUR to give as a hand in determining fair use or not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree it fails WP:FU. I see no release on Time's website[26]. I think it is more fitting and a better image to use then the airshow image, however it fails WP:FU #8. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't need a release to use a fair use image if there's critical commentary on the notability of the cover, which there is.   user:j    (aka justen)   15:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You still need the cover to contribute to the article in a way the text doesn't. You haven't said what way you think it does that. Dragons flight (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that's subjective; I think the Carney quote combined with the image of the cover itself do contribute in a way text cannot. In any event, I've added the appropriate rationale to Image:Sarah_Palin_Time_cover.jpg.   user:j    (aka justen)   15:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

In WP:FU#Unacceptable use it states: "A magazine cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover does not have its own article, it may be appropriate." In what source is the cover discussed and therefor needed to to prove a point? If there was an article that said "Palin hair was a mess on the Time cover" I could see the need but the cover is not needed (or sourced) to prove a point. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, one hardly needs to show the time cover to prove the point that she was on the cover. Nearly every important person gets on the cover of some magazines and if we go down that road every bio article would have a magazine cover picture. Moreover, the underlying material does not seem terribly relevant to the article. Of course she gets a lot of coverage given the circumstances. Perhaps a discussion of how the media treats her vice presidential candidacy belongs in a campaign article, or perhaps not. Wikidemon (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominated for WP:FUR at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Image:Sarah_Palin_Time_cover.jpg. Dragons flight (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Religion

The personal section needs expanding, in particular about the religion aspects. There are abundant sources on the subject (both national and international media) in which her attitude to religion and beliefs are described. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is already far too big and there is a whole paragraph on her religious views. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

At this point we have thousands of news articles talking about the "glasses" of Sarah Palin other thousands discuss her "hair". As time passes we will have "abundandt sources" on everything regarding Sarah Palin. I checked the Obama article and even though wikipedia has a huge amount of material on religion and related matters relating to Obama not that much is in the Barack Obama main article, his BLP which summarizes his whole life. Hobartimus (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not overly thrilled with everything that's there - a Catholic paper calls her a "post-denominationalist" and that makes it into an encyclopedia article. I'm really not thrilled about having articles where we tell someone else what they believe. If she describes herself that way or her church describes itself that way, ok, fine, but I'm not a big fan of putting words into someone's mouth. --B (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent point. I can see no reason for editorial commentary in a WP:BLP it almost always pushes a POV. Why don't you take it out of the article?--Paul (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

1999 Mayoral election

isn't "and was returned to office by a margin of 909 to 292 votes" a misuse of the word margin? shouldn't it be "by a vote of 909 to 292"? Rds865 (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)