Talk:Sarah Palin

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

Dispute #1: Alaskan Independence Party

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.[1] 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).
3. The Dexter Clark youtube video above specifically mentions Sarah Palin, which makes it a valid part of the entry about her- the same goes for the AIP's later retraction. The readers should be given both pieces of information- our job is not to draw conclusions for them, but to publish relevant facts. Dexter Clark's statements in the YouTube video create sufficient reason to question the retraction, so it seems relevant--Grumbleputty (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

A video is a primary source and wikipedia requires secondary sources. Plus, this one is certainly not a reliable source. Including this video is WP:OR original research which is not allowed. At this point this false charge has been thoroughly debunked, and there are many reliable sources testifying that she was never an AKIP member.--Paul(talk) 20:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

secondary source for Dexter Clark's speech at the Secessionist' convention here and here. Reliable source argument holds little water, as any doubt about the secondary sources accuracy is removed by watching the primary source video. The WP:OR Original Research argument is absurd- the secondary sources accurately quote Dexter Clark from the YouTube video, in which Mr. Clark, a Vice Chairman of the AIP and an undeniable expert on his own words, states that Ms. Palin was a former member and sympathizer. There is no interpretation, spin or bias- simply the man's own words, spoken by him of his own free will. Dexter Clark's statements in the video clearly describe a relationship between Gov. Palin and the AIP, which is borne out the the videos and convention appearances the OP wanted to add in the first place. Mr. Clark makes no claim that she is currently a member of the AIP, and I have yet to see a statement which refutes his contention that she is "sympathetic to our cause", or the AIP's strategy to "infiltrate" the two major parties- only his contention that she was a member is in question. I can't see how the wikipedia page of a candidate for the second-highest office in the US could be accurate and non-partisan without acknowledging this debate and describing the evidence and statements, PRO and CON.--Grumbleputty (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Support Her husband was a member for a decade. She attended at least two, if not three state conventions. She gave the address by video just six months ago. Clearly she has "supported" the party, even though she wasn't a member. In my view, to NOT include any mention of it whatsoever would be POV.GreekParadise (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Support, for reasons already outlined above by others. However, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and polls such as this are no substitute for good editing. If Palin's association with AIP is a demonstrable fact, it must go in the article. Arjuna (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Support It is definitly worth mentioning. As to whether it was a symbolic gesture (i.e. Palin was/is a secessionist herself), or merely a tactical move (i.e. she doesn't agree with them), we don't know (at the moment). What we do know is that she sent a video for that convention and praised AIP (with "good work")--the party that her husband was a member of up until she "made an unsuccessful bid for the Republican nomination for lieutenant governor" [in 2002]. (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-aip3-2008sep03,0,6399468.story). So cool (talk) 08:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

5. Were articles to list every politician's every slight contact with every organization, then perhaps this might be valid. It doesn't. The connection is sufficiently minor as to verge on the use of Wiki for political statements and campaigns. Collect (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose. Clearly at this point the attempt to include an undue weight statement about this item is POV. The organization in question has acknowledged that Palin has is not nor has ever been a member and no legitimate press organization is spending any time on this. --Textmatters (talk) 16:33, 13 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)

The contents of the video as described above merely illustrate a good politician at work - buttering people up. Technically, the AIP doesn't specifically argue for secession unconditionally, they claim that statehood was attained unconstitutionally, and they want the chance to vote on the matter. Last time I checked, expressing opinions was not against the law. Not in America, anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

-> source quoting AIP's chairperson stating AIP's goal is secession here. Politicians go to great lengths to avoid appearing at the conventions of/sending endorsement videos to groups they don't agree with ideologically, as it tends to identify them with the goals of that group. Knowing that, when a politician does send a supportive video to a group with an unusual agenda, it becomes noteworthy, and tends to get added to that politician's wikipedia page (unless that politician's supporters clutter the talk page with the magic word "debunked".--Grumbleputty (talk) 04:21, 13 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)

Parentage

I believe it may be appropriate to report upon the controversy over the parentage of the child. It is widely believed that the child is actually her grandchild. There is also the controversy over her claim that her water broke when she was in Texas yet she flew to Alaska to give birth.[2][3] I do not wish to commit slander nor do I wish to enter into an editing war.Dstern1 (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There were continual unsubstantiated rumours that the child was her grandchild - possibly fuelled by the actual pregnancy of her child. But there's been nothing substantiated. Unless that appears, the only use we have for the rumour is to demonstrate that some people are prepared to circulate unsubstantiated rumour, and that's hardly news. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It is probably as "widely believed" as Elvis Presley still being alive. Yet, I gather that an inclusion of the unsubstantiaded rumours in the article could be appropriate. --Hapsala (talk) 04:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Never-the-Less, it is well sourced that she reported her water broke when she was in Texas, yet flew to Alaska to give birth. The events as she reported them have been highly criticized. I agree that the question of the child's parentage has not been well sourced.Dstern1 (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The women has had five children, and I would dare to say that she is the world's greatest expert on the functions of her own reproductive system. Kelly ^hi! 01:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Trig's Birth

I propose an addition of information regarding the controversial birth of Trig Palin. I tentatively propose the following text following the report of the child's down syndrome: "Headlines were made after Sarah Palin reported that she entered labor and her water broke with Trig while she was in Texas. She then flew 11 hours to Anchorage and drove an additional hour to Wasilla, AK to give birth at a local hospital. Some healthcare professionals had criticism of the risk she reports taking; while her own physician reported supporting her decision."[4] This account is well documented in press reports and more specifically by Sarah Palin herself. I believe that it is relevant to the personal life section. I have also been careful to attribute to her directly to avoid concerns over the account having been doubted in blogs.--Dstern1 (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. This has been discussed here before, and always rejected. We don't try to synthesize some POV about her judgment via some misogynistic speculation about the operations of her reproductive system. Kelly ^hi! 01:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

While I would respectfully disagree about the misogyny, I do believe that it is relevant. Perhaps, it may be better to exclude the references to controversy? I am seeking opinions. I shall look through the archives for previous discussion; unless someone could point me to that discussion. --Dstern1 (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I welcome response from someone who is not partisan. A fan of Palin is not a valid responder to my questions (nor is one of her hater's for that matter).--Dstern1 (talk) 02:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked through the Archives and see that Archive #12 previously had discussion of this topic. I see much support for inclusion. So far the only opposition seems to be from a cheerleader for Palin. But I shall certainly wait until tomorrow to hear more opinions before I make an edit. The topic is obviously sensitive.--Dstern1 (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There are many examples of this being discussed in the archives and the consensus has always been to exclude. Take a look at archive #8 for instance. There are others.--Paul (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have looked over the archives including #8 and #12. I am proposing inclusion of an astonishing report of her personal life as she reports it. I contend that her own report of the events is relevant as stated. Can conjecture develop from this issue? Perhaps, and it has. Am I proposing report of that conjecture? No. Is any of that conjecture relevant to this article? Not at this time, in opinion; at least not unless that conjecture can ever be sourced as fact. I am proposing inclusion of information which is relevant and well-sourced.--Dstern1 (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I like Palin and I say include it.--Rosebud999 (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I am making the edit. If anybody disagrees, please say so here; I would like to discuss it. Please do not just reverse my edit. --Dstern1 (talk) 05:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If it is kept, I suggest a little different wording: "Palin's youngest child, Trig, was diagnosed prenatally with Down syndrome. A month before his due date, while Palin was in Texas for a conference, her amniotic fluid began leaking. She went on to give the keynote address for the conference, then flew to Anchorage and drove an additional hour to Wasilla, AK to give birth at a regional hospital. She consulted her doctor during the trip, and though Palin did not get explicit permission to fly, she later stated that she was not in active labor. Her doctor supported her decision to return home, but some healthcare professionals criticized Palin for not going immediately to the nearest hospital." FangedFaerie (talk) 05:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I have been careful to keep it to her own reports. Many have questioned those reports and I do not wish to start a battle over accuracy; thus I phrased the reports to indicate it is her own reports.--Dstern1 (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Understood. It's just kinda awkward phrasing.FangedFaerie (talk) 06:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

A vandal deleted my edit. I just reversed it. If anyone has concerns, lets discuss it.--Dstern1 (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a vandal. Get consensus for controversial material before including it. This information has been previously rejected, more than once, as mentioned above. Kelly ^hi! 14:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

yes, vandal. I reviewed the archives. Please discuss your concerns before reversing my edits.--Dstern1 (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Dstern1, please stop with the personal attacks, that doesn't help. Why is the material you want to add relevant? How does it improve the article? It seems to give undue weight compared to the rest of the family section. Also, who are the health care providers that are critical of her? I left a note on your talk page as well. Thank you, --Tom 14:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, my edits were reversed. I am asking that they remain until someone can show why they need to be changed. Thank you.--Dstern1 (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The onus is on the one proposing new material to prove why it should be included in the article. Review the advice that several editors have given you in this thread, including directly above your comment. If you continue to edit war, I will block you. GlassCobra 15:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Not if I get to the block button first. This topic has been discussed extensively since Palin was named as VP nominee. Consensus has been against inclusion. You need to change consensus before edit warring over the content. Ronnotel (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Dstern1, the citation quotes one California doctor as saying "If your water breaks, go to the hospital". Again, whom are critical of her travel plans before giving birth, but more importantly, why is this relevant and what is the point for inclusion. Why is so important that this be included. You are going to be blocked because 3-4 different editors have reverted you but you continue to edit war?? --Tom 15:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• I put this content back in because I find it properly sourced, relevant, MUCH-discussed by the media, and I add myself to the developing consensus that it should remain in the article. To assert consensus when there is none is against the precepts of Wikipedia. This appears to be a matter of record, to be a matter that is true, to be multiply sourced. To remove it from the article is only to purge inconvenient truth that one group of partisans wishes to suppress, and that is anathema to what we do here. This article should contain whatever the sources indicate, good or bad. It is not a PR piece for the candidate or a PR piece for the candidate's opposition. NPOV demands that if there is valid information that it be in the article whether or not somebody can spin it as negative. --BenBurch (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why "do not insert controversial information without gaining consensus first" isn't getting through. This has been discussed several times. None of those discussions resulted in the information being included. In BLPs, we don't put content in and then gain consensus to take it out. Quite the opposite. One editor has already been blocked for edit warring over this. Unless you're inclined to join him, don't revert it back in. It's undue weight. Just because it's discussed in the media doesn't mean it is encyclopedic. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 16:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The First Post and The National Enquirer on Palin

They are both established news sources so their articles on Palin can be cited. Here is the one from The First Post.--Sum (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "established". The National Enquirer is not a reliable source as Wikipedia defines the term, and it's certainly not a suitable source for use in a biographical article. Somewhat more reputable sources, like the Post, which are skeptically rehashing Enquirer stories are no more suitable. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. MastCell ^Talk 23:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The Corriere della Sera, the newspaper that sells the most in Italy, covers the news along with other details on Palin's familiar life: [5]. --Sum (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't read Italian, but I can read that this is a reprint of the Enquirer story. As Mast noted, this is not a tabloid. Arzel (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"Established" does not equal reliable and encyclopedic. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The Enquirer may not be a RS, but if cited in other sources and if notable for that reason, the other sources can be used. For example "Newsweek and other media outlets described The Enquirer's blah blah bah, which was rebutted strongly by blah blah blah and threatened with a lawsuit for libel." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we put possibly libelous material in a BLP??--Paul (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

A story like this would have to pass a pretty high threshold before it could get into this article:

1. It must be reported by multiple, independent reliable sources.
2. It must be germane to the article in some tangible way (a mere allegation of an affair, even if widely reported, would still not be relevant enough to Palin's bio to outweigh the due care we must show to the subject of a BLP)
3. It must impact, or be perceived to impact her career in a lasting way (in this case, I hardly think there would be much interest in repeating these rumors were Palin not the VP candidate)

So far, none of these criteria are even close to being met. Ronnotel (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

@Paul h. Absolutely not, that was not my point. Read again. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi's comment is in congruence with WP:BLP's discussion of when Wikipedia should include media discussion of a rumor of a politician having an affair. Some seek to set too high a bar. like forensic examination of the bedsheets, rather than a rumor spreading from the blogosphere to reliable sources as WP:BLP demands. I personally like to see a reporter ask the politician about it and they deny it. A politician having an affair is, in the post-Clinton era, quite germane to an article about the politician. Edison (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say it is less germane since Bill Clinton. He has made it a non-issue. Much different climate now then when say Gary Hart was caught with his pants down, so to speak. Not sure if your analogy is a good one here, as IMO if the situation is analogous to an affair of a politician, it's a non-issue.Die4Dixie (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Pardon my extreme skepticism. Arjuna (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say to create the Sarah Palin personal life article, espanding from the current section, and quote there what just the reliable sources report, carefully attributing everything.--Sum (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That would likely be a content fork. The Enquirer is a rag, and just because they accidentally get something right once in awhile doesn't qualify them as a reliable source. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

How reliable is the National Enquirer?--Rosebud999 (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

32 years as a Pentecostal

It is sourced; it is factually accurate; it is notable. Please do not delete factual, notable and well sourced information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No need to be uncivil. It may be factual, but that does not mean that it needs to be in the article. So, how is the number of years (versus the currently stated history, that includes the years) necessary to the clarity of that section? Atom (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, on this. John McCain's article also mentions his own conversion to Baptism, so this seems not a big deal to include. rootology (C)(T) 16:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jossi, sorry but I reverted before posting in here. The dates given in the article makes it appear that she was there for closer to 34 years? Can you please post a link to the citation that says she attended that church for 32 years. I read the citations in the article but didn't see that fact, maybe I missed it. Thank you, --Tom 16:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The sources provided have the number of years and I do not see why is being kept deleted. It is factual, and it is undisputed, so what's the deal? Why should the length in years a person worshiped in a church be "uncivil"? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems that people keep deleting or shifting the sources around. I have changed as per Newsweek reporting, page 15 issue Sept 15, 2008: "Palin was raised a devout Christian, attending an Assembly of God church from the age of 4 until the age of 38." Hope that settles this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jossi. --Tom 19:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

She's still in the "assembly of God", otherwise known as the Republican Party, a.k.a "God's Own Party". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Also - speaking in tongues - makes her different from other politicians how? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

She is a member of a Pentecostal church. That is a point of pride. Include it--Rosebud999 (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Rape kits -- victims made to pay for them in Wasilla

Today brings a new scandal--Rapegate. Basically, as Mayor of Wasilla, the town was the only city in Alaska that made rape victims pay for their own rape exams, which led the state legislature to pass a bill outlawing the practice which was signed into law by the former governor. Obviously, such an important scandal will need to be mentioned somewhere in this Wikipedia entry as the news begins to circulate and as it becomes widely-known public knowledge. Here is a link to one of the references, Critics: Under Palin, Wasilla charged rape victims for exam. USA Today is also reporting it now. Palin's town used to bill victims for rape kits. If anyone can come up with more links to articles about it or some sort of a cite of Palin saying something to the effect that she thinks women bring rape upon themselves (perhaps by dressing provocatively or by encouraging men by talking to them and being friendly or inviting them on dates) please post it here.

Here is my proposed entry:

Under Pailn, Wasilla was the only town in Alaska to make rape victims pay for their own rape exams, which led the state legislature to pass a bill signed by the previous governor banning the practice statewide.WhipperSnapper (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As Bobble said when he/she rightly excised the text, 'minor issue so far'. Nothing ties this policy directly to Palin, no indication she was even aware of it. Tone it down please. Ronnotel (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I unconditionally oppose addition, unless a reliable source indicates that she publicly supported the policy and/or opposed the legislation banning it. I also object to the unfounded insinuation that there is any evidence she thinks women bring rape upon themselves. I'm tempted to remove your entire post as a WP:BLP violation. --Elliskev 20:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've had to re-remove this from the article. It had looked like there was some pretty clear agenda-pushing behind it (the term "Rapegate" is not in the original source), but seeing the way the argument is being framed here by this contributor, I now think this whole topic could be removed for BLP violation. » S0CO ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's see how the story develops in the next couple of days. Right now it's still breaking news that hasn't been thoroughly investigated yet by the national media. Note that a credible national news source is reporting this--USA Today--and that according to that article I linked to, the Wasilla policy even contributed to national legislation on the subject. Here on this discussion page I didn't mean to insinuate that Palin thinks that women bring rape upon themselves, just that if anyone finds a credible source for that to please post it here on the discussion page. Note that that viewpoint, while very unpopular, is still common today and was at one time very common, so it is possible that she might harbor it. My apologies to those who are bothered by the term "Rapegate", but in our national political discourse, very often scandals take on the "-gate" name tag. At various political discussion forums people are referring to the librarian scandal as "Librariangate" and the state trooper scandal as "Troopergate", hence the term "Rapegate". Why do you have such a huge problem with that term? WhipperSnapper (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Your neologism is troubling because Wikipedia should not be in the business of inventing scandals or names for them. If reliable sources call it that, then so be it. Until then, let's stick to the facts. Coemgenus 21:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Blogs and forums are not reliable sources, we don't use them or care what they are saying. GRBerry 21:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-10-rape-exams_N.htm says

Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella said in an e-mail that the governor "does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test."

Comella would not answer other questions, including when Palin learned of Wasilla's policy or whether she tried to change it.

It also says that Wasilla was not the only town in Alaska with that policy.

Given the amount of space given to bookburngate ;-) I think that this is worth a _very_ carefully worded mention. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The rape kits are mentioned in the sub-article Mayoralty of Sarah Palin, and that is plenty. Not everything in the sub-article needs to be covered here. See WP:Summary style.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I was suggesting it be in "Political positions", not in Mayoralty. But I agree, she ought to be given a chance to say that she didn't know before we go using it as evidence of her attitudes to rape. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Not relevant to the article unless it can be demonstrated that she supported it, in which case it would be especially helpful to know why she supported it. That could qualify as a "political position". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Much of this is using the Talk page to show personal political bias. No connection between the policies of the Police Chief and the Mayor has been shown. The "charging rape victims" is still found in North Carolina, and was also in Illinois until at least 2004. http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/archive/2008/09/vetting_sarah.shtml?refid=0 and http://www.mountainx.com/news/2008/080308making_noise_about_a_silent_crime among others. Collect (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Here are some sources some-what close to the issue:

http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt http://progressillinois.com/node/3032 (a second-hand report of what the police chief said) http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/52266.html (Knowles's response) http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1118416&srvc=2008campaign&position=9 (Boston Herald on Knowles and on an attempt to get a Palin response)

@ Collect...The following is from your first source...According to a 2004 summary by the group, in Illinois, Obama's state, there is "no charge to a victim who is ineligible for services under Illinois Public Aid Code and who has no insurance." Obama filed legislation to change state law so that the victims don't pay. It was signed by the governor of Illinois in 2001. The following is from your second source...This summer, the North Carolina General Assembly approved more than $1 million for a program that covers both the cost of the exam and an initial visit to a mental-health provider.. The charging of rape victims is no longer found in North Carolina (as of this Summer) and "no charge to rape victims" has been law in Illinois since 2001. Unfortunately, your sources contradict you--Buster7 (talk) 03:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Alas -- the charging of insurance companies is still done in Illinois. As was the case in Alaska until that practice was barred. Obama's legislation, as you clearly note, allowed for that practice. If you will note your own insurance, most insurance plans have what is known as a "co-pay" of some sort. By the way, there has been no confirmation that Wasilla did anything different from the practice in Illinois -- billing insurance companies if practible. So much for premature claims that sources contradict what is written in them. Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Collect's charge of "personal political bias" is unjustified. As to whether there's a "connection" between the policy and Palin herself, her spokeswoman had a chance to clarify that, but refused to do so. According to the cited story in USA Today: "Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella ... would not answer other questions, including when Palin learned of Wasilla's policy or whether she tried to change it."

Asking people to prove a negative is a teensy bit difficult. And I daresay few spokespersons have omniscience about issues. When one is found, I shall hire him or her. Collect (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

At this point, we don't know whether the Palin defense is that (a) she thinks charging the rape victims for their own examinations was a good idea, or (b) she had no idea this was occurring on her watch. I suppose her handlers are trying to decide which confession would be less politically damaging. In the meantime, I don't think she can, simply by stonewalling, preclude us from presenting the available facts on this issue. If Collect is concerned about the "connection" issue, we can include the report that Palin's spokeswoman would not address that issue. JamesMLane t c 18:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't be rediculous. That is like asking "when did you stop beating your kids." Arzel (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have a source for saying "That Palin's spokeswoman would not address that issue" fine. Otherwise we run the risk of getting into NPOV issues. Is that a wise course? Collect (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear or Nucular???

Bold text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.82.241 (talk) 02:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Tomato or Tomahto? Kelly ^hi! 03:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The apparently-true story is that they phonetically spelled the word on her teleprompter. Better to get it right than to sound like some kind of ignoranimous - not to name any names, of course. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

And who really cares? Only a snob, I suppose. —Mike 05:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Or someone who doesn't like the President sounding like an idiot. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I find this whole discussion totally irrelevant and think it should be deleted. Especially considering the other VP candidate, the supposed foreign policy expert on the Democratic ticket, doesn't know the difference between a brigade and a batallion. Not to mention his repeated gaffes showing grotesque racial, sexual and infirmity based insensitity. Grow up. (Wallamoose (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

Reference in Time Magazine

I noticed on top of this talk page about this article being referenced in various media outlets. One that you might add is Nathan Thornburgh, "Call Of the Wild: Plucked from obscurity by John McCain, Sarah Palin has scrambled the presidential race," TIME 172.11 (September 15, 2008): 27, which states: "Everyone can agree that Palin is no beltway creature, but in less than a week, the country has uncovered at least half a dozen new Palin personas that are competing to share top billing on her Wikipedia entry." --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 04:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh - actually Rudy Giuliani mentioned Wikipedia in an interview about Palin tonight, though I think he was talking about the Bush Doctrine article. Kelly ^hi! 05:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have noted that on the talk page of "Bush Doctrine" as it was discussed on Countdown with Keith Olbermann on Friday night. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 04:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of factually accurate material

This is the third day that I see factually accurate material [6]that is well sourced being deleted from this article. Please discuss such deletions and provide a substantive rationale for these deletions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jossi, factually accurate material that is well sourced does not mean that material has to be included in any article. The rationale should be why this material should be included, my opinion of course :). I actually liked how Palin's religious beliefs read before you reverted, but I am a minimal/deletionist so go figure. I won't revert this since I have reverted other parts of the article. Thank you, --Tom 15:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be included because (a) it is factually accurate; (b) it is notable; (c) it describes facts that are published in reliable sources. Let's avoid using this article to promote a specific political viewpoint: the facts speaks for themselves and let the readers make their own opinions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Not every fact that is factually accurate and backed up by sources needs to be included in this article. The basics belong in this article; everything else belongs in the subarticles. Otherwise we end up with an incomprehensible article. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What will make the article incomprehensible? Stating that Palin was a Pentecostal for 38 years is most certainly a notable aspect (if not the notable aspect) of her religious formation/convictions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tom and Julian above. Kelly ^hi! 16:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry to jump in here. There are many things about her that are doubtless irrelevant. But biographies should be tied to what people will find relevant about a person. Why include so much about music in Bach's biography? Because most people who are interested in Bach are so because of music. Since Palin is a candidate for vice president, since so much of her party's support comes from religious people, and since she was an appropriate running mate for McCain precisely because they are working to establish a regime based on faith, it seems to me that her religious background is one of the most relevant possible pieces of information to most readers. Isn't it? --fugue137

(outdent) Jossi, I really hope the comment about promoting a specific political viewpoint wasn't directed at me, since I to don't want that to happen either. My point was that the religious material had seemed to be getting out of hand as far as how specific it was reading and appeared muddled, while the reverted version was pretty consise and presented the material accurately. Again, this perticular section and material doesn't really rub me the wrong way either way. --Tom 16:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Another problem with that section is "Although initial press reports described her as Pentecostal..." ... if the press reports were mistaken, why include that line? Kelly ^hi! 16:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The article should say what she was and is, not what some news reports mistakenly thought she was or is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, --Tom 17:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be a useful change. But deletion of the other material is not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The National Catholic Reporter describes her as a "post-denominational" Christian. Is this incorrect? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see this previous section of this talk page, where it was discussed that the journal of one religion is not an adequate source regarding the religious views of a person of another religion.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with jossi here, at least as far as saying that she attended the Wasilla Assembly of God for a significant amount of time, shall we say "for over 30 years" since there seems to be some uncertainty. I also think the information that she and her children were baptised at this church is a significant life event. The fact that she declared herself to be "saved" here is even more relevant. I'm sure it will be a deciding factor for many Americans of who they will vote for in this election. I don't see why it was removed by User:Atomaton here. I will be restoring that information.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and beat you to it.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You did. Do we have a solid cite on how many years she attended the church?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed one of the two footnotes for that section. Does that solve the problem?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how her baptism, her childrens baptism, and where they were baptized, has any relevance to the article or section. Of course if she is a Christian, then she was saved. The part about baptism and being saved is non-notable. The section mentions her religious background in detail already. Also, who cares if she was a member of a pentocastal church for more than 30 years? She was a Catholic, and then a Pentocostal, and now she is non-denomonational. Does someone have some vested interest in indicating that she was Pentocostal for longer than she was Catholic, or non-denominational. Is that somehow notable in some way that I am missing? Atom (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You may not see that as important, but others disagree with you. Why are you deleting material without discussion, Atomaton?[7] Where is the compromise, and how this is "unimportant text" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It takes consensus for it to be in the article, removing what people don't have consensus for is not "deleting material without discussion". I respect that you don't agree. That's why we are trying to reach consensus. Atom (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

who cares if she was a member of a pentocastal[sic] church for more than 30 years - Our readers, Atom, our readers. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What I said was who cares that it was for 30 years. She isn't pentacostal now. I didn't say that we should not put what religion, or what sect, or even what church she has gone to -- I just pointed out that trying to dilineate that she was a Catholic for four years, a Pentcaostal for 34 years, and non-denominational for three years is not really relevant to this section -- more detail than needed -- nit picking -- may POV pushing. It smacks of someone trying to spin the view that she is basically Pentecostal in philosophy and not really one of those Catholics. Do we have quotes of her saying "I'm proud that I was Pentacostal for 34 years!" No. Why should we try to say something that she is not interested in saying. What is the hidden agendum here? Atom (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems our "readers" don't care about Black_liberation_theology or Liberation_theology though in relationship to bio's on politicians and how long they've been associated with it? Theosis4u (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what you refer to, as this is a biography of a person that has no black liberation theology past. It is a fact that the person was a Pentecostal for 30 years, and that is indeed notable. Also, is there any thing wrong in being a Pentecostal? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Or a Catholic????--Buster7 (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Disingenuous and invalidates assumption of good faith [your edit history shows as much]. The other referenced "theology" is also "Pentecostal" in it's belief - the "other" bio is free of the confession of "bein born again" and the implied references to the belief of "speaking in tongues" because of their church being "Pentecostal". Theosis4u (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

[refuse to engage in discussions not related to the edit in question] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

BTW, the current version "Palin was born into a Catholic family.[171] When she was 4 years old, her family joined the Wasilla Assembly of God, affiliated with the fundamentalist Pentecostal movement; Palin attended the Wasilla Assembly of God until age 38. When in Juneau, she attends the Juneau Christian Center.[172] Her current home church is the Wasilla Bible Church, an independent congregation.[173]Palin described herself in an interview as a "Bible-believing" Christian.[171]" IUs something I could live with, it is a good edit, whoever did it. Atom (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

affiliated with the fundamentalist Pentecostal movement is factually incorrect. I have corrected and provided source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Baptisms and "Getting Saved"

So Atom removed the reference to baptisms and being saved again, twice, here and here. I'm sort of amazed at this since Palin identifies so strongly as a Christian, It seems to me it should be helpful information to determining what kind of Christian she is, but maybe that's just me. First, I suggest getting a consensus on whether the following events that took place at Wasilla Assembly of God should be included in this article:(1) Palin's baptism, (2) Palin's children being baptised (3) Palin being saved.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

1. I am in favor of (1), (2) and (3) being included for the above reason stated, and also because Palin recently on June 8, 2008 appeared to make a political point out of it when she gave a speech at the church in her capacity as governor. See video here and feel free to ignore opinion article.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No need, the discussion has moved beyond that, see the rest of the talk page below. I won't detail it all over again, but in a nutshell, the personal section is not the place for her religious background, beliefs and such. It is intended for high-level, low detail background about her marriage, hobbies, religion and church, etc -- not details on any of those. There is a need for that information, and there is a new section specifically for discussing her religious history, background, opinions expressed and such. (See Sarah_Palin#Religious_perspective Her baptism and the baptism of her children are religious issues, not general (low detail) information about her background, as intended by the personal section. The new section, currently "Religious perspective" (although talk of renaming it, perhaps to "Religion" is the place for that kind of detailed information. Please see extensive discussionms below (Talk:Sarah_Palin#Palin_and_Religion for details. It was not my intent to try to block mentioning details of her religious experience, but to say that the 'personal section is not the right place for that. Atom (talk) 06:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

So I take it you are also in favor of including the information in the article (whether it's in the personal history section or the religious views section doesn't matter to me). Since you've been the one repeatedly removing the information Atom, perhaps you wouldn't mind replacing it and moving it to whichever section you see fit.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 06:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I already have actually. I am sure that it needs much polishing. Please feel free to do that. Atom (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The National Enquirer as BLP per Wiki Policy

A little confused , read earlier on , on this discussion page, a topic discussing the National Enguirer. The Enguirer has broken stories about John Edwards, Palins daughter pregnancy that turn out to be factual. However I gather on the Wiki this is not a reliable source.

Please expand on this and BlP --MisterAlbert (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In order to be a reliable source, it's not sufficient that a publication sometimes contain stories that turn out to be true. The question is what its methods are and what proportion of its stories are true, and whether people generally consider it a reliable source. —KCinDC (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Like someone else pointed out, a broken watch is still right twice a day. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the source of the article may be less relevant than the sourcing contained within an article. If a National Enquirer article is well sourced it should be valid (verifiable names and circumstances). Meanwhile, reportage from the NYT and Newsweek is often speculative with anonymous sourcing and biased opinion. So there you go. I would point out that reading an article you can usually tell whether it's legit by the standards of slander. (Wallamoose (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

International experience

Does she have any? Has she ever travelled outside the United States? It would be useful to those of us in the rest of the world if the article answered these questions. So far as I can see, she bases her world view on the Book of Revelation, which is pretty terrifying. Honbicot (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"In 2007 Palin obtained a passport and traveled for the first time outside of North America to Kuwait and Germany to visit with members of the Alaska National Guard." She also had traveled to Mexico and Canada when a passport was not required to do so.--Appraiser (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• She traveled once overseas to Kuwait to visit Alaska troops. In her return trip to America, she stopped in Germany to see troops at the hospital base, and a refueling (like that counts as experience) in Ireland. Her first Passport was issued in 2007. She also claims to have made a personal road trip across Alaskan border to Canada, woohoo. And hey, if you live "close to Russia", you must know everything about Putin, eh? /sarcasm Duuude007 (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit: doh, you beat be. Duuude007 (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• I believe she also touts negotiations with Canadian officials and industry heads as international experience, when she was trying to catalyze the Alaska Gas Pipeline[8]--Appraiser (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Please remember this page is for discussions about the improvement of the article, and not personal opinions. Grsz^talk 21:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's time we lock this page - there are too many Palin fanatics and haters around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VivinNath (talk • contribs) 02:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Lock the page? There's a novel idea. Oh, wait... it was locked, for an entire week. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Free speech

The heading “Free speech matters” is problematic. According to the cited source, the librarian Emmons did not object to challenges to books, and did not object to removal of books, if her preferred procedure is followed. Instead, she merely suspected that Palin had a different procedure in mind, which Palin denied. Any chance we could select an NPOV heading that doesn’t suggest free speech was in jeopardy here? Like maybe the heading in the sub-article? See WP:SS. Also, the heading "Free speech matters" has a double-meaning, and so has additional POV problems (one meaning is "free speech is important" and the other meaning is "free speech issues").Ferrylodge (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• I updated the subarticle in a way that is hopefully clearer and more neutral. Pls let me know if it works. Duuude007 (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

My reading on the source is entirely different. Emmons explicitly defined what Palin was asking as a request to censor the library's selection of books and she expressed absolute objected to any such form of censorship. Censorship is a "free speech matter," period, no bones about it. If you want a more specific heading, you can revert it to the heading I originally added, "censorship matters". LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 01:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

your reading on the matter is not considering that "matters" means both "means something to people" and "subject of". It can be easily misinterpreted. That is why I proposed "On the topic of the Freedom of Speech". Duuude007 (talk) 02:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not just change it to "Issues" or "Controversy"? --Kickstart70-T-C 02:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

LamaLoLeshLa has changed it to "Library Matters". Does that convey the right message? There is a Freedom of Speech controversy even if "rhetorical" as the Wasilla news quote says, why cover it up? The citations clearly say that she requested at least 3 times what the process of banning books would be. Duuude007 (talk) 03:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to "Library Matters" which matches the subsection title in the daughter article. "Free Speech" does not convey a neutral point of view. Besides, these library matters, if they weren't just a personality clash between two people, were about freedom of the press, not freedom of speech.--Paul (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Library matters" is okay, if there must be all these subsubheadings. Ironically, the only free speech issue was whether Palin was free to open her mouth and ask a legitimate question about what the library's censorship policies were.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The following has appeared under her City Council years: "According to Laura Chase, Palin's campaign manager during her first run for mayor in 1996, as city councilwoman, Palin stated in 1995 that the book Daddy's Roommate should be removed from the shelves of the local library although she had not read the book." This particular charge is basically a "single source" one, and seems to be on the order of a hearsay anecdote. Comments? Collect (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This edit complies with Wikipedia policies - see: Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. The source, as her former campaign manager, is notable and it is published by a notable source, the New York Times. -Classicfilms (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Undue Weight

Sarah Palin is one of the most popular governors in Alaskan or U.S. history having a popularity rating of over 90% in her first year, and 80% for the majority of her second year. She campaigned on fiscal responsibility, ethics reform, getting a getting a pipeline deal passed, and reforming the taxes paid by big oil companies. She got the ethics bill passed with a big bi-partisan majority. She dumped the state jet airplane and vetoed over $750M from the budget. She got a new pipeline negotiated and approved. And, she reformed the tax system for big oil.

However, the Governor section in our article spends about 600 words on her promises and actual performance as a governor, and almost 800 words on things like Troopergate, the Bridge to Nowhere, and how much she charges on her expense account. This is not a well-balanced article.--Paul (talk) 02:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

So why don't you propose what you have in mind regarding your concerns in specifics (here on the talk page) so we can make changes to this issue(s) w/consensus? Just an advise: Be careful about things like "She got a new pipeline negotiated and approved", since it might backfire and making it less appealing to you than you intended. Check on sources first ;). --Floridianed (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Consider the fact that she is popular in Alaska does not mean her positions will be popular outside of Alaska.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well stated. There is no WP:UNDUE issue here -- she doesn't "belong" just to Alaska anymore. (Alas! some might say.) Arjuna (talk) 03:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There certainly is a problem of undue weight here.

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.

The emphasis on opposition talking points over substantial narrative is obvious. If you can count words, or measure column inches it jumps out. If other political articles were written like this one, the majority of John F. Kennedy's article would speculate on his affairs; the majority of Ronald Reagan's article would be devoted to Irangate, and most of Dwight Eisenhower's article would consist of comments on his garbled syntax at press conferences and speculation whether or not he had an affair with his army chauffeur. Saying she doesn't "belong" just to Alaska anymore does not justify completely reversing what the wikipedia policy of undue weight means.--Paul (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, one way to measure "weight" is to count the words. Another way, a better way, is to read the words. Do the words make sentences that are ref by credible sources? Do the sentences make ref. to significate, notable, important point? This is not a baseball game, with each side getting 9 at bats. If you have objections to the content, state them. If you have your own content, add it. 98.234.65.214 (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of sourced info

This was removed, and I restored it: "The London Times has called attention to her pastor's apocalyptic religious perspective, and cited a recent sermon attended by Palin in which the Jews for Jesus head "suggested that terrorism in Israel was God’s judgment against the Jews for failing to accept Christ as the Messiah;" the McCain campaign responded that Palin “would not have been sitting in the pews of the church if those remarks were remotely typical”, although Palin's pastor has already invited Jews for Jesus' founder to return. In October of 2007, she signed the "Christian Heritage Week" Proclamation which exalts the role that Christianity has played shaping the United States heritage. After the RNC, the McCain campaign told CNN that Palin "doesn't consider herself Pentecostal," raising questions in the media about the reasons for downplaying her faith." Insertion of new sourced info does not have to be run by everyone - deletion of sourced facts does. If you do not like the way things are phrased, or feel it is unbalanced, feel free to edit in additional countering info or to tone down language, so long as you do not delete relevant facts that cite sources such as the Times, one of the most reputable papers on earth. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

That's very good that you've come to the talk page to discuss your proposal to insert additional material. Wikipedia works by consensus, and it is especially important in a biography of a living person to not insert stuff that is unsupported by consensus. Edit-warring is not helpful.

I find that your proposed material advances a particular point of view, which is contrary to Wikipedia neutrality principles. You know very well that the London Times did not call "attention to her pastor's apocalyptic religious perspective", don't you? You must realize that the person in question has not been her pastor for many years, right? And you must know that sometimes people go to church not knowing exactly what they are going to hear, and that her spokesperson has said that she “would not have been sitting in the pews of the church if those remarks were remotely typical”. Why have you tried to paint such a slanted picture?

The edit includes the McCain campaign response, don't know if you noticed.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Times article is headed: "Sarah Palin, the pastor and the prophecy: judgment day is not far away" I would say that draws attention to an apocalyptic perspective.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

LamaLoLeshLa, can you please tell me the last name of her current pastor? Is it Kalnins (the subject of the article you cite) or Kroons?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You say that she signed a document "which exalts the role [of] Christianity" but why do you choose such a description? The cited source used the word "reminds" instead of "exalts". I must say that I do not agree with your proposed material for this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't write "exalts." Someone else edited it that way. Actually, I wrote that the organization "Argues that the United States should be recognized as a Christian nation" since when you google "America's Christian Heritage Week", that's what the subheading to www.achw.org says.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

yes, you did.[9]Ferrylodge (talk) 04:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You have officially stepped into accusation territory. I was copy-pasting something someone else wrote.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Ah, I see that you have now created an entire subsection titled "Palin and Religion", within the "Political positions" section. You really should try to build consensus here at the talk page. This will save you the trouble of being reverted.

Creating such a subsection is unacceptable, because it implies that the apocalyptic views of her long-ago pastor are identical with her own present political views. But you know that, right? You're just spinning your wheels trying to make this into an anti-Palin screed. Please, please, save us all some time and trouble, and read WP:NPOV. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

LamaLoLeshla, would you please kindly stop posting comments in the middle of my comments? It makes it very difficult for other people to understand who said what. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, on other pages, that is quite common. But if you would prefer I not respond point for point, I will cordially comply:) As far as the creation of a new subsection, this was actually suggested by an editor below, and I agreed with his/her rationale that the info does not as much belong in the personal section as elsewhere. As far as POV-pushing - we are talking about a potential national leader, and every bit of information dealing with such fundamental matters as separation of church and state is highly relevant. Also, as a Jew, I think I do represent a major portion of the non-Christian American citizenry/readership of wikipedia who are very interested in knowing about her approach to religious questions. As far as wheel-spinning - nope, more like changing a tire. Finally, your point about her previous versus present pastor is well-taken, I made the necessary edits. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, as one Jew to another, I urge you to respect the religious freedom of others, and not try to imply that other people's religious views make them unacceptable as political leaders. The same intolerance that you show toward other religions may some day be shown to you. Thanks. Even if those are your views, you ought not try to jam them into a Wikipedia article. Incidentally, I still hope you will tell me the last name of her current pastor. Is it Kalnins (the subject of the article you cite) or Kroons?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no issue with Palin as a born-again Christian. Some of my best friends are born-again Christians (not kidding). I think it is vital that no politician mix religion with politics, and this is what she has been doing. The information I have added has dealt explicitly with Palin's politics-religion mish-mashing, not judged her as a believer. I know these issues get very emotional at times, but please avoid making character judgments, such as that I am showing "intolerance to other religions." This is a personal comment, and no one here should have to contest such accusations, I am sure you are aware. Thanks.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I did suggest a new section. I think the section he has created isa good idea as it can be a landing place for religious perspective, views, criticism, rather than other unrelated sections. Now, the content of the new section is the more difficult part. NPOV does not mean that the section should be neutral, but that is must be balanced with the spectrum of views. Also, the text still needs to be cited from reliable sources. There will probably be some controversy until editors work out what kinds of things are well within BLP. Atom (talk) 04:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I very much disagree with devoting a special section to her religious views, and certainly not a subsection like that in the political positions section. Is there any other biography of a politician on Wikipedia that gives such weight to personal religious views?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure how notable the views of her controversial pastor are. I think that the text should remain focused on citations where Palin has expressed her viewpoints. Even saying that she was "heavily influenced" during her 28 years at the church by pastor (name), whose viewpoints and preaching has been controversial, might not be appropriate unless she can be quoted as having said that this person "heavily influenced" her views, etc. Atom (talk) 04:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I took a look, and I think this has to go: "The London Times has called attention to her former pastor's apocalyptic religious perspective, and cited a recent sermon attended by Palin in which the Jews for Jesus head "suggested that terrorism in Israel was God’s judgment against the Jews for failing to accept Christ as the Messiah;" the McCain campaign responded that Palin “would not have been sitting in the pews of the church if those remarks were remotely typical”, although Palin's current pastor has already invited Jews for Jesus' founder to return." As it discusses the controversy of her former pastor, and nothing about her personal viewpoints. Atom (talk) 04:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The whole subsection is bogus. It starts from the premise that her religious views are fair game in the political arena, because "Questions have been raised in the media regarding Palin's views on the separation of church and state, given ... her comments that soldiers in the Iraq war are 'out on a task that is from God.'" But she did not say that. What she actually said was: "Pray our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country — that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God...." What the heck is wrong with that? And how does that justify turning her personal religious views into a target for a Wikipedia attack?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Update the quote so that it is accurate then. Discussing viewpoints she has expressed, and opinions or statements she has made (if cited from reliable sources) is fair game. Citations to where people criticize her, or ponder what her viewpoint and beliefs may be is not fair game. Atom (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

So, you're saying it's fine to have a huge part of the Political Positions section detail her religious views? This does not belong in that section, much less in the article as a whole. I am moving it out of that section. We could write 10,000 accurate words about her religious beliefs, but that does not mean they would belong in this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a section on her religious views is appropriate, I'm not an advocate of it being in the secton on her political views. Atom (talk) 05:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I quoted the Christian Heritage week exactly, rather than paraphrasing using exalted. Atom (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I think "After the RNC, the McCain campaign told CNN that Palin "doesn't consider herself Pentecostal," raising questions in the media about the reasons for downplaying her faith" should be in the Mcain article. I don't see anything in the article that quoted Palin, or her position. Atom (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as what the Mccain campaign says of her - I am sure that they run their statements by her. They are her spokespeople. Thus that info is highly relevant here.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, to clarify, the section does not deal with her religious views. It deals with her religious-political views.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as whether or not she said these things, see, the CBS interview, in which Gibson corners her and and she acts confused but does not deny that these are her verbatim words.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of added text to Personal Section -- Christian Heritage Week, Mcain says She is not Pentacostal

We should discuss this newly added text to the personal section. There has been alot of debate over two of the elemtns in that section already (Eloped, Pentacostalism detail) to get to a consensus, and now this new text is pushed into the section and disrupts the balance and consensus.

Text reads:

The London Times has called attention to her pastor's apocalyptic religious perspective, and cited a recent sermon attended by Palin in which the Jews for Jesus head "suggested that terrorism in Israel was God’s judgment against the Jews for failing to accept Christ as the Messiah." In October of 2007, she signed the "Christian Heritage Week" Proclamation which exalts the role that Christianity has played shaping the United States heritage. After the RNC, the McCain campaign told CNN that Palin "doesn't consider herself Pentecostal," raising questions in the media about the reasons for downplaying her faith.

This section, personal, has been about personal life detail of Governor Palin. The text added seems controversial to me, and some kind if effort to push a religious view into this section, not an appropriate place -- as it is not directly related to her personal information (marriage, family, church, etc). A different section called "religious views of Palin" or "religious perspective" might be more appropriate than in this section.

This new para distracts from the section, and if included should be in a different section. Just mentioning the churches she has attended should not open the door for a detailed list of her past and present religious views, accomplishments, issues, and whatever. It should remain focused on the basics of her "public" personal life. Atom (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I created a "Palin on religion" section and moved the info there. I put it under "political positions" because of the questions raised about her views on separation of church and state, although it could also stand on its own. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

For the reasons that I described above, I disagree with adding that material. Also, it gives WP:Undue weight to her personal religious views.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't thing this has anything to to do with WP:UNDUE. The religious beliefs of this person are notable and a summary of her views, presented in a neutral manner, is needed. I have restored the previous version, which believe (no pun intended) to be factually accurate and neutral. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Approval rating over 80%

It says in the article that Sarah Palin "has maintained a high approval rating throughout her term (as Governor of Alaska)". According to this video (0.34) her approval rating is "over 80%"... and that "it is videly seen as something of a phenomena". If that is true, I'd suggest the percentage figure also be included in the article. --Hapsala (talk) 03:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Go right ahead.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Youtube videos are not considered a reliable source but if you'd like to include it you can find reliable sources. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 04:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The part seems to be from a CBS News show, and that should be rather reliable. The question is from where CBS News got the statistics. --Hapsala (talk) 04:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again: Youtube is not considered a reliable source! You need to back it up with a (reliable) 3rd party source to incl. a video as add on, otherwise it is WP:OR. --Floridianed (talk) 04:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The Population Density for the State of Alaska is 1.1%. For All of the U.S. it is 79.6% (which, of course, includes the low Alaskan figure). Also, her approval rating her first term was 90%...so, it declined 12%. You might reconsider your effort to include.--Buster7 (talk) 04:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

What does population density have to do with anything? Are you suggesting a sentence like: Palin has maintained a remarkable popularity with the electorate, over 90% in her first year and 80% for most of her second year as governor, but there aren't as many people in Alaska as Manhattan so it really doesn't matter? Further, are you suggesting that a favorable percentage of 80% means she isn't popular because it is down from 92%?--Paul (talk) 12:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Surely population density is measured in people/area. How do you get 1.1%? Percent of what? I looked at population density and there are no percentages there. Thehalfone (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

First, I never suggested using the Youtube video as a source. Second, I have no "efforts" to include anything in the article. But approval ratings of 80-90% seem notable enough to be included. If the ratings are true, it shouldn't be hard to could come up with relevant sources. --Hapsala (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Here is another section of this Talk page advocating inclusion of these facts: Talk:Sarah Palin#High Approval Ratings. It includes a citation resource.--Paul (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Error discovered and fixed

Wasilla is a city, not a town. See http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=82 In contrast, Clarksville, Indiana is a town. See http://town.clarksville.in.us/ BLP requires accuracy about living people. BLP requires that editors be blocked for BLP violations. Please, let's all be accurate! 903M (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

'Town' vs. 'city'

Interesting, Clarksville has 22,000 residents, while Wasilla only has 7-9,000. Yet Wasilla is a city and Clarksville is a town?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the US census, villages in Alaska of 43 people are designated cities; the definition is merely: "Incorporated place." I think we can all agree that a locale of 6,000 is a town, not a city, and a locale of 43 is a village, not a city, by media and encyclopedia and academic standards. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry...The US census refers to Wasilla as "Wasilla city" (lower case "c" intentional). Also, to 903M, it is not civil to jump into a discussion threatening to block fellow good faith editors. ASSUME GOOD FAITH, please!--Buster7 (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Your link doesn't work. Could you fix it, please? Thanks.

If it's true we would have to work on this [10](and source it). And yes, always assume good faith! --Floridianed (talk) 04:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

God that's annoying - don't know what happened to the link but I just spent a really long time trying to find it for the third time. You should be able to download the excel chart by scrolling down to "Places in Alaska listed alphabetically". If you feel like it, go to the Montana official website and you'll see that they do distinguish between cities and towns. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That works now and indeed the "City" is in lower cases. Got to get further into that.... when I have time. --Floridianed (talk) 05:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

PS: I'm with you on that and I don't think I'll change my mind. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 05:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Heading cleanup and misc

This page needs a heading clean up. First, the main information on her life should be standardized. Put the biographical information under one second level header (called Biography, preferably), which includes education and personal life. Second, 3.1.1 Police matters, 3.1.2 Library matters, and 3.1.3 Taxes and spending do not warrant their own subheadings and should be combined into one larger section (3.1 Election and first term). "Palin and religion" does not warrant its own subheading as such. If it is political, then it should be integrated as political. If it is not, it should be separated from the section. The phrase "Questions have been raised in the media regarding Palin's views on the separation of church and state, given her support for the injection of religion into public education" is not encyclopedic. I recommend - "Reporters have questioned Palin over her views on the separation of church and state: (insert view here)".

Also, the "Johnson, Kaylene (2008), Sarah:How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down, Epicenter Press, ISBN 0979047080 ." has faulty harvnb templates related to it and should be corrected. This one (" (Johnson 2008, p. 65)") lacks a Harvnb template. Question - What is "http://www.haysresearch.com/" linking to? There is nothing on the main page to suggest this information. This link should be corrected. Did "Newsweek, commenting on Palin's "astonishing pivot,"" Did Newsweek say this, or was it really, as the final page says, "written by Jeffrey Bartholet and Breslau"? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as the 'Palin and religion' section, go ahead and make whatever edits you think would make the info more encyclopedic, so long as you retain factual information. As far as the 'police matters' and 'library matters' section - I agree that these headings are quite silly. Before, it read 'reorganization' and 'free speech matters', both much more relevant headings than 'library matters and police matters'. The censorship issue has got to be addressed here, and highlighted, yes. It is not in the same category as local Alaskan roadbuilding, or even cuts to museum funding, etc. This has to do with the Constitution. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin and Religion

The "Palin and religion" section is bluntly partisan and full of double-speak and weasel words. It must be made NPOV. TuckerResearch (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Unfortunately, there are editors who believe that material can be jammed into this biography of a living person, regardless of whether there is consensus. This edit seems particularly misguided to me. A section is entitled "Palin and Religion" despite that the entire article is about Palin, and therefore "Palin" should not be in any of the section headers. A more appropriate heading would be "religious background" as in the Mitt Romney article. And to top it off, this edit moves religion material out of this new section on "Palin and religion", and into another section. We may as well sprinkle some religious stuff in all the section of this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Now I see that we have a "Religious viewpoints" section, which is a somewhat improved title, except that the section is placed before we are informed what her religion is.[11]Ferrylodge (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the previous format/formulation, that is closer to the sources and neutral. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I see you got reverted. It seems that two editors are determined to insert a separate section on religious views, regardless of the objections of several other editors, while also including religious stuff in the "Personal life" section.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

See below, and previous discussions about this. Religious viewpoints don't go in the personal section. I ask you to work towards consensus. Just because you and Jossi did not participate in previous discussions does not mean that "two editors are determined to insert a separate section". We discussed it, as the religious stuff he wanted to add (as well as other people) don't go in the personal section. Atom (talk) 05:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

See earlier discussions working through building that new section, including on talk pages. We need a general landing place for her religious viewpoints and issues. The personal section should be short, tight and talk about the basics of her "public" personal life, such as marriage, family, hobbies, churches she attends. Discussion of her church is not meant to open that section to detail about the history of the churches, religious viewpoints she has, etc. but should be kept on topic. Discussion related to other topics should go into other sections, including religious viewpoints and expressions (such as the Christian Heritage proclamation") in appropriate sections. The new, appropriate section for that is "Religious viewpoints", although a similar title could be more suitable. You seemed earlier to weant to discuss the nature of her Fundamentalism as well as her Pentacostalism. These don't belong in the personal section. The new section is appropriate for you to talk about those topics. Atom (talk) 05:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I moved the personal section upward, so that discussion of her religion preceded the viewpoints section. Atom (talk) 05:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You said: "You seemed earlier to want to discuss the nature of her Fundamentalism as well as her Pentacostalism. These don't belong in the personal section." That puizzles me. I would think that alleged religious fundamentalism and Pentacostalism are personal religious viewpoints, no? And even if they were not, it is far from clear that she is either fundamentalist or Pentacostal.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, look, this is the way I see it. There are alot of people whit a range of views who want to talk about Palin and her religion. This includes the churches she went to, how long she went there, why she changed, what the pastor may or may not have said, etc. Also, what are her current viewpoints, and how does that affect her capability to be VP? OR and discussion is not on topic, of course, but we needed a general landing pad for religious issues. Religion keeps popping up in other sections in the article, especially in the "personal" section, since many people took the brief reference to her attending church and establishing what religion she was to be an invitation to write other things about her religion in that section. We want to keep other sections on topic, and not discussing other things, such as religion. A landing pad such as this new section gives people a chance to express these things appropriately. Sure, uncited opinion will end up ther, and be reverted, but in time it will fill out to express cited reliable sources for what her religious background, opinions and perspectives (as expressed) have been in the past, and are determined as time goes forward. Without this section, continued attempts to express those things will keep popping up in other sections creating controversy. That's how I see it. Atom (talk) 06:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not see that you've given any persuausive reason to have details about her religious views in two separate sections of this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't tried to. If you read what I said, we need to have a section for her religious views. The personal section is not for details of her religious views. So, no one has suggested having two sections. The confuson is exactly what you indicate -- People are confused and think that because the personal section mentions her religion, and the church she goes to, that it is also for her religious views. It isn't. We also mention her hobbies there, but it is not a section for going into details about her hobbies either. I just want to keep the personal section short, tight, on topic, and not have it diverge off into unrelated information. The details you have previously wanted to add to the personal section, which were removed, were removed because they were not about her personal life, but were attempts at detailing her religious background and viewpoints -- not on topic. The religious section is a section for you to do just that. Atom (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Atom took pains to make clear that in the personal section, the discussion is not of her views, it is more logistical in a way, details of her church membership. A religious perspective section would not deal with her private religious life, but rather, her public life. Atomaton - what do you think about "Religious perspective: Public matters" or something that expresses that distinction more eloquently?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus for these insertions of extra section and excessive detail in the personal life section and these additions should be reverted as such. Hobartimus (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I am open to a different title. My main thoguht is that it needs to be able to fit a wide range of perspective about her religion. Perhaps her past history, or t:he churches she has attended in more detail, or opinions she has given regarding religion, etc. So -- the title needs to be general enough to still provide a landing pad for any religious based discussion. That keeps that information out of other sections in the article. So, the more specific the title is, the less flexible it is for that purpose. Your suggested title is more specific. "Religion" would be a good title, IMO. Atom (talk) 06:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure other editors will weigh in tomorrow. However, my opinion remains that creating a section like you're suggesting conveys a POV that her peculiar religious views will somehow control her public policy positions, and conveys a POV that she does not know how to keep her personal religious views out of her public decisionmaking. If you're looking for a landing place for this kind of POV, there are a lot of Wikipedia articles about Sarah Palin besides this one. Having her religion covered in two separate sections of this article seems very excessive. Good night.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Omitting this conveys a POV that her peculiar religious views about church in school, god's role in expanding the oil industry in Alaska, etc., will not somehow control her public policy positions.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see above discussion seeking consensus regarding inclusion of info on baptisms and "getting saved" here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 06:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

second religion section

I move the first part of that to personal life. It is basically a reasonable summary of her religious upbringing, which is part of her biography. What's below has major POV and NOTNEWS problems: Kaisershatner (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

In October of 2007, she signed the "Christian Heritage Week" Proclamation which "reminds Alaskans of the role Christianity has played in our rich heritage." She also declared the week of November 18-25, 2007 as Bible Week in Alaska.

Questions have been raised by some in the media regarding Palin's views on the separation of church and state, given her support for the inclusion of creationism into public education, and an address to graduating ministry students at her former church where she urged them to pray "that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God", and in the same remarks, her assertion that "God's will" was responsible for the Alaskan national gas pipeline project. Left-wing bloggers have characterized her remarks as having "painted the current war in Iraq as a messianic affair" or reported that she told the students "that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a 'task that is from God.'"

Problems include the passive "questions have been raised" - by whom? Also NB the very same cited source includes Palin's statement ""I won't have religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism," Palin said." Also, "left wing bloggers" are not a WP:RS. Kaisershatner (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see the footnotes for the answer to your question, "raised by who." Utne Reader, Salon, Huffington Post, Anchorage Daily News, Times, etc. The phrase "left-wing bloggers" is from the Huntington Post, not a wiki editor.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Kaisershatner, I WP:AGF but if you read previous sections a number of editos worked through a consensus on that section. Ir probably does need some copyediting, and some of the materrial no doubt will be discussed by other editors. The sections purpose is to act as a landing pad for religious issues. We specifically are trying to keep all of that out of the personal section. The personal section is mean't to be high-level, tight and informative about various aspects of her private life, and not details about those things. I suspect the religious section will have some controversy until it gets stabilized, but that is the point, ther is a place to put that material and work it out, rather than having disruptions in other sections of the article every time religion is mentioned in some small way. Atom (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Atomaton, thanks for AGF. My interest is in improving the article. I do disagree with your view above that her views on religion should not go into the "Personal life" section. I'm not sure I understand why her philosophy and religion should be seen differently. And it isn't clear to me that there is a firm consensus on having a second section at all. I'm sure at minimum we can agree on the copyediting. Why her biography has to address the concerns of "left wing bloggers" is beyond my understanding, for one thing. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Hi, also, checked the Barack Obama article - there is no separate section about his religious views. I ask in complete good faith and with genuine curiosity if you think there should be such a section there, perhaps it will help me see what the differences are in why you think there should be one here - Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Atom argued at length that it should go into the personal life section, for hours, yesterday, so it's somewhat ironic that you say that. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

And again, not one single left-wing blogger here - please check the citations, they are all for ABC, Utne Reader, the Times, etc.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Atom, do you support inclusion of three sources for "69% of voters did not know her views about Creationism?" What is this doing in the bio article? Lama, please add your comments at the end of the section, it makes the chronology very confusing when you reply in between other people's comments. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the "questions have been raised" part and the POV tag - best not to use POV tags as a tool on either side of any simple content dispute and folks, please do try to work together. If there are issues with the separation of church and state that is a distinct issue from her views on teaching creationism even if the two are related. That would need some direct sourcing and ought to be discussed for what it is. If it's merely an inference that is implicit in favoring teaching creationism then it's merely a criticism and doesn't add anything to the article. Wikidemon (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Population of Wasilla

LamaLoLeshLa, I see that you have edited the article to say that Wasilla is the fourth largest city in Alaska.[12] The cited source (which discusses Palin) says: "Wasilla is the fifth-largest city in Alaska."[13] On the other hand, you have not cited any source. If you want to make changes to Wikipedia articles, it really is highly preferable to cite reliable sources, and to also look at what the existing cited sources say before you contradict them.

The Wikipedia article about Wasilla says that a "census estimate makes Wasilla the fourth largest city in Alaska, after Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau, but the city's own figure would put it sixth, after the these three and Sitka and Ketchikan." So, we have three different figures: 4, 5, and 6. Can we please just go with 5, since it's in a cited source that addresses Palin? Otherwise, we run into original research. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Already done. --Floridianed (talk) 05:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Section for deposit of controversial religious issues that have been deleted

• "The London Times has called attention to her pastor's apocalyptic religious perspective, and cited a recent sermon attended by Palin in which the Jews for Jesus head "suggested that terrorism in Israel was God’s judgment against the Jews for failing to accept Christ as the Messiah;" the McCain campaign responded that Palin “would not have been sitting in the pews of the church if those remarks were remotely typical”, although Palin's pastor has already invited Jews for Jesus' founder to return.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• After the RNC, the McCain campaign told CNN that Palin "doesn't consider herself Pentecostal," raising questions in the media about the reasons for downplaying her faith. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Much of this info was deleted but has now been restored and will stick as it represents a significant debate: "After the RNC, Palin's religious views came under increasing scrutiny in the media. A widely-circulated widely-circulated opinion piece calls Palin a theocrat and says that her values "more resemble those of Muslim fundamentalists than they do those of the Founding Fathers." Palin spoke to a group of graduating ministry students at her former church, where she urged them to pray "that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God", and in the same remarks asserted that "God's will" was responsible for the Alaskan national gas pipeline project. In light of these comments, a Washington Post Monthly opinion piece asked, "Palin, given her public comments, should answer a few reasonable questions: Does she believe in the separation of church and state? Is she comfortable with a government that remains entirely neutral on matters of faith?"" LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Political possitions edit

Instead of rephrasing you can also add on in her favor. No problem with that from my side. --Floridianed (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Separation of church and state

"Questions have been raised by some in the media regarding Palin's views on the separation of church and state, given her support for the inclusion of creationism into public education,[180] and an address to graduating ministry students at her former church where she urged them to pray "that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God",[181] and in the same remarks, her assertion that "God's will" was responsible for the Alaskan national gas pipeline project.[182][183] Left-wing bloggers have characterized her remarks as having "painted the current war in Iraq as a messianic affair"[184] or reported that she told the students "that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a 'task that is from God."

Why are opinions of left-wing bloggers considered facts worth adding to Palin's page? Instead, why isn't there any mention of the blatant witchhunt the mainstream has subjected her to? Enough of the liberal bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.173.46 (talk) 09:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this section of the article is a complete disgrace and reflects nothing more than POV-pushers continual attempts to paint Palin as a religious loony. For example, "her support for inclusion of creationism into public education" is intentionally misleading; her record shows she never attempted to do so from her position of authority. The selective snippets from her discussion of the Iraq war *to a theology class at her church* are taken entirely out-of-context and have never been affirmed either by her words or her actions. In fact, she clarified that statement as analogous to Lincoln's position during the interview with Gibson, and that fact is intentionally omitted. The last line about left-wing bloggers painting her as a zealot leading a holy war (and cited to Huffington Post!) is intended purely to embarrass her. Frankly, if WP allows this POV to stand without question simply because the most persistent editors refuse to recognize their own bias, it only reflects very poorly on the credibility of the community process that supports WP itself. Personally, I've given up on this... utter waste of time. Fcreid (talk) 10:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Sarah_Palin#Palin and Religion Kaisershatner (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The Times of London, ABC News, etc.- left-wing bloggers? You're stretching things, a lot. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Lama, I'm not saying the times is a left wing blog, thanks, just pointing out the text of the article asserts "left wing bloggers." See the difference? Kaisershatner (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and if you could cite a reliable source talking about your 'blatant witch-hunt', go ahead and insert it. By the way, this is wikipedia, not the Sarah Palin support club, or the Mccain campaign website. That means that the good and the bad will be represented here. Get used to it. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lama, are your above remarks directed at me? I have no idea what you mean by "witch hunt," and the personal attacks are not really helpful. I objected to the fact that the article anonymously sourced questions about Palin's view of church and state to "left wing bloggers." I feel I am on pretty sold ground there, stating that the article shouldn't read that way. FWIW I have worked productively with GreekParadise on the bridge section, which is hardly favorable to Palin. Please desist with your personal attacks. Thanks. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

NO. S/he wasn't talking about you. See IP comment above: "...of the blatant witchhunt..."! --Floridianed (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Publication of her signature, is it fair?

Do you think that publicating the signature is legal, fair, and do you have permission from Sarah Palin to do that? If not then you should immediately remove that! I'm just can't imagine this, because the signature is something that can be used to verify lots of things, and this is also regarded as a proof on juries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.41.33 (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Why The Removal Of Energy Subsection & Confirmed Lawsuit Info?

Dear all,

Forgive me if I'm doing this wrong. I've never written anything in a Wikipedia discussion before. I'm just curious as to why the Energy subsection of the Wikipedia article on Sarah Palin was altogether removed, along with any text reference to the very public decision by Palin to file a lawsuit re: the polar bear listing. I saved the original text, here it is:

"In May 2008, Palin objected to the decision of Dirk Kempthorne, the Republican United States Secretary of the Interior, to list polar bears as an endangered species. She filed a lawsuit to stop the listing amid fears that it would hurt oil and gas development in the bears' habitat off Alaska's northern and northwestern coasts.

Palin is considered to have similar policy positions to John McCain in some respects. One exception is drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), which Palin strongly supports. Another exception is her belief that global warming is not caused by humans."

The above text is now completely missing from the Wikipedia article on Sarah Palin, though a little bit of it seems to have survived, albeit it appears to have been re-edited in a biased, heavily censored form that is now much shorter than the original.

If there is a legitimate reason why the above text has been removed & should not be included in the Wikipedia article on Sarah Palin, in this form, I would appreciate someone stating why in this discussion thread. It is a matter of unbiased public record that Palin filed the suit, and it is certainly newsworthy. Tag number 163 and 165 (currently) are both citations for the text that I presented here in italics.

Sincerely,

SolesGirlRachel

SolesGirlRachel (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)09:13AM, 13 September 2008

Hi, I imagine it was removed as too detailed for a summary section on her views. You will find a lot more detail here: Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Endangered_species. Kaisershatner (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kaisershatner, thank you for the response & please edit the formatting of this if it's out of order somehow, I'm still a total noob at Wikipedia-discussions etc.

I looked at the section of the article you directed me to, which was not the main Sarah Palin article. It's worth nothing that there is a Political Positions subsection in the main Sarah Palin article as well, and that in this subsection of the main article, there is a deliberately omissive reference to her position on the ANWR, as follows:

"She has opposed federal listing of the polar bear as an endangered species, warning that it would adversely affect energy development in Alaska."

This carefully re-worded statement omits the unbiased fact that Palin did indeed file the lawsuit against the Bush administration re: the listing of the polar bears as an endangered species. The main Wikipedia article on Sarah Palin currently contains no mention of the lawsuit. And the alternate Wikipedia article that you referred me to, Kaisershatner, merely states that "Palin threatened to sue", omitting the fact that she did sue. The alternate article is therefore, unnecessarily misleading by omission.

My original question re: the two paragraphs I included in italics from an earlier version of the main Wikipedia article on Sarah Palin are therefore still valid, I believe. I hope that someone will either answer my question, or re-include that information in the appropriate area of the main Wikipedia article on Palin. Thank you.

SolesGirlRachel (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)10:15AM, 13 September 2008

The following link is yet another relevant citation regarding the lawsuit (along with Tag 163 and 165 that are already currently included in the main Wikipedia article on Sarah Palin):

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5689165&page=1

SolesGirlRachel (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)10:26AM, 13 September 2008

Hi - if there is a factual error in the subarticle, feel free to correct it with an appopriate citation (see WP:BOLD) since you are new (and welcome to WP). If you're looking for my opinion on the other stuff, I'm not sure I would agree that the info about the lawsuit must necessarily be mentioned in a summary section on her political views but I would welcome further discussion. Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason I can think of for the removal of the info. Please put it back in, slightly more concise and with less details, if you haven't already. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear all,

The information I intially asked about above (i.e. why was it removed at all, since it was a non-biased matter of public record, of fact) has been placed in an alternate Wikipedia article regarding Palin's positions. It is currently in the Polar Bears subsection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin

I still believe however, that the deliberate omission of this information from the main Wikipedia article on Sarah Palin here is inappropriate. There is still currently no mention of the ongoing lawsuit's existence whatsoever here in this article, despite numerous undisputed citations to back it up. Since I am relatively new to Wikipedia, I do not have the authority to edit the article, since it currently remains locked under Semi-Protected status. I would appreciate someone with the proper authority looking at the text I have presented here, as well as the amended text in the alternate article, and then re-adding this relevant, factual information to the main Wikipedia article on Sarah Palin (i.e. that she has already filed a lawsuit against the federal government of the United States in direct protest of the Republican Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne's May 14th, 2008 decision to grant Endangered Species act listing & protection to polar bears).

This information has not been challenged or removed on the alternate Wikipedia article. In light of this, and in light of the factual significance of the information, it should therefore immediately be added to this article also, please. Thank you.

SolesGirlRachel (talk) 08:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)4:11am, 14 September 2008

Addition: (Had to say this bit more; this is entirely on topic regarding the accuracy of this article.) I mean really, if no one here thinks that the first ever vice-presidential running-mate to sue her own party's currently elected government during her run for the office of vice-president is not a fact of historical, necessary note about Palin, then I don't know what is. The only conceivable reason to object to this information's inclusion in this article would be a desire to willfully mislead the readers of this article via such a noteworthy omission.

SolesGirlRachel (talk) 08:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)4:26am, 14 September 2008

Abstinence only AND contraception education

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

This line contains a mistake.

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

This would be correct:

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

Here is the reference:

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

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

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

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

Trig's birth / Proposed edit

Section 3.2 above contains my proposed edit.

I am asking for comments from more experienced WP editors. I am not asking for political commentary.

I am referencing my proposal because I want to open about my intent and wish to avoid an edit war.--Dstern1 (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Religion/Personal Life

This sentences in the religious perspective section are about her uprbringing, parents, family life. How is this not "personal life?":

Palin was baptized in the Catholic church as an infant. Palin's family joined the Pentecostal Wasilla Assembly of God when she was 4 years of age, a church where Palin attended for 34 years.[170][171] In a speech before the church, she described herself as having been saved and baptized at that church.[172] Palin's children were also baptized at that church.[173] When she is in Juneau, she attends the Juneau Christian Center,[174] another Assemblies of God church. Her current home church is now the Wasilla Bible Church, an independent congregation.[175] Palin describes herself as a "Bible-believing" Christian.[148]

Kaisershatner (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridges to Nowhere - Redux

Well, we've done pretty good. The version that's there has stood, with minor stylistic changes, for almost a week now. Every now and then when someone deletes content, I bring it here to the talk page and the consensus is that the original version should stand. So for the, I dunno, seventh time? eighth? I ask you please do NOT delete content from the Bridges to Nowhere section unless you come to the talk page and give a reason why. The reason the Congressional earmark and reversal in 2005 is there is because it's relevant and notable and gives important history to explain the pre-history of the bridge. Further, there's no POV there, just fact. Why would anyone remove it? The reason why Newsweek quote is there is because it explains the criticism. It is only one quote, a compromise between the anti-Palins who wanted several newspapers quoted (and then at least just their names mentioned) and the pro-Palins who wanted no mention of the criticism at all. If you disagree with the consensus, come to the talk page and try to get your own consensus before willy-nilly deleting content that, thus far, has stood the test of time. Thank you.GreekParadise (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the change of this sentence:

In 2005, Congress earmarked $442 million to build the two bridges but later reversed itself under strong criticism and gave the transportation money to Alaska with no strings attached.[90]

to this one (modified a short time ago):

In 2005, Congress passed the 2006 National Department of Transportation appropriations bill 93 to 1 [95] which included $442 million earmarks to build the two bridges, but later removed the earmarks under strong criticism tied to Ted Stevens' strong disapproval of the Coburn Amendment, which gave the earmarks national media exposure.[96][97] Congress still sent the money to the state for other transportation projects.[98]

Usually, I like detail, but I'm not sure what this one adds. That Congress made the earmark and reversed it is relevant to the story of Palin and the Bridge, but the details of why Congress reversed it and the adding of an unexplained detail (what the heck is the Coburn Amendment?, asks the reader) raises more questions than it answers. Obviously this belongs in an article on the Gravina Bridge, possibly one on earmarks, or even on Stevens, but I don't think it belongs in an article on Palin. So I will revert back. I know if I don't then someone's going to again complain this section is too long. Please let me know if you support or oppose this decision. And if opposition is strong, then obviously, put it back in.GreekParadise (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Apologies for not including citation for the amendment, it has since been added. This is simply a brief summary of the extensive information listed in the Gravina Island Bridge topic. If the information about the reason of the earmarks being removed isnt detailed, you are providing undue weight against congress, when the situation primarily was tied to Stevens and the coburn amendment, which was designed to strike the development of the bridges alltogether. It is still brief and it tells the whole story, without distorting the facts, why would we not want it like this? Duuude007 (talk) 10:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Republican Party Platform

Starting a new section: I disagree w/inclusion of the Republican Party platform unless it is linked by citation to Palin. Yes, I realize she is likely to support the RPP and the plank itself regarding creationism - but I think adding this fact doesn't add to her biography, which already explicitly makes the point that she supports adding creationism discussion in schools. (Thanks User:Atomation for opening debate on this.) Kaisershatner (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"I can see both views. One the one hand it seems that currently the McCain campaign is trying to distance itself from her earlier viewpoints on some things, including this. In November of 2006, she would have wanted to emphasize this aspect, not de-emphasize it. As she was part of the party, helped develop the platform, and ran and won on that platform, it seems strange to hear someone suggest at this point that the two are non-sequituir's (one wholly unrelated to the other). Just this discussion indicates the desire to spin her viewpoint one way or the other. We should (here in Wikipedia) focus on citeable and verifiable facts, and not speculation for a number of reasons. I think that ideal would be to stick to reliable sources that have quoted her. The statement about the Alaskan Replublican Party does not strictly stick to that, I agree.

"A point I tried to make on your talk page is that her views on Creationism, consistent with the Alaskan Republican Party, should not be viewed as negative as large numbers of people (like the voters who elected her in Alaska) would view that positively.

"The section would be rather dry if we only allowed quotations from Palin. Other sections enhance the edit by suggesting how or why she has a particular position, and within tight limits, we should try to do that here to make it readable. Atom (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Atom, thanks. I agree with you about NPOV - we should report her view on Creationism neutrally, let the reader decide if that is a positive or negative. I'm totally fine with that, objectively, her view is what her view is, right? I just think this can be established with direct citations: "Palin thinks X about Creationism." and without indirect ones, which IMO are nonsequiturs: "the Alaska Republican Party thinks X about Creationism." The latter is unnecessary if the former is present. Kaisershatner (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it, I'm not totally against, "Palin thinks X about Creationism"(cite), which is consistent with the views of the ARP Platform (cite), even though I still think it is an un-needed addition. Would that be ok? Kaisershatner (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like that could work. Atom (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Newsweek poll

This sentence: "A recent newseek poll discovered that of voters, "Sixty-nine percent did not know that she favors teaching creationism in public schools."" is about the public's lack of information about Palin's views. It MIGHT belong in the article about the 2008 campaign, but it doesn't belong in her biography. It is about the public, not about Palin. The section already lists her views on religion. Please discuss. Kaisershatner (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This should be moved to such a page. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Religious perspective on public and private life

This is a good way of separating her personal life aspects and her perspectives on religion. It needs additional material, which is abundantly available. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The first half of this section is "personal life", her upbringing and history of church membership. The second half is "political views" such as her view on the iraq war and her view on teaching creationism in schools. I think this section should be moved into the main article. Kaisershatner (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW Jossi, does this paragraph have to appear twice in this article, under personal life and religious background? Kaisershatner (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin was born into a Catholic family.[147] When she was 4 years old, her family joined the Wasilla Assembly of God, which belongs to a Protestant, Pentecostal association of churches.[148] ; Palin attended the Wasilla Assembly of God until age 38. When in Juneau, she attends the Juneau Christian Center.[149] Her current home church is the Wasilla Bible Church, an independent congregation.[150] Palin described herself in an interview as a "Bible-believing" Christian.[147] In October of 2007, she signed the "Christian Heritage Week" Proclamation[151] which exalts the role that Christianity has played shaping the United States heritage.[152] After the RNC, the McCain campaign told CNN that Palin "doesn't consider herself Pentecostal," raising questions in the media about the reasons for downplaying her faith.[153][154]

As far as the repetition of the above paragraph, I am sure that was a mistake, feel free to remove the duplicate. I don't want to muddle matters, but I actually originally put the political religion info under 'politics,' and was happy to see the personal religion info under 'personal'. I would be satisfied with a sub-section under political positions readiing "Religious perspective on public life". LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I think we should be able to agree that this article should not turn into a billboard that says "Palin is a religious fanatic". Can we agree about that? If so, then perhaps we can also agree that her personal religious background should not be repeated twice (AS IT IS NOW!) in two different sections of the article, and her religion-related positions on things like creationism should not be repeated twice (AS THEY ARE NOW!) in two different sections of the article. Can we agree about this, please?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Agree.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean you agree with the proposal to create a section called "Religious perspective on public life" under "political positions"? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, we need to present the facts. People can decide for themselves. It is not our job to spin the facts so keep people from getitng the impression that she is not a religious fanatic. Trying to say that no, she does not support teaching Creationism in the schools (when in fact she campaigned for governor on that platform) and no she is not a fundamentalist Christian (when she is), are just not factual. Atom (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is that we should not duplicate religion material. As far as the possible influence of religion on her political positions, I do not understand why that cannot be handled one issue at a time, rather than pre-judging the outcome by stating that religion does influence her political positions, which is what creation of such a subsection would imply.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Because we all know from out own lives that our values 'do influence the decisions we make. By accurately detailing that she believes in creationism and the teaching of creationism we let people decide for themselves. Some view that politively, and some negatively. Editors and readers want to know what she believes, not so that they can "pre-judge" her actions, but so that they can determine if she has values more like theirs, or different from theirs. Allowing only the mention in the political views section that she supports teasching of creationism in the schools doesn't give a complete picture. Haivng a section on religious views allows a more in depth look at what she really believes instead of a one sentence reference. Atom (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the duplicated para - I left it in personal life, otherwise that section is about 3 sentences. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

===Private background===

Palin was born to Catholic parents. She received the sacrament of baptism while an infant, but her parents left the Church shortly thereafter. Palin's family joined the Pentecostal Wasilla Assembly of God when she was 4 years of age, a church Palin attended for 34 years. In a speech before the church, she described herself as having been saved and baptized at that church at age 13. Palin's children were also baptized at that church. When she is in Juneau, the State Capital, she attends the Juneau Christian Center[14], another Assemblies of God church. Her current home church is now the Wasilla Bible Church, an independent congregation. Palin describes herself as a "Bible-believing" Christian. Although the Juneau Christian Center does not endorse any candidate for any office, they do say "We do believe that she is a woman of integrity - a strong leader with the heart of a servant. "[15]

Given that Gibson misquoted Palin about her remarks on the war in Iraq I have removed that section. She at no time said that the war was a "Task from God". In addition the YouTube video is being used for OR. Now, I don't know the best way to proceed with this section, but we must be careful to not put soo much opinion into this section when the opinion is from a purely political point of view. Arzel (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

He did not misquote her. He cited her words on Anchorage radio. Please stop removing this. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It was a blatant misquote - the first part of her statement was cut off, so as to change the context. Kelly ^hi! 18:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This does not exist in George_W._Bush , Biden , Mccain , Obama. And I'm sure they all had talk pages debating the issue as well. I would just recommend everyone take a deep breath and start referencing the other related bio pages for comparatives. This should give use guidance on material that should be here and stands the test of time. I know my patience is wore thin and I'm on the edge of taking the action of turning the tables and applying the standards of the Palin page elsewhere. Theosis4u (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, the other articles contain useful guidance. I'll try to integrate this stuff into the political positions section, where some of it is already mentioned.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the Jeremiah_Wright_controversy was/is irrelevant to Obama's political career and if you use that story and how removed it is from the actual Obama page I think that will guide how these matters can be handle. That was a huge story and one that has been reported on for years. Sometimes, it seems we are trying to get every little bit of information on the Palin page without a consideration if the tidbit, rumor, trivia will stand the test of time for relevance [most fail the 24hr news cycle]. Theosis4u (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted to provide a neutral summary. See the new quotes from Steven Waldman that I put at the end of the "Political positions" section.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There was a process by which relevant info got added, culled, deleted, and yes, tested by time. And by the way, the controversy is in the article, summarized briefly; and it was about what his preacher said, not what he said. These cited facts, just removed by Ferry, who has now violated 3RRR, are about what Palin herself said. As a side this was a very very very very very sloppy edit please fix it. I'll be back, don;t think this will stand.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

LLLL, please don't go away. Let's discuss it. I asked above whether people really wanted information to be repeated twice in two sections of the article, such as the creationism stuff. You didn't say that you wanted to duplicate it, so I removed the duplicative stuff. I removed other duplicative stuff too. What's wrong with that? And what do you think of the Waldman quotes?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Good summary and quotes. Kelly ^hi! 19:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The_Golden_Rule , that's all I'm saying. Theosis4u (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't want informatin repeated twice. We do want a section for more detailed discussion of religious issues. This means that it is sometimes necessary to mention an issue, say in the political views section, briefly, and then go into detail in the religious section. The political views section, or the personal section are not places for the detail, but the high level. The solution is good editing to make them not appear idential, but to discuss the same issues. Removing the section after hours of people negotiating to deal with the problems previouslt was not appropriate in my opinion. What we need to do is clean up and reformat the religious section so that it stands better on its own. I believe that as other religious issues surface, rather than being placed insome other section inappropriately, they will find a landing pad in the religious section. Atom (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

That said, the "opinion" stuff should be removed. Kelly ^hi! 19:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Atom, while I was happy to work on the language in the interim, I am among the users who think an additional section on religious beliefs/perspectives/whatever is superfluous (with all due respect). You have proposed it as a "landing area" or catch-all area above, for discussion of Palin's religious beliefs. I have disagreed and continue to disagree with this: I think religious items are very likely to be divisible into personal life (ie, what church she attends, where she was baptised), and political positions or views (ie, that she is pro-life [due to her religious views], or pro-Iraq war [with her religion leading her to pray "that that plan is God's plan"]. I think a separate section that culls items into "religious perspective" artifically separates those items from her personal life and political views. Kaisershatner (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) We have some very determined POV-pushers here. Automaton, I see that you are now in a revert war.[16] You say, “religious section has previously found consensus, discussion by two editors is not consensus to remove.”

The idea that there was previous consensus for inserting this stuff is incorrect. Today alone, TuckerResearch, Hobartumius, Kaisershatner, Fcreid, 66.214.173.46, Ferrylodge, and Kelly have all objected to this new section of yours. I can give you diffs if you want.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This is where it gets tough. You took my apparent willingness to see compromise and see a heading called 'religious positions' under 'political positions' as an excuse to delete almost all the content I've added, and did not insert the heading 'religious positions' under 'political positions', which was my condition for compromising on the move. The process is getting a little contorted at this point. I'm sorry for Atom that he's been put in this position. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, try to add that material into any of the sections now and see what the result it. Thge reason it got removed by me or others (and will again) is not because of the section it is in but because those bashed Palin indirectly, without stating her position, but what someone else said. WIthout any incluence from me, go add that to the personal section now and see how long it stays there before someone else removes it. The portions that you added that had good citations, and directly addressed things she said remained in that section. Atom (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Atom, maybe you misunderstood? that comment was intended for ferry. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I should add that, as far as POV-pushing, I'm happy to see pro-Palin info of substance added in. I have not removed anything which speaks well of her in concrete terms (about her positions or her actions), and will never do so. The same cannot be said for the info which I have been trying to insert which rounds out the picture of this woman who does indeed cross the line between private and public religious rights.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I am all for a neutral POV also, lbalancing her views. People should see an accurate picture of who she is, including her religious views that could influence decisions she makes in the future, and judge for themselves if that affects them positively or negatively. These attempt so remove any material that is not completely and enirely faorable (and in alignment with the curent Mccain platform) is outrageous. Atom (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss it in more detail -- but I discussed it with many editors early this morning and got what I consider to be a consensus, even if you don't. I apologize if I have not kept up with the conversation. I was working on it until 2am this morning. People keep wanting to add material about her religious perspectives. It keeps creeping into other sections, such as the personal section and the political views section. Instead of repeatedly telling them that details about her baptism, and details of her views on creationism are not appropriate, it is better to give a section that discussed her religious views. Are her religious viewpoints notable? I believe they are, and the people who have wanted to put the aforementioned information in the have said they believe that as well. If there is a section on religion, it allows for those people to put those views. Sure, some controversial stuff will end up there -- which means there is not controversy elsewhere in the article. And in the wash, the non-notable and non-cited stuff will get removed and eventually a stable section with cited and verifiable information that satisfies the editors, and the readers desires to know what she has said about her religious perspective. The alternative to that is to continue to revert every religious oriented edit that someone tries to add (as I have had to do numerous times in the personal section) telling them that it is not notable, ot not relevant to the topic of that section.

I understand that there was some repetition caused by that and I had began, and completed a number of edits making the sections distinct. We need more editors working on improving the section so that it is distinctly about citable and notable religious aspects of the candidate. Atom (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me --- and correct if I'm wrong --- that you're happy to talk more at this talk page, but unwilling to undo this revert of yours. If that is correct, then it seems to me that your position is "my way or the highway". Many other editors have explained at this talk page TODAY that they disagree with what you have done and/or agree that the separate section on religious perspective is inappropriate. See TuckerResearch,[17] Hobartimus,[18] Kaisershatner, [19] Fcreid,[20] 66.214.173.46,[21] Kelly,[22] and myself. I really am offended by the massive amount of time that you are consuming by your evasion of consensus. Some people have weekends, and lives to lead, but you are tying things up by refusing to abide by consensus, not to mention 3RR, NPOV, and a host of other guidelines and policies. Additionally, including duplicative paragraphs in separate sections of this article on creationism is plainly an outrage, and something that has been repeatedly mentioned on this talk page. But you just keep on jamming it in. Will you go for triplicate next? Ferrylodge (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your comment on creationism. I am not sure what you mean. I think that having it mentioned (as it is now) in the political views section briefly is fair game. (I did not place that there BTW, my only edit to it has been to clarify, per the quote, that she does not feel that teaching it should be required, only that it should be allowed if the discussion comes up.) The second place, in the religious section, is where the full detail of what her current view is can be expressed. The political views section should only mention, in brief, her position. I think we should completely and accurately state what her view is, quoting her with reliable citations, not trying to spin it one way or the other. It should be as neutral and accurate as possible. Atom (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I respect your opinion. Strangely, I am offended that given the clear and detailed discussions that took place before you got here supporting a different section, that you are wasting massive amounts of mine and others times also, and trying to make me look like I, personally am the obstacle. 3RR btw is when someone reverts three times. I made two edits to returnb the section previously established by consensus to undo the two seperate pieces that you reverted. (removing the section entirely, edited by a number of people), and then secondly to take out the duplicated stuff from you adding stuff back in to the personal section. TWO distinct and different edits to reverse a previosly standing consensus is not what I consider to be 3RR. NPOV is when someone tries to enforece one POV, and not allow mutiple POV's. Given my edit history that would be hard to do, my editing has been very balanced. So, I take your suggestion that I have violated those, and a "host of guidelines and policies" as a lack of good faith. Obviously you and I see this issue differently. But, removing hours worth of work after I worked to get a consensus was not the way to do it. Those were good edits, ones that kept the personal section clean and concise, while allowing people with religious views on both sides of the issue to express the detail that they wanted.

Maybe if would be good if you were to express some reasoning as to why people should not document Palin's religious experience, or her religious viewpoints? It seems to me that providing for allowing that pserpective is NPOV, and trying to limit and reject showing her viewpoints on those issues would not be NPOV. Atom (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Because of the same absence of such nonsense in other related bio's. These are POV pushes to build religious correlations and hopefully political causations for the readers. It would be the same if someone pushed Obama > Obama#Cultural_and_political_image > Cultural_and_political_image_of_Barack_Obama > Cultural_and_political_image_of_Barack_Obama#Religion > Jeremiah_Wright_controversy > Jeremiah_Wright > Black_liberation_theology > Liberation_Theology > Marxism correlations into one off pages from Obama. It's a long road to get to the grounding of the theology that Obama has been participating in the last 20+ years and I'm on better ground to show his theology equals political realties [ though I don't really believe it by his personal motives - though we could interject "community organizer" here ]. Theosis4u (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I propose that we leave the religious section for the short range, to allow people with religious perspective to express that, and make a survey that asks the editors to sumamrize their viewpoints on this. If there is a consensus to remove the section and reverse the previous consensus to have a seperate section, I will abide by that consensus. We could have (given the nature of this article changing so much) 48 hours to close the survey?? Does that sound fair? Atom (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

NO, it does not sound fair. The vast majority of editors have objected to it. Please take it out. It contains redundnat material. The creationsim stuff is already covered in political positions, and the last paragraph of political positions already summarizes (see Waldman quotes). Why not try putting the material that you like into the political positions sub-article? I'm not an editor of that sub-article, and I express no opinion about whether the material would be appropriate there, but that would probably be the best place for you to try to put it.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second. You claim that a majority of editors object to it. So, why not take a poll and ask? I don't think you are being objective. Is the time period too long? We can adjust that. I am seekign overall consensus, not discord. How is asking people an issue? Atom (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Again about creationism. The political viewpoint only allows for a very small and limited (possibly innacurate) mention of her view on creationism. If we tried to put two paragraphs on that topic, it would be cut as off topic on that section. Atom (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me spell this out as clearly as possible. The inclusion of the additional religion section has been discussed at this talk page for many hours. Many editors have already weighed in against it. I have provided diffs above. Please read this carefully: "the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material."[23] I am not participating in any further poll or further discussion about this, until the disputed material is removed as required by BLP guidelines, and I advise other editors to do the same.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me spell it out. I respect your view, and I don't get the feeling you respect mine. A variety of editors discussed adding the section and came to a consensus. A new consensus, such as that the section should not be there, needs to be formed to remove that. We have already gone through the phase of adding, disputing, discussion and forming a consensus. I resent your attitude to not work towards a consensus, and instead insist on your own way. I have been very patient and accomodating with you. If you don't like a 48 hour, we could try 36. or 34 to gather opinions. It isn't like we are in some huge hurry to work this out. The article will be here a week, a mint, a year, ten years from now. Is 24-48 hours in order to clarify, rather than two editors with opposite perspectives, that much time? Atom (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I invite you to list all of the members of that alleged "consensus" in the following section.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as the fact that Obama and McCain and Biden do not have a religious section does not matter here. The reason that they do not is that they have not made controversial religious statements or crossed the private-public line. Bush, on the other hand, should have such a section - the fact that his entry does not have a religious perspective sectio reflects badly on the Bush entry, not well on efforts to omit relevant info about Palin's views on the religious rights in the private versus public sphere.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

A few things - first of all, Ferry, I realize you are frustrated but you're not alone (on either side) in that. Specifically, Atom has proved at least to me that he is editing in good faith. Try to tone it down a bit, we can all work together, and this is unlike many far worse arguments on politics pages here. Most of the active editors here have shown willingness to compromise and collaborate. Let's work on areas where there is agreement. Atom, I agree with your points - you have left in material that is well-sourced AND that describes Palin's views in her own words. Lama, the fact that you expressly state you don't object to sourced pro-Palin information being added is a good and welcome thing to hear. Truly, I think everyone at least believes they are trying to write the best Palin bio article, while we may differ on the road to get there. Atom - consensus changes, I can appreciate how much work you put into your section but there are many today who feel it is superfluous. And Lama, I hope to have time to reply more at length, but basically, I just disagree that Palin is a special case because of her views - my succinct view is that her bio article should resemble those of other governors/politicians. Kaisershatner (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

remove bio

remove all related information from all related pages at this time and recommend editors and admin review other related bio's so we don't reinvent the wheel about this topical issue. Within a week, some of these items very well might build into a legitimate story that has legs, but right now I don't see that. I believe we are just witnessing media in general throwing "stuff" on the wall to see what sticks. Theosis4u (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The following have already supported removal: TuckerResearch,[24] Hobartimus,[25] Kaisershatner, [26] Fcreid,[27] 66.214.173.46,[28] Kelly,[29] and myself.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - It's not a topical issue - it all relates to a speech she gave at her former church years ago. I might as well add that Sarah Palin herself is a topical issue though - who cared about her before, unless it had to do with oil-drilling, none of this affected the rest of us before. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove per nom. WTucker (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Washington Monthly

I read this citation just now. It is a blog/opinion columnist at the Washington Monthly, not their editorial opinion. If this is to be included at all, can it be changed to reflect that? Kaisershatner (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

done. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! NB I think this should be removed totally on the grounds of insignificance, but I appreciate you making it factually accurate at least. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Family photo

I have come across some nice family photos from the Anchorage newspaper for the personal life section. What do I need to do to add the photo? I am new to editing.--Rosebud999 (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that if they're copyrighted we can't use them here - see WP:NFC. Kelly ^hi! 18:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

We can only accept photos here that have been donated by the owner to the public for whatever use the public desires (see Wikipedia:PD). There are some rare exceptions (called "fair use"), but generally speaking you would have to get permission from the owner of the photos. The permission would have to use some technical legal language.[30]Ferrylodge (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

First term chronology

I would change this as it does not make chronological sense, but don't want to violate 3RR:

• "Despite the rocky start, by the end of her first term, Palin had gained favor with Wasilla voters. 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?" Term limits prevented Palin from running for a third term as mayor in 2002. Using income generated by a 2% sales tax that was enacted prior to her election, Palin cut property taxes by 75% and eliminated personal property and business inventory taxes. Tapping municipal bonds, she made improvements to the roads and sewers and increased funding to the Police Department. She also oversaw new bike paths and procured funding for storm-water treatment to protect freshwater resources. At the same time she reduced spending on the town museum and blocked construction of a new library and city hall. Palin ran for re-election against Stein in 1999 and won; with a plurality of 74%. Palin was also elected president of the Alaska Conference of Mayors."

The 2002-related bolded sentence does not fit here chronologically, before her first term tax moves and her race in 1999. It fits under "second term." Also, I don't understand why her policy on taxes would come after the first sentence. Please comment.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Lama, you are spot on about the term limits sentence being out of place; I've moved it to the end of the 2nd term section. The reason that the the tax cut stuff belongs after the names in the jar sentence is because it is telling a story. Clearly the first few months of her tenure were rocky, but when she ran for re-election she got 74% of the vote. What happened? The apparent answer is that she had a hands on service-oriented approach to city government (the jar with the names) and she cut taxes, and made a lot of city improvements. Then it goes to her running again and being re-elected overwhelmingly. This is essentially the same story told in the provided cites.--Paul (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I understood the implication that the sentence order was trying to get across, but conflating the turn-around in her public perception with her tax policy is WP:OR, original research. If you can find a reference which makes the connection, and begin the sentence with something like, "The Anchorage daily news says that the turn-around is due to her tax policy", that would be great. Otherwise, I don't think it will stand.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I see, you are suggesting that "Despite the rocky start, by the end of her first term, Palin had gained favor with Wasilla voters" is original research? It just seems to be writing to me. She had a rocky start, she did a bunch of stuff, she won reelection from 74% of the voters. I really don't understand the objection to this, and it seems a really insignificant thing to argue about. If we are going to argue over every sentence, this article is never going to achieve any kind of consensus. Have fun, all: I'm off to play in real-life for a few days.--Paul (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that it looks to violate WP:OR. The terms 'rocky' and 'gained favor' are both supposition that are "assumed" by the writer, not quoted by a reliable news source. They have no place in the biography of a living person, even if partially accurate, because that in itself constitutes a violation of WP:SYNTH. Duuude007 (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not original research. The cited reference for the sentence has the following material:

The documents, combined with accounts from her hometown newspaper, show how Palin's first year as mayor could easily have been her last.... But the situation calmed, and rather than being recalled, Palin was re-elected. She later acknowledged, "I grew tremendously in my early months as mayor."

This sentence "Despite the rocky start, by the end of her first term, Palin had gained favor with Wasilla voters." is entirely consistent with the source material. If it were more consistent it would be plagiarism.--Paul (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of paragraph and calls it a "slight reword" in edit summary

This was deleted, and the edit summary said, "slight reword": "Palin is on the record saying "I'm not one...who would attribute it to being man-made," after saying that global warming would affect Alaska more than any other state. Salon notes that in her interview on ABC, she said, "Show me where I have ever said that there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect or no effect on climate change. I have not said that."" I will be restoring it in 24 hours, though I would prefer someone else would do so. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Chill out please. It was a mistake delete, and I restored it. Grsz^talk 19:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Sorry if my tone was frustrating.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Fake Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin's recent fame as Republican Vice Presidential nominee has spurred a number of Fake Sarah Palin material on the Internet. [31]

Most notably:

Whatssarahthinking blog [32] Palindrome blog [33] FakeSarahPalin on Twitter [34] Sarah_Palin on Twitter [35]

(Lamarguerite (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC))

You're not proposing to include this "crab", or do you? Just wondering why you point it out here w/o further comment. --Floridianed (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Brief Survey -- Religious Perspective

I am asking for a survey to poll views on the section "Religious Perspective". Another editor insists that there exists a consensus to remove that section, I will let him or others express their reasoning for that. This is an attempt to respect his needs and ask for a consnesus to remove the section.

After having to repeatedly edit out religious based information that editors kept adding to the personal section on the basis that it was not relevent to that section, I discussed and created a section specifically for religious issues. I feel that this benefits the article in many ways.

• As a matter of NPOV, allowing a place for the subject's religious perspectives to be expressed, rather than being not allowed in other sections on the basis that it is not on topic.

• A brief mention of a view, such as her viewpoint on Creationism on the political views section, only gives a brief summary of what she has said. Attempts at longer explanations have been surpressed, on the basis that the one topic could dominate the section, intended as a bried summary of political positions. The religious perspectives section allows for a deatiled, and therefore less biased description as to what she actually has said, instead of a brief summary like "Palin supports teaching of Creationism in schools".

• In the personal views section, it is intended to briefly give some pertinent facts about Palin, such as that she is married, her husbands and kids, hobbies, and churches she attends. Because the topic of church is mentioned, people take this as a convenient place to put quotes about her religious pserpective, opinions, when and where she was baptized, and a variety of other things that is more detailed than intended for the section. The religious perspective allows for those people to document (with cites) all of those things, and more in an appropriate place, dedicated to discussion of religious perspective.

• In other sections the same phenomena occurs, people begin to put religious related data about Palin in those sections, and then complain that even though it is a true fact, notable and reliably cited that it has been removed. Usually this is because the information is off topic for that section. A religious perspective section acts as landing pad for that information, protecting the integrity of the other sections.

• It is true that this section gives a place where strong bias can (temporarily) be placed. In the long run, non NPOV and incited information will be removed. In the meantime, the battle over whether it hsould be there or not is in one place, not spread thorughout the article.

Objections I have seen:

• Information is put in the article twice. For instance, in the political views seciton it mentions Creationism. And in the religious view it mentiones creationism again.

This is by intention. The summary is in one section, and the detail in a more appropriate section. The fact that the first reference is one sentence, and the second one or more paragraphs is the purpose of the section.

• We don't want to give out her religious viewpoints. Religion is a private matter, and not notable. We should not pre-judge her actions by assuming they are influenced by her religious viewpoints.

Although this is a valid opinion, there seem to be many people that think that her values, philosophy and integrity are notable, and something they want to know about.

• Expressing all of these religious viewpoints in one place makes her look like a fundamentalist, or some religious nutcase.

We can't help what opinions people choose to form. We can only insure that all information is accurate, notable, and cited with reliable sources. Also, that it is expressed in an NPOV way.

• Expressing her viewpoint on Creationism will bias people, and they will think negatively of her.

It is not our job spin an article. If we accurately express her viewpoint with reliable citations, some group of people will be positively influenced, and some of them negatively influenced, That is the nature of politics. We must endeavor to be accurate, fair and NPOV and let the cards fall where they may.

Please comment on whether you support that the religious section should be removed, or if you oppose deleting the section. This is not a vote, it is an attempt to gain consensus for removing the section. Your reasoning is more important that a specific agree or disagree vote. This survey is brief, and will end at midnight on 9/14/2008.

Please clearly state your position on removal of the section with *Support to remove it or *Oppose to keep it, then sign your comment with ~~~~.

• • Oppose We should allow people to express Palins religious viewpoints, as long as they are documented on a NPOV manner, and reliable citations are given for those viewpoints. Atom (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This was already discussed for many hours, and the vast majority supported removal: TuckerResearch,[36] Hobartimus,[37] Kaisershatner, [38] Fcreid,[39] 66.214.173.46,[40] Kelly,[41] Theosis4u,[42] W Tucker,[43] and myself. Only three editors supported inclusion, as far as I recall. You have edit-warred to jam this material back into the article, where it currently remains, but "the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material."[44] You already created a section to poll about this.[45] Are you just going to keep creating these poll questions until you get the result you seek?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Oppose While I have not participated in this discussion, I do monitor it. Our visitors come for information. "It's all part of the soup", said George Harrison.--Buster7 (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of this survey is to form consensus. Obviously you and I have a difference of perspective. The survey focuses on the direction, by consensus, for the future, and not whatever past misunderstandings may have occured. BTW, I created no such previous poll. My "Arch Nemesis" FairyLodge did that.[46] I have no idea where you are coming from, or formed such outrageous ideas, and apparently you have a similar opinion. Again, this poll gives a clear idea of how editors feel, rather than any claim of their opinion by any individual. I would appreciate it if you would focus on the positive and desist in making negative claims as you continue to do as I find them uncivil, unfriendly, and don't see how they work towards consensus. Atom (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support removal. I was looking at Joe Biden, and don't see any "religious viewpoint" section. For example, Biden believes that life begins at conception, but that killing that life is just fine. But that's a personal belief that may not really belong in an overview of his life. I think a similar perspective should apply here. Kelly ^hi! 22:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support removal. The material in this section has many problems, the first being redundancy: the creationism stuff is already in the political positions section. Additionally, the material in this section is already summarized by the Waldman quotes in the last paragraph of the political positions section. See WP:SS.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support removal -- As above comments plus not very well sourced, many assertions in the section have been challenged. -- Dougie WII (talk) 22:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

We are not commenting on the current content of the section, we are commenting on the purpose of the section. Some of the current content will eventually be removed. The section is for indicating her religious background, values and views based on comments she has made citing reliable sources. Opinions of others of her views are not on topic, and will be removed from the section. Atom (talk) 02:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Oppose removal -- As stated before, the most important thing is that some heading reading dealing with religious views on political issues, with content intact, occurs somewhere in the article. As far as the fact that Obama and McCain and Biden do not have a religious section does not matter here. The reason that they do not is that they have not made controversial religious statements or crossed the private-public line. Bush, on the other hand, should have such a section - the fact that his entry does not have a religious perspective sectio reflects badly on the Bush entry, not well on efforts to omit relevant info about Palin's views on the religious rights in the private versus public sphere.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

(by the way, the way Ferry formatted things makes it difficult to respond to all of his charges (since he won't allow people to insert comments point for point), such as his constant and misleading repetition of the charge that a certain section was repeated twice, when apparently it was only an editing mistake and no one actually argued with him for 1 single split second with the removal of the duplicate paragraph.)LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop canvassing for votes.[47][48] See WP:Canvassing.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I must agree. As I've learned from personal experience, canvassing for votes really does not help the discussion, but creates the appearance of impropriety. That said, anyone who looks at my previous edits will see that I would have found this discussion by myself and voted here anyway.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support removal as stated above x 5. Oppose "landing pad" perspective; AGREE with presenting full information on religious views in personal life and political perspectives sections and allowing people to enter cited material about her religious views. Kaisershatner (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC) (nb I will be afk until tomorrow so you'll have to muddle on w/o me.) :) Kaisershatner (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Oppose Removal - Religion is very important to Palin's political and personal life. Indeed it is the source of Palin's strong support among Christian evangelicals that are coming back to the McCain/Palin ticket, according to polls, precisely because of Palin's religious views. To exclude this section would exclude probably the most important part of Palin's draw to the ticket, as many of these evangelicals (e.g. Dobson) refused to support McCain until he put an evangelical on the ticket. Obviously, the section has to be NPOV. But it would be terribly wrong, I think, to remove the section, because it would hide the proverbial "elephant in the room": perhaps the single most powerful political draw of Palin and the primary reason why she was chosen to be put on the ticket. To hide Palin's religion would be like hiding Obama's race. Like it or not, these are the single greatest talked-about trait for both of them.GreekParadise (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Removal - Palin's religious beliefs are adequately and succinctly described in the paragraph within her Personal section in a manner appropriate for a biographical article. Further discussion would only be relevant if there were evidence her beliefs historically influenced her policy decisions. On the contrary, there are multiple obvious examples where she did not let her personal religious beliefs influence governance. Fcreid (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

An individuals value system, life philisophy and integrity do affect their decision making. The purpose of the section is to provide information for readers and editors on what her religious background and stated opinions have been. They want to know that because they most frequently choose people who are like themselves in terms of value systems. The section is not intended to make any statement about how she may make decisions, but to inform readers of what her value system may be based on her quotes form reliable sources, as well as actions and decisions related to religion that she has made. Atom (talk) 02:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Oppose Removal.Her religious perspective is as much notable in her politics as in her personal life. This is an important and major issue in her life, now more than ever, and should not be omitted neither in her BIO nor in her/McCain's political sub-pages. There is just no question in my mind about it. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

(add on): That's one of several reasons McCain picked here (to get the GOP base motivated). --Floridianed (talk) 23:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

While it's no fault of Floridianed, I would like to point out that he has been canvassed.[49] Also, I don't think anyone is suggesting removing her religious perspective from the article. The issue is whether it needs an entire separate section repeating everything on this subject that is in the sub-article on political positions.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with telling the voting public that "It's Election Day"...no mention was made as to HOW to vote....only that an important canvassing was taking place.--Buster7 (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The intent of including this section is completely transparent. It's not to amplify her biography but rather to paint her as someone outside of the mainstream and, thus, give the reader pause to wonder whether this exaggerated (and improperly presented) religious perspective would be reason to reconsider her elected role. Unfortunately, you've provided no evidence that she is, in fact, outside of the mainstream. And, again, her record of governance provides no basis for such claims. Lose the section and take it back to your blogs. Fcreid (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the section is to indicate her position as stated by her, not to allow opinions of others. How can accurately quoting her with reliable sources paint her any differently than she really is? Opinions that others have about her religious views are not appropriate. Atom (talk) 02:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

One or two editors are not the same thing as the voting public. Floridianed was selectively canvassed. As I mentioned in my first comment in this section, many editors have already opposed inclusion of the section in question, but I have not canvassed them to express that opinion yet again. There has never been consensus to include this section, now the issue has been turned upside down into a search for consensus to remove, and editors are being canvassed to oppose removal. Wonderful.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thus my comments earlier today about how the accuracy of this article has become laughable. This is particularly frustrating after all the time that many of us put into making it accurate and NPOV for nearly ten days. It should have remained fully protected until after the election, as the dKos Kids and Moveon crowd clearly have tasking to sway it. Fcreid (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

So you assumed I'll vote to oppose? --Floridianed (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Incidentally, the canvasser in question has been warned about this before.[50]Ferrylodge (talk) 23:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain you something about "real" canvassing. For editors that where just working on an article the same day and the day (night) before it is common to inform them about important issues/changes and I doubt anyone can call this canvassing. It is rather a polite message which is rare but common practice. And further, you ignored my post below and with your last remark about me... pretty bad judgment from your side. I honor your honesty but this doesn't make it much better. --Floridianed (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Floridianed, there were other people like yourself who were working on the article during the past 24 hours, and many of them opposed the section in question. They were not canvassed.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right but also somehow wrong since I edited Palin's page yesterday and today and would've discovered this thread by my own in about 10 to 30 minutes since I was busy for a while editing another page. Check my contributions if you're not convinced. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't criticized you in the least. It was the canvasser who did wrong here, not the canvassee.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. No harm done. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Removal - It is fairly summarized elsewhere and seems to have to use opinion pieces to make its points -- very POV. WTucker (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The opinion pieces are not what ther section is for. Statements that Palin makes and are cited from reliable sources are fair game. Opinions of others about Palin should be removed. Atom (talk) 02:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - also, someone has made what is essentially identical content the prominent first section of Political positions of Sarah Palin. Kelly ^hi! 23:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Oppose removal: Basically, as long as she herself makes it a notable subtopic to the media, and the media finds it notable enough to discuss regularly, it's notable enough for here. We aren't to judge what we ourselves are supposed to find interesting, in the face of notability reactions outside wikipedia (as long as citations and reputable sources support inclusion, of course). --Kickstart70 23:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[51]

:You already voted once above, Buster. Only one vote per person, or did you forget? Fcreid (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

That is NOT me...Please apologize..I'm just moving votes for visul continuity...check it out B4 you jump!--Buster7 (talk) 00

06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Removal The only reliable source on Sarah Palin's religious perspectives is... Sarah Palin. She hasn't said or written enough on the matter to include. Jclemens (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Precisely what the section is for. Reliably sourced statements about what Palin has said or done. Her quoted view on Creationism is an example. The current section quotes her exactly. Atom (talk) 02:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Oppose Removal for the reasons already provided by users above. Bellagio99 (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support removal. The use of WP for political purposes is improper, and virtually all of the "religion controversy" has been primarily politically inspired. The only person who can actually state Sarah Palin's religious views is Sarah Palin. All the other speculation and anger is of no relevncy to what she, herself, thinks. Looking at it another way, would such a section be considered proper for other political candidates, ascribing opinions of others in a former church to the person at hand? I trust not. Collect (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

As previously stated, we are discussing deletion of a section set aside for actual reliably sourced comments by Palin. Some of the current comments related to her pastor have been removed, and returned a number of times. " If we accurately express her viewpoint with reliable citations, some group of people will be positively influenced, and some of them negatively influenced, That is the nature of politics. We must endeavor to be accurate, fair and NPOV and let the cards fall where they may." Comments of the type you are speaking of should be immediately reverted from this, or any other section. Atom (talk) 02:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• • !Voting is evil ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia does not work by votes, it works by applying content policies and seeking and establishing consensus by discussing the merits of an edit ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a vote. It's a measure to see how editors think and hopefully reach a consensus. --Floridianed (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Remove immediately as there was never consensus for inclusion. From WP:BLP,

"In order to ensure that biographical material of living people is always policy-compliant, written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material."

It's unfortunate that blatant BLP violations such as including disputed material without consensus, happen this easily. BLP states it outright that in this case material MUST STAY OUT form the BLP article until consensus is provided for inclusion. Hobartimus (talk) 07:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus, It would have been nice if you had not interferred and interrupted the attempt to build a consensus on the matter. As you know, there is a survey in the talk section that was running until midnight tonight. Taking a brief look, indeed I think there would have been consensus for removing the section. But, your interruption of the conclusion of the survey will now always leave that in doubtm rather than the consensus being able to be quite clear, which was my hope. Sure, it is unlikely tha there would have been a vast change -- but someone who wants to have it differently in the future will always be able to argue that the concensus was not clear because the survey was interrupted. Frankly, in the scope of the article life, I don't see how 36 hours of waiting to build a consensus is that huge a time frame, or unreasonable. The benefits of making the consensus clear are huge.

Your comments regarding BLP are complete nonsense. I monitor BLP articles myself. Material that violates BLP should, indeed, be removed immediately. However, had you bothered to read ther header to this survey, you would have realized that no one was trying to support the content of the section in question. That has been dynamic during this discussion. The discussion was on having a seperate section for documenting Sarah Palin's religious background, her viewpoints that display her opinions about religion and things of that nature. Of course, like every other article on Wikipedia, and every other BLP article any content in that section would have had to be properly sourced from a reliable source, notable and pertinent. If you check the article history, every time someone has added unsourced material to that section, or opinionated bias, it has been removed. Their WAS originally consensus for inclusion of a section for religion, despite your personal opinion to the contrary.N o one has claimed there was a desire for a section for biased opinion. Your interference in the matter was completely innapropriate. As there was something like fifteen people who indicated their perspective on this matter, how is it that you think your sole opinion should predominate over all of them?

As I said, had the survey gone to conclusion, it seems pretty likely to me that there would have been a consensus for not having a seperate section for religious perspective. Your interuption of that process will now make that arguably unclear. Unarguably clear would have been prefereable. Atom (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Oppose Removal/Merge With Personal Life Section. Sarah Palin's religious identification has become a political issue (she has made it one), and the information does not violate BLP. Instead, it is relevant, factual, cited, notable material. I am particularly upset about the repeated removal of information regarding Sarah Palin's baptism, and the fact that she identifies as "getting saved" at the Wasilla Assembly of God Church, and has appeared to use that fact as a political stance. It probably belongs in her political positions page as well. I would not oppose a similar section on Joe Biden's religious/spiritual/existential beliefs.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

How about on the Obama page? Does it have a section on Black Liberation Theology? Does it have a section on statements and discussion about Jeremiah Wright? That Obama's children were baptized there, Obama's marriage performed there, that Obama called Wright his "mentor", that he took the title of his book from one of his sermons etc etc...? These are all sourcable facts to thousands of sources but they were not considered important enough for inclusion in the Obama article. Why would facts that are essentialy trivia in comparsion be included here like qoutes about "getting saved"? How many qoutes in the Obama article relate to religion? Hobartimus (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Strawman. No one has suggested that a religious perspective section in this article, or the Obama article should contain innapropriate content, such as that you have described. We have consistently talked about describing Palin's religious background, opinions (as supported by her statements -- from cited verifiable sources). Material that DOES violate BLP should not be in this article, or the Obama article. Quotes about her being baptized, and being saved, indeed are not notable enough for most sections in the article. The purpose of a "religious perspectives" section is precisely for that kind of content, because some people DO care about those things. Would/do any of those kinds of "trivia" relate to how well she would perform in office?? No, but this is a biographical article, not an election advertisement. Although I don't care if she was baptized, or whether she was a Catholic once or not, or how long she has attended a particular church, apparently those trivia are of interest so a wide number of people of faith. That information is on topic in a religious section where it is not in a political views section. Atom (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Removal at this point in time. Policy compliant content can not be removed because of how it reflects on the subject of the article. It is already obvious from this survey that there will be no clear consensus to either remove or include the section. Editors will have to learn to work together. IP75 75.36.70.205 (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Religious Perspective - discussion

I have a question for editors: What is the best way to include material that is relevant to this person's notability, and that it is sourced to verifiable sources? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The best way to do that is to abide by consensus, and BLP guidelines. It seems abundantly clear that there was no consensus for reinserting this highly disputed text. "The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material".[52]

Not all relevant and sourced material about this person belongs in this article. See WP:Summary style.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The religious sections purpose is to take material based on religion not relevant in other sections, and give them a place to be relevant.Atomaton 03:01, 14 September 2008[53]

The material in that proposed religion section is either personal in nature or political in nature, and therefore would be relevant to the already-existing sections on personal life and/or political positions. There was never a consensus to insert that new religion section into this article, so you are just imposing your will instead of the will of the consensus.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There is also a big misunderstanding in the !votes above. All material in an article is "POV", and there is nothing wrong with that. What NPOV means is that we present all significant viewpoints about a subject. Please re-read WP:NPOV if you have not done so yet. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

My highlight:

content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV requires that material be presented in a balanced way, and without giving undue weight to any material. That was one of the reasons why many people (including myself) objected to creating a huge religion section that repeats things in other sections, and does not properly summarize what's in the sub-articles.

This article already contains a section on her "Personal life" and a section on her "Political positions". That is enough. If you think her religious veiws affect her political positions, then put it in the political positions section (or sub-article). If you, on the other hand, think there are aspects of her religious views that are purely personal, then put them into the section on her personal life. Creating a new separate section is redundant, unnecessary, and gives undue weight to her religious views.

Also, I'm not sure it really makes any difference what I think, but my opinion is that you ought not to have removed the Wall Street Journal material, which you did here and here. Yes, it is technically from a "blog" but Wikipedia guidelines say: "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control."[54]Ferrylodge (talk) 02:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the blog quoted Palin. The opinion of others, about what Palin's values are, whether from a bad source like a blog, or a good source like the Washington Post aren't appropriate. Citations that report on what Palin said or did are appropriate. Atom (talk) 03:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Secondary sources are preferred to primary sources. This article is not supposed to be a long string of quotes of what Palin said.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

@Ferrylodge. Basically, Palin's religious views are a notable (if not the most notable) aspect of this person's life. As such we have an abundant number of sources that describe her religion and how it has shaped her. There is no element of WP:UNDUE, on the very contrary. Not including a substantial section on her religious background and religion influence in her life and her politics is the violation of WP:UNDUE. Search for "Sarah Palin" and "religion" in Google: 500,000 pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Palin's religious views are a very notable aspect of her life. Therefore, I have no problem giving them substantial coverage at Wikipedia. We can have a substantial discussion about her personal views in the Personal life section, and then a substantial discussion in the Political positions section, and an even more substantial discussion in the Political positions sub-article. We do not need to create overlap and redundancy by creating a separate huge religion section. What notable aspect of her religion is unrelated to her personal life and political positions? None, I would say.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm.... If one is to judge by the enormous amount of attention the national and international press is giving to her religious upbringing and what has manifested in her career as a politician, I would argue that we may need a separate sub-article just on this. Granted, it could be added to the Political positions subarticle, but most probably will grow big enough there to warrant a subarticle and a good summary here. So, I would continue adding material and invite others to do the same, and when we have too much, we summarize and spin off. meta:Wiki_is_not_paperWikipedia is no paper. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Spinning off a sub-article from the Political positions article would be fine with me. But to do that, you would have to add your tons of religious material to....Political positions of Sarah Palin. Why are you adding it to this article against consesnsus?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

So here it is in a nutshell then? Ignore consensus, ignore BLP guidelines, and now....shut down the discussion about removing the separate section. Brilliant.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

What consensus? Is there consensus for deletion of that material? Which one of my edits violate BLP? None, as far as I can see, as all are well sourced. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a consensus not to insert a separate section in this article on her religion. And since you are inserting a separate section, you are going against the consensus, and violating the BLP guidelines that say (and you know this because I've quoted it before): "The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material".[55] If you think that Palin's political positions are affected by her religion, then put it in the article about Political positions of Sarah Palin which can be summarized here in this article. If you fill up Political positions of Sarah Palin with this religion stuff, then create a sub-article of Political positions of Sarah Palin. It's not rocket science.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

@Atom: Citations that report on what Palin said or did are appropriate. Not exactly. We do not report on what Palin says about herself; we also can quote what sources say about her, per WP:NPOV ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I said (in many places all over tha talk page) facts that are supported by reliable citations. That inherently means that we are giving a reference to another source, not reporting ourselves. I don't know where you got the idea that I had supported addition of incited, or unreliable sources of reporting. Atom (talk)

Rather than delete this section, and given the abundant sources on the subject, best would be to endeavor in developing this section to a point in which it can we can spin it off to a sub article and summarize it here when we are done. This will be a much better use our our time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, and lots of other editors disagree too. Please see WP:Consensus. You can add all this religion stuff to Political positions of Sarah Palin, and spin-off a sub-article from that article if you fill it up to capacity.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, another opinion. Having a consensus would have been even better than your opinion, my friend. Atom (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, too and I think policy disagrees. This is a BLP. Use a sandbox, a userpage, another article, an existing article, this talk page, a subpage of this talk or do it offline; but, do not include material on this page which has no consensus. WTucker (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Please keep up with the conversation, The discussion for consensus was regarding a section for religion, not on any particular quote or content. We did get consensus for having such a section at one point. The survey was discussion on whether there was consensus to not have that section. (to change consensus from before). People disagreed that there was a previous consensus. Nevertheless there was an effort to build a new consensus underway before Hobartimus unilaterally decided that our opinions were less important than his. There was no need for a sandbox, as the content that was within the section was small, but met all of the standards for inclusion. I think essentially, Hobartimus waited until someone added some uncited opinion to the section that violated BLP, and then deleted the whole section on the violation of BLP basis, including the content met the standards, as well. Removing the material that is in violation of BLP, and letting us finish the conseus process would have been more preferred. Atom (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandwiching of text

Per this recent edit, text at the top of the article is now sandwiched between the Table of Contents (TOC) and the Infobox. Anyone have any thoughts about it? The sandwiching looks kind of strange to me, and I don't recall other Wikipedia articles where text is sandwiched between a TOC and Infobox. Looks kind of weird, IMHO. BTW, sandwiching of text between images is deprecated, according to MOS:IMAGES.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Changed it back. --Floridianed (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks pal.  :-) Ferrylodge (talk) 00:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Waldman quote

What do people think about this removal of text and this subsequent further removal? The edit summary says: "rm per relevance, maybe put in sub article, who is this cite and why notable?" The removed material was at the end of the Political positions section. Here's the removed material:

After the Republican National Convention, all of Palin's views, particularly her perspectives on religion in public life, came under increasing scrutiny in the media.[1][2][3] According to Steven Waldman, president and editor-in-chief of Beliefnet.com, and former national editor of U.S. News & World Report, “Gov. Palin has said and done some things that go over the line of what we’ve long considered appropriate for politicians talking about faith,”[4] adding, “Almost any peep out of her mouth related to God will seem terrifying to those who fear the religious right — and magnificent to those who want to believe in Gov. Palin.”[4]

[1]Mostrous.Sarah Palin, the pastor and the prophecy: judgment day is not far away"; Times Online, September 10, 2008

[2]"Pastor: GOP may be downplaying Palin's religious beliefs"; CNN, September 12, 2008

[3]Steve Benen."Palin's beliefs draw closer scrutiny" Washington Monthly, September 9, 2008

[4]Waldman, Steven. “The Passion of Palin: Separating Real Concerns From the Hysteria”, Wall Street Journal (2008-09-09).

I think this is important material to keep in the article, in order to properly summarize the sub-article. The material describes Waldman as a notable person, and then quotes him summarizing what he thinks of Palin's religion-related statements. He's providing a fairly balanced view; on the one hand, he says that Palin has sometimes gone over the line, while on the other hand saying that some people have overreacted. Then people can go to the sub-article to get more detailed info about what she's said. Does that seem okay?

I'll try rephrasing so it puts it in our own words, rather than quoting so much.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ferrylodge, It just seems out of place coming at the end of that paragrapgh and also its in the section on political positions which I am not sure about. Anyways, --Tom 01:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Some rephrasing maybe to make it fit into the sub. I don't see the need of keeping it on her main article. (Surprised, Ferrylodge? ;) ). Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

What was needed there was a subheading reading "Religious perspective on public life". Then perhaps maybe it would stand.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Track has deployed

Just wanted to point out that the following needs to be updated, and I'm not comfortable editing it myself.

"Track Palin enlisted in the U.S. Army on September 11, 2007,[183] and subsequently was assigned to an infantry brigade. He and his unit are to be deployed to Iraq in September 2008, for 12 months.[184]"

Track deployed on Sept. 11.[56]

Best regards. FangedFaerie (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I changed that, --Tom 01:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Front page of the New York Times

Material that could be added to this and related articles:

• "Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes - NYTimes.com". Retrieved 2009-09-13.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

One thing interesting about this piece, is its full of names, instead of unnamed sources. Should avoid the weasel word problem nicely.--Tznkai (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should start a separate section about it in the main article, eh Jossi? And we don't need no stinkin' consensus either!  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 04:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I will ignore the sarcasm, as it is not useful. As for this source, material can be added to the different subarticles as needed. I just added a short sentence to the Reception section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, the Times is really getting desperate. You could change the names and places in this article and it would apply to basically any American politician. "Reform politician fires old bureaucrats and brings in new blood"? What's next - "Sky is Blue"? :) Kelly ^hi! 15:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Religious perspective section is WP:UNDUE

This section seems way too large for a bio. That a politician has had a religious upbringing and, on occasion, invoked God in discussions of public policy is hardly notable. This section is leaning towards WP:COATRACK. Detailed discussion of religious philosophy is WP:SYNTH in the absence of evidence linking policy decisions to that specific philosophy. Poorly done all-around. Ronnotel (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There was much discussion above about whether to have a separate religion section. There was no consensus to insert such a section. So, I've just reorganized the article a bit, without removing any content at all. I've put some of the religion material in the "political positions" section, and some in the "personal life" section, as appropriate. Presumably, WP:SS will eventually be applied to all of this material.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you had read more carefully you would have seen that there was a consensus for putting in such a section, and then people like yourself who disagreed, and so an effort to build consensus that the section should be removed. In any event, many editors working to find consensus. But -- then you decided to "reorganized the article a bit". Before they finished that process. You will note that in many places it is discussed how much detail is appropriate for the political positions, or the personal life sections. That was part of the process underway that you distrupted. Atom (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Should be removed fully as there was no consensus for inclusion. Hobartimus (talk) 07:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. There is no consensus for its removal. Religion is a major aspect of Palin's appeal to the Republican base, and is a salient issue of the campaign. Leave it. Arjuna (talk) 09:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Its relevance to a political campaign does not equal relevance to a biographical article. Take it somewhere else. Fcreid (talk) 09:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Read Biographies of living persons, particularly the restoring deleted content section. As soon as this material was in contention, it should have been removed pending a consensus to restore it. Or, as soon as it was removed, a consensus was required to restore it. On BLP's, consensus is required to restore. WTucker (talk) 12:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the material under contention should have been removed. All of the preceding material in the section that had been properly cited from reliable sources, and was largely favorable to Palin was removed also, under false pretenses. Look at his edit, if you don't believe me. [57] I am a strident BLP enforcer myself. I see two things towards the end of the section that I would have removed (they were not there last night when I went to bed.) The remainder of the article had not previously been contested. Hobartimus acted improperly, and is falsely trying to use the guise of BLP as justification. The appropriate action would have been to remove the recently added material that violated BLP. When he disrupted the article, there had been a long discussion about this on the talk page which Hobartimus did not care to participate in. There was a survey that would have ended at midnight (sixteen hours from when Hobartimus deleted the section) and fifteen editors had given their viewpoints on deleting the section, or not -- an attempt at consensus. Hobartimus, rather than participating in the consensus, decided that his opinion on the matter was more important than all of the other editors. The consensus seemed to be to be headed towards not having the section. Yet, all of the editors who expressed that a religion section should not be in the article managed to resist deleting the section. Atom (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I do nott understand why the well sourced and neutral material is repeatedly deleted. BLPs do not preclude the inclusion of well sourced material. The only interpretation possible is that some editors consider that material to be negative to the subject of the article, but that, I am afraid, is not how Wikipedia articles are developed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The material is definitely not neutral, Jossi. As an admin, you are aware that simply having a source is not sufficient to meet WP:BLP. Your edits violate WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. As someone repeatedly accused of inserting POV edits on this article, I'd like to suggest that you may not the best person to judge what is POV and what isn't on this particular article. Ronnotel (talk) 16:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Basketball

basketball

Wasilla High currently has a boys and a girls basketball team. I assume (but don't know) that it was the same way when Sarah Heath played there. The way the Wik article on Palin now reads, one could fairly, but probably incorrectly, infer that there was only one team. Kdammers (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC) I'm putting this back in, since some-one apparently erased it. And I am making a change in the article based on my assumption. Kdammers (talk) 04:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

NATO and war with Russia

"Palin leaves open option of war with Russia in the event of Russian invasion of a NATO signatory country." I believe this is a statement of the obvious and should be removed from the article. --72.191.29.188 (talk) 04:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

America's Hottest Governor

Palin was declared America's Hottest Governor by Alaska Magazine (Feb. 2008). Thought it might be worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.139.124 (talk) 07:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Alaska Magazine of Alaska votes the Governor of Alaska "America's Hottest Governor"? That must be notable. Totally. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Dispensationalism?

"Some churches she has attended embrace dispensationalism, which is a theology that includes a literal interpretation of the Bible and highlights man's dominion over the earth as well as an end times theology.[175]"

Is there any reliable source indicating Palin herself embraces such things? If not, it's irrelevant to her biography. I'm sure the Obama article does not include a list of everything his church of 20-odd years embraces, correct? Fcreid (talk) 09:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. The Obama article barely mentions that topic and has no direct qoutes about "US government invented AIDS to kill black people" or other sensational qoutes from Obama's church even though the qoutes could be sourced to an unlimited number of reliable sources. The Obama article also has nothing about Black Liberation Theology. This article should follow the same standard. Hobartimus (talk) 09:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the description of Dispensationalism as per WP:SYNTH. Discussing a religious view she may or may not hold, and has never been shown to impact her policy decisions is absurd. Ronnotel (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

@Hobartimus...Why do you make such an outrageous jump as the one above? I'm gonna ask you to present some of the "unlimited number of reliable sources" that you claim exist. Otherwise, it would show good faith to remove your sensational entry to this talkspace.--Buster7 (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus edits

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

The religious aspect is discussed above [58] in several threads [59], it involves adding a huge religious section on top of the religion discussed as part of "personal life section" as I read the relevant policy, BLP in light of the above talk discussions especially [60] this should stay out per BLP until consensus for inclusion. I have no extra reservations for any other part of my edit (I did change some smaller other things, feel free tweak/change anything there). My comments were specific to the presence of the religious section.Hobartimus (talk) 10:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"@Hobartimus. It is surprising that you have changed the image which accompanies the lead" Yes it's very surprising as I didn't change the photo in the lead at all. It was [user:Zizi-EU] who changed the main photo in this edit [61] he used one of the photos from the body of the article and moved it up. Then Kelly replaced the good old picture that we always had in this edit [62] but we lost that picture from the body of the article this way, since Zizi used it to replace the main. So with all this we have 1 less picture in the article, please reinsert that photo that was lost. Hobartimus (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

From WP:BLP "In order to ensure that biographical material of living people is always policy-compliant, written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material." This makes it clear that there must be consensus in order to include highly disputed material into a BLP, after reading the above talk page and threads [63] [64] I determined that there was no consensus for inclusion of a huge religion section and that religion be discussed multiple times (personal life section and other section) and the "burden of proof" demanded by WP:BLP was not met. Thus I removed the material until consensus is reached. Concurerntly BLP makes it quite clear in order to "Restore" or "Undelete" this disputed material you must be able to show valid consensus. If someone "Restores" or "undeletes" this disputed material without showing consensus that's a direct conflict with the above quoted passage from WP:BLP. Hobartimus (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Hobartimus -- here is what the section looked like immediatly before you took action to remove it based on WP:BLP[65] It is quite different than when I went to bed last night. It looks like numerous edits have been made to add material, and then have that material removed, etc as well as the section being renamed, moved around, etc. It looks like you are not the only person who did not respect the attempt to build consensus. However, looking at that section as you must have seen it, I see a number of things that concern me as not being appropriate per BLP, or meeting other standards. For instance, "Palin’s former pastor believes that her religious beliefs will affect her political positions, for example by encouraging her to be a caretaker of the environment, but Palin has stated that she would not allow her personal beliefs to dictate public policy" I would have reverted. Other peoples opinions, including her pastors, are not appropriate. Pretty much that whole first paragraph also is not appropriate and I myself would have cut (if I had been given the opportunity). The other sections though, for instance discussing her views on creationism, using her own words, and her actions to proclaim Christan Heritage Week, and Bible week in Alaska. The correct edit would have been to do what myself, or Ferrylodge (who seems to have very different views than my own) would have just removed the sections that had been recently added that violated BLP. The section, as well as the other content, had seemed to be there with consensus for some time.

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

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

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

For the most part it is not a BLP issue. The fact that so many people are objecting, even those who favor deleting the material as you did, ought to tell you something. Please work with other editors rather than waving the BLP flag to justify controversial nonconsensus edits. You can see, from just a few minutes ago, what happens when an editor thinks that their personal viewpoint is more important than consensus.[66][67][68][69][70] - [71]

BLP "In order to ensure that biographical material of living people is always policy-compliant, written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time to re-rate article?

Hello. I was wondering why this article is still rated as B-Class? I looked through it, and it seems to meet the criteria for an A-Class or even GA article status. Should it be reassessed? --Tempodivalse (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

GA requires that the article is stable and this is far from being such. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that it is too volatile at this point. As it is constantly changing and in a state of flux, it would fail to meet GA standards five minutes after it was rated. We should wait until we aren't getting fifty to a hundred edits a day. Atom (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Until after silly season, if not the election is over in otherwords.--Tznkai (talk)

I am sure that the article will go under massive changes as election day approaches. Now is not the time to even remotely consider a change in rating. Wait till the debates begin...changes will be fast and furious.--Buster7 (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I didn't think of that... Yes, it would be better to wait. Thanks for the feedback! Tempodivalse (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ref list in talk page

It kept on jumping out of sequence, falling into disuse, so I removed it. If we need it again, we can add reflist with the {{ brackets, but for now it appeared to be more of a distraction than a functional tool. Duuude007 (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)