Talk:Sarah Palin

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
Adding your text to an older thread of discussion may be more appropriate than starting a new one

Popular culture, CKOI interview:

http://news.google.ca/news?q=sarah+palin+CKOI&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&hl=en&sa=X&oi=news_result&resnum=1&ct=title

Not notable. The doofus did the same thing to Microsoft's Bill Gates, and to Sarkozy himself (by impersonating Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper).Ferrylodge (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Insert at Public image of Sarah Palin. It belongs there, not here. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Should we include this? It's the AP...thus, it's a reliable source. miranda 02:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Not notable. The doofus did the same thing to Microsoft's Bill Gates, and to Sarkozy himself (by impersonating Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper).Ferrylodge (talk) 02:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Concur, but very funny! Here is the audio and transcript:[[1]] IP75 (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it is notable. I heard the recording and read the AP report on it. The conversation included some telling moments, regardless of Democrats v. Republicans. You should consider including it.69.86.56.126 (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

See WP:Recentism. If people remember this after a week, then we can reconsider.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I can be moved to the campaign page, where it belongs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Meh. Palin is one of many pranked by the duo. We don't mention it in their articles, we don't need to mention it in hers or the campaign article. AniMate 04:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't notable (even though it is picked up by the Associated Press) yet somehow we seem to find room for "in popular culture" sections spanning across thousands of articles, almost all of which contain at least one reference to The Simpsons TV show. So sad. JBsupreme (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The Simpsons is a notable show. This prank isn't. (Oh, and WP:TRIVIA) -- Zsero (talk) 07:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Thanks for playing. JBsupreme (talk) 08:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I added a brief description of the prank. [2] The notability seems undeniable, since I've cited references from the Times of Malta, the Times of India, and China Daily as some of the many news outlets beyond the U.S. and Canada that have run the story. Merely her statement that she hopes to assume the presidency in eight years would be sufficient to make the story relevant. The story documents not only the ability of the team to trick her, but an apparent willingness to agree to statements and actions that she does not understand during a conversation with a presumed head of state. Mike Serfas (talk) 07:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

We're kidding, right? Fcreid (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not. Mike Serfas seems determined to add this. I say no way. I don't care how many newspapers thought it an amusing story to report — it is exactly that, but that doesn't make it in any way a significant incident in the campaign, let alone in Palin's life. It's an "odd spot" kind of story, good for a chuckle in the daily paper, and forgotten tomorrow. Contra Mike Serfas, it doesn't "document" anything; if Sarkozy were to call you you'd also be reluctant to ask him what the hell he was talking about, even if you didn't quite recognise some of the things he was saying. You'd take notes and look them up later, if you were really interested. -- Zsero (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Zsero, your claim is that this story is "not notable".[3] I have provided media references demonstrating that it is now a top news story on six continents.[4] If all the news media in the world aren't enough to make a story notable, what do you believe would be? Wikipedia is here to describe events, not to cover them up. Mike Serfas (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability is not established merely by being reported. The incident must be significant, which this isn't. The newspaper count interests me not at all, so you may as well save your time and stop counting them. If it turns out to have a documented impact on the campaign, then it will be significant enough to include. So far it's just an "odd spot" story. -- Zsero (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The clowns are out again. Not notable. Not news. Not BLP. About as meaningful as finding where Madonna buys ribbons from. Collect (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yet I added this sentence immediately after descriptions of her impersonation by Tina Fey and her appearance on Saturday Night Live. Can anyone point to the Wikipedia policy that explains why those two facts are "significant", while this third fact is not? I think its significance is hard to dispute: for example, Palin could just as easily have accepted a call from Chen Shui-bian and gone along cheerfully with statements about the importance of Taiwan's independence. As with the e-mail hacking incident, this story shows that Palin's gates are unguarded. But arguing significance in this way reduces Wikipedia to a political censorship contest. It has nothing to do with the proper reporting of events in the campaign as a neutral reflection of the news of the day. Mike Serfas (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be under a fundamental misconception. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. And you can't compare SNL to some obscure radio show in Montreal or wherever. -- Zsero (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not the number of listeners at the original meeting that determines notability, but the breadth of subsequent coverage. Otherwise, Obama's brief meeting over coffee with Ayers, which was not the subject of a radio broadcast at all, would not be mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Mike Serfas (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Not that it's relevant to this thread, but "brief meeting over coffee"? You're talking about a close political alliance over the course of more than a decade, not some brief meeting. But back to the current thread: you keep missing the point that this is an "odd spot" piece. Not everything that newspapers report is significant. If it keeps dogging Palin's career from here on, then it will be worth reporting on WP. Otherwise not. -- Zsero (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thankfully, just 2-days to go. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Mr Serfas, fyi: your efforts to add information that qualifies for inclusion, though admirable, are futile, given the longstanding tactics of the McCain campaign supporters. (These were addressed in my previous edit here, deleted as a "personal attack" by Zsero.) There is nothing in WP rules or guidelines that requires events in the life of a BLP subject to have "kept dogging their career" before they qualify for inclusion. The argument is bogus. Contrary to Zsero's personal attack on you for "missing the point" you actually appear to grasp it rather better than he/she does. Now then. Did someone say "clowns"? Oh yes--it was Collect. — Writegeist (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The CKOI stuff is clowns. Literally and figuratively. And not of any relevance to much of anything at all. Probably of less significance that the pie throwing at Mr. Gates. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to present factual information on a topic, not every anecdote which falls into it. Collect (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems that Republicans have come out in full force hereto discourage anything that may make her look bad. NorthernThunder (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. This is just a prank call. It's really not important enough to include in a short biography. Nobody got hurt or arrested, and in a couple of months no one will even remember it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Which is the point. Wikipedia should not try to be a news paper but a record of pertinent information. This information may stay in the article for a few weeks but ultimately it will get removed based on the fact that such trivial information about public appearances do not appear in the personal articles of other guest on the show. 74.183.38.88 (talk) 08:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Whatever is decided, what's in there now has serious WP:UNDUE weight problems (an entire paragraph?), serious WP:NPOV issues (how do we know they convinced her of anything?) and introduces potential WP:BLP concerns (wiki-linking to a pornographic video satire?) People need to be a bit more responsible, I think. Fcreid (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It was a pretty funny interview - especially the things they said in French - one of the translations, "We could also kill some baby seals" was over the top. Can't expect her to understand that since it was spoken in a language that's not spoken by "real Americans" like her. I do think it's bit fluffy for Wikipedia, for now, while people have their hackles up. It will be fine in a popular culture section after the election - just like the SNL parodies are OK now. Mattnad (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this "material" per the discussion above. --Tom 15:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thankfully, just 1-day to go. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I think it's pretty clear that there is no consensus to insert this material into this article. Anyone disagree that there is no consensus? The proper place for it would be in the sub-article about the 2008 campaign, if indeed it's significant enough for that article.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I see no consensus to delete these two sentences. There are at least six other users supporting my view here or by edits that this material should be added. I have used some of their new text to modify my previous version,[5] but did not add the link that Fcreid mentioned. I believe that Tom is mistaken when he suggests on his user page that Wikipedia edits should not have an "agenda". I believe that all verifiable, relevant additions have and should have an agenda of some kind, because no one edits Wikipedia without some underlying reason. I believe that an agenda is a problem only when it leads to the deletion of verifiable, relevant material. This is because our goal should be to build up a highly detailed, accurate account of the subject matter, but not to conceal, distort, or destroy information. Mike Serfas (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mike_serfas, my point on my user page, is that editors with an agenda to push usually will not help to improve an article but rather they will try to advance whatever agenda it is that they have. I didn't count six editors that wanted this "material" added, but Wikipedia does not work by votes thankfully anyways. If this "material" is truely relevant and noteworthy enough for inclusion, it will stand the test of time. Wikipedia is not the news nor a collection of every bit of material about a bio subject. Anyways, it seems that others have argued this point better than myself. --Tom 19:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, how do we know it was Palin on the other end of the phone? It might've been Tina Fey playing a prank on the radio guys. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Like all the facts properly included in Wikipedia, we know it because that is what the reliable sources like this one] say. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Evb-wiki, do you see consensus to include this crap in the article? And does anyone care how many times Canadiandebauchee edit-wars it back into this article?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless it becomes something more than it is now, it carries unde weight for this article, IMO. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) So I'll remove it again per concensus. --Tom 21:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I personally think this is worth a mention--the NYTimes just mentioned it in an article describing the growing tensions between the McCain and Palin camps. The prank call contributed a great deal to that tension, since she never even informed McCain she would be speaking with Sarkozy. Maybe this could be mentioned in the context of the growing tensions between McCain and Palin towards the end of the campaign? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/us/politics/06mccain.html?pagewanted=1&hp Slystoneisback (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC).

Maybe include this "material" in the campaign sub article if at all. Again, over time hopefully this bio can be "improved" by figuring out what is really relevant to the main bio and what belongs in the sub articles. --Tom 14:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Democrat Party (phrase)

I find the following setnece to be really ridiculous:

Recently Palin has been using the term "Democrat party" to refer to the Democratic party, though it is unclear when she began this practice.

None of the cited sources mention anything about this, other than quoting some stuff she's said that happens to include this phrase.[6][7][8] As far as the cited sources are concerned, it's just as significant that she's been using the word "the" quite a bit.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Comprehension failure / Obfuscation. The citations quite clearly fulfill the only purpose required of any citation, that it verifies the material cited. They verify that Palin indeed has said "Democrat Party". As for verification of the use of Democrat Party and its implications, perhaps it would clarify things a little to not that Democratic Party (phrase) is linked to in the WP markup of the blue link "Democrat Party". That article is more than fully cited, the citations verifying that its use and implications are noteworthy.

Consider the sentence, 'Barney says "Gum is yummy"', where Gum is yummy is redirected via (double bracket opening) actual link (pipe) visible link (close double brackets) to the page Gum is yummy (phrase). A citation that verifies that Barney in fact said this, can not be required to also verify that gum yumminess is a common topic of costumed children's show hosts. The page Gum is yummy (phrase) would be fulfilling that function. To say that this only proves that Barney says 'is', is missing the point. Anarchangel (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"Democrat Party" is a standard childish get-under-their-skin insult phrase that Republicans have been using for decades. Nothing notable whatsoever about her using it. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

See Democrat Party (phrase). It is a "political epithet" used in the U.S. by conservative commentators and some members of the Republican Party instead of the term "Democratic Party" which is preferred by members of that party.It has been called a slur and a way of expressing contempt, per the New Yorker. It is analogous to calling the other major party the "Republicon," "Rethuglican," or "Republicant" party, or children in the back seat of the family car on a long trip saying "neener-neener" to irritate the other child. It is notable as an expression of childish namecalling and immaturity. Edison (talk) 06:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful. Where's a reliable source that mentions that use of this phrase by Palin is an epithet? You're engaged in WP:Synth and WP:OR. I'm sure when you're done here, you'll be fair about this, and go over to the Obama article and point out that Obama's been giving John McCain the finger, won't you?Ferrylodge (talk) 06:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the article I referenced, Democrat Party (phrase), which says it is a "political epithet?" Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. The Youtube clip you cite does not trump the many compliments Obama has given McCain for his military service. You should know that a selectively edited clip on Youtube is not a reliable source, and your use of it, with your inaccurate description, is original research. Face scratching is not "giving the finger." This Bush video [9] is giving the finger. Edison (talk) 06:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and even if it were you are not entitled to synthesize it with other sources to reach your desired conclusion. That's WP:OR. Find a reliable source that criticizes Palin for using the term, or even specifically points out that she used the term.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No synthesis, no original research. The use of the term "Democrat Party" is a political epithet. It would give undue weight to bring over every reference in that article to this article. It is well documented that she used the term. Read the sources cited. Edison (talk) 06:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Or listen to Rush Limbaugh any day of the week...--Buster7 (talk) 11:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at WP:SYNTH? "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources." You're combining the sources that you've cited in this article, with sources that are cited in another Wikipedia article. There is no single source that points out anything unusual about Palin's use of the term.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The view by mainstram media that "Democrat Party" is an epithet or calculated insult is seen in several sources in the cited article, as well as some from Google News search, such as "Democrats today are still annoyed by "Democrat Party," especially those who remember it as a favorite epithet of Senator Joseph McCarthy" , [10] , [11] , " throughout American history, the Democratic Party's opponents have used "Democrat Party" as an epithet.". Edison (talk) 06:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Show me one single source that does two things all in that one source: (1) says "Democrat Party" is an epithet, and (2) quotes Palin using the term. If you cannot do that, then you are engaged in WP:SYNTH.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Single source is not a requirement. Only novel conclusions (OR) are prohibited by WP:SYNTH. That 'Democrat Party' is considered an epithet is shown by the citations I provided below and is therefore not novel. Citations of Palin using the term are a requirement of the argument, and the irony here is that you are yourself using synth to make a novel definition of synth. Anarchangel (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ferry is 100% correct. Edison's proposed addition is the definition of synthesis. Oren0 (talk) 08:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

How on Earth is the term "Democrat party" an epithet? Bad english maybe, or maybe a folks'ism. But I've heard that term used all my life and usually by Democrats themselves. To call this an epithet is a big overly dramatic imo. Dman727 (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. We cannot truly comprehend in what way this is an insult, for we do not believe, and are not motivated, as its users do and are. The root of an epithet is in the mind of the user. We weren't there, we don't know the mind of the speakers, we can only report. The citations stand. It is verifiable and noteworthy. I can't resist making a hypothesis though: this issue will only become more noteworthy; I predict a widening use of the term. It's too easy to use, and Palin supporters have more reason than ever to inject anger into their statements. Anarchangel (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read the references I cited. That should answer your question. Edison (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This entire thread is a moot topic. Why? The mere fact that the subject of the thread is a four year old Wikipedia topic that is well referenced, thus has already been vetted and verified means that you all have been spouting hot air at one another. It's already documented, tabulated and entered into a cited Wikipedia page - saying exactly all about what you all are arguing about. If you all would spend a little more time reading Wikipedia instead of posting on this talk thread, then maybe you'd gain the insight on this and be able to use your time more constructively that to argue a moot point. Here is the link (which had already posted in the top of this thread) Democrat party. Sheeesh! VictorC (talk) 08:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

However it is not documented anywhere that Palin has been using this as some sort of slur, or that her usage is in any other way remarkable. That is not in any RS that has been cited. Sources quote her using it, but do not point out that usage, and therefore it's OR or SYNTH. -- Zsero (talk) 08:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

For anyone interested please see...[[12]] It is a semantic negative slur that has been used for decades...--Buster7 (talk) 12:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The practice is used by conservatives to get under the skin of Democrats, but its real effect is to accentuate the ignorance of the speakers. Democrat is a noun. Democratic is an adjective. Using the former as an adjective is probably also meant to endear the listener to the speaker in a "I don't need no education" sort of way. Whatever...--Appraiser (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! I've always used "Democrat party" to identify the group of people (a collection of nouns), e.g. as a Democrat, So-and-so belongs to the Democrat party. I've always used "democratic" as the adjective describing the form of government, i.e. the ideology. This is the first time I've heard the term was considered a pejorative epithet. I guess I don't listen enough to talking head shows. :-[ Fcreid (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Regardless what the agenda pushers say, unless there are sources about this "material", it does not belong. Referring to another Wiki article is plain dumb. --Tom 16:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. Avoid using phrases like "plain dumb" when referring to the comments of others and refer to Wikipedia policies and guidelines instead. Edison (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, next time I'll be really really verbous when I call something dumb or when I am being offensive. That way, it will slip past the censors. Would thaty be better? --Tom 17:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's spelled "verbose". My recommendation is that you at least use correct spelling in your personal attacks. This is the second time I've caught you.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

My spelling sucks. I am surprised you only caught two. I make tons. Whatever. --Tom 17:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC) ps. I have an Ivy league degree. And you? --Tom 17:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Tom...Have you tried to get your tuition returned?--Buster7 (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't have to pay any tuition so I guess I got what I paid for :) --Tom 19:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I only looked for a few seconds. It wasn't quite as fascinating as I thought. I hope you find dishing insults to be rewarding, though, because I'm pretty sure nobody else is benefitting from it.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Very rewarding. I actually get paid for it(just kidding). Whatever. --Tom 17:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Every little edits to this article has been a huge battle ground. It has all become silliness, as far as I'm concerned. That said, this Democrat sentence is ridiculous - WP:NN, WP:SYNTH. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. We're not here to piece together bits of information and then draw our own conclusions,Zaereth (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to prolong this discussion for the sake of talking, or to question that the combination of separately innocuous terms can be offensive, I'm still unsure I understand of the grammatical syntax being described here. A "party" usually denotes a set of nouns in an association, e.g. a Writer's Guild, is a guild of writers, an Independent Party is a party of independents, etc. Democratic Party doesn't follow that rule--a party of democratics--and that seems like a fairly obvious misuse to me. However, now that I am aware there are those who consider it offensive, I'll will certainly never use the term in mixed company in the future. Fcreid (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

People get offended far too easily. The suffix "ic" is used to turn a noun into an adjective. This usually means that the noun now being described is somehow "pertaining to" the adjective. The party adheres to the philosophy of democrats, so the party itself is described, (correctly in English), as democratic. The republic party on the other hand adds the suffix "an" to denote that this is in fact a "party of people" who adhere to their philosophies. While I don't see how Democrat Party could possibly be offensive, grammatically it is incorrect. The correct way to say it would be Democratist Party, but then again this is American English, and so is subject to change as slang becomes popular speech.Zaereth (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that "Democrat Party" is grammatically incorrect, to be honest, but I won't argue that it seems a sort of silly affront. That said, any term can be made to be derisive or offensive, so if it's come to that "common usage" as being offensive, I suppose we have an obligation not to use it (unless, of course, it's one's intention to offend!) Fcreid (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, like I said, American English. Find me a rule and I'll find you an exception. Still, I have to say I don't think this "info" is ecyclopedia worthy.Zaereth (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected! I just read the WP article linked above, and it touched this exact issue. (What an amazing resource, eh? :) I was thinking exactly along the lines of the multiple nouns chained together, e.g. "shoe store" and such as described in the article, which would be in common usage. However, it looks like modifying a noun with another noun is the root violation. Back to my Warriner's, I guess.  :-[ Fcreid (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, so much discussion. This really is "Silliness".This is not notable for a main bio. IP75 (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The citations rightly confirm Palin's use of the phrase, and are not required to additionally cite its reputation as an epithet. See above. A link is given to page: Democrat Party (phrase). Nothing is required of the deleted material that has not been done, other than to use the citations in Democrat Party (phrase) to cite an additional assertion that the phrase is a "political epithet". If you have arguments against the material other than dittoing 'silliness', feel free to include them. So far no issues have been raised that have not been resolved, challenged, or disproven. See above.
Suggested edit:
"Palin uses the term "Democrat party" to refer to the Democratic party. The phrase is controversial; it is said that it is a political epithet, that it is ungrammatical, and that it is merely a misspeaking. " Anarchangel (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion; but maybe "term" in place of "phrase"? Writegeist (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ty & will do. Anarchangel (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this the single least important discussion ever? The term "Democrat Party" goes back over a century at this point. http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=ZUMOAAAAIAAJ&dq=%22democrat+party%22++%22united+states%22&pg=PA527&lpg=PA527&q=democrat+party#PPA526,M1 1922. http://books.google.com/books?id=EXk_AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA225&dq=%22democrat+party%22++%22united+states%22&lr= 1920. http://books.google.com/books?id=ORA8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA997&dq=%22democrat+party%22++%22united+states%22&lr= 1898. More(many) on request. Trying to attribute the usage to any later person is, therefore, incorrect. As both terms "Democratic" and "Democrat" were in use at about the same time, trying to attribute any venom is inane. Collect (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

now that it's over

Now that the election is over, can we make this an actual biography instead of a dumping ground fro POV attacks? My more specific recommendations would be to shorten or eliminate the campaign related attacks that have not been long controversies (rape kits (delete), public safety commisioner firing (make 1/3 current size).LedRush (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope so. It's probably better for the article that she lost. Extremists of both stripes might move on to more relevant targets for their hate/love. I'd like to fix the book citations, too, since they got lost in the shuffle. Coemgenus 14:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Attacks during elections occur in a vacuum; there are either attack speeches or non-attack speeches. Within the Palin article are commendable statistics on her paving roads and building up city infrastructure; if competitor's speeches included facts amenable to their target, they would be perfectly at liberty, as are we, to also include the rest of the facts, including the unpleasant ones. Anarchangel (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why you would think there should be "pre-election" and "post-election" standards for the article. Material isn't going to become less relevant just because there are fewer eyes on this article watching for unwarranted deletion. This idea, and the idea that this article is a "dumping ground for POV attacks", are both fantasies. You simply don't like the widespread criticism targeting Palin and would prefer to remove it all from the article, contrary to policy.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No one said there are different standards. What was said, is that hopefully the agenda pushers will slow down. Are you in for the long haul with your agenda pushing, or will you leave soon? --Tom 16:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? And I assume you folks intend to push your agenda indefinitely, no?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No. Just like I still beat agenda pushers where I find them. --Tom 18:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

News flash: you are an agenda-pusher. Self-flagellate immediately. Thanks. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Either the article was a good one before the election or it wasn't. If the former, there is no problem. If the latter, then we proceed in working to improve it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Just for fun, and a little perspective, I suggest editors read the article as it was on August 28 (b4 YoungTrigg appeared). My how we have grown. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The article was not a good one before the election. Editors with agendas congregated here and ensured that wikipedia standards would not be followed on this article as they were on others of it's kind (c.f., Obama, which was well written and avoided all of the silly campaign "controversies" that plague this article).LedRush (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The simple truth is that you'd like this article to go back to the good old days when a few editors including Ferrylodge and YoungTrigg used this article as a platform to push a deceitful pro-Palin article letting everyone know how she killed that awful bridge pork project, leading the prayer before softball games, Todd's "iron man" snowmobile titles, and tantalizing details posted on August 29th about the secretive flight and OMG COULD SHE BE NAMED VEEP CANDIDATE?? and so forth. Total promotion, pure PR -- not the purpose of Wikipedia. Five editors trying to make the article a press release don't make the article a press release.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you'd call your opinion fact, why you would engage in libelous accusations about me, or why you think that I have an agenda that I don't. Please see my work on other articles, including the Obama one, in which we've successfully fought off the right wing mirror images of you who come in with hate, prejudice, and misinformation and try to hijack the article. Your petulance and unwillingness to engage in honest dialog is sad.LedRush (talk) 06:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Your comments are complete fiction. The archives are plastered by substantive argument on my part met with innuendo and total lack of substantive argument in response. You sit and accuse without basis of some agenda I have and launch personal attacks against me and others whose opinions you dislike. I don't call my opinion fact, nor do I call any source's opinion fact. One of the reasons my name is "Factchecker" is that I make an explicit point of making my Wiki material make clear who said what about what subject and who cited it before we included it here. I don't try to make sweeping generalizations based on my own view of a subject plus some narrowly interpreted quote or paraphrase. On the contrary, I try to ensure that the most persuasive arguments on each side of a controversy are reflected so that the reader has an actual basis to form an opinion. Controversy is supposed to be reflected neutrally and factually -- and I'd like to point out that this means attributing controversial opinions to their sources, not just omitting them -- this is directly stated in policy. And if you want to compare me with right wing ideologues on the Obama article, I'd like to point out that it's absolutely ridiculous that the main Obama article has no mention of William Ayers. I have repeatedly tried to engage in honest dialog here. When I have met a compromise, it has been reneged upon. Little if any good faith has been shown. If you have some honest dialog, I'd like to hear the actual dialog and not just talking about some theoretical dialog.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 06:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Factchecker, you and I had this discussion before. Your edit history is clear here; you have never attempted to introduce any material into this article which didn't forward your POV on Palin. (And you've made that POV know without qualification.) The best you could counter in our discussions was that you kept out the most outrageous material, although your edit history doesn't even support that. To say your opinion is "balanced" and that you limit yourself to "facts" reflects intellectual dishonesty. In fact, much of what you've been pushing for the past six weeks borders on WP:SYNTH because of your attempts to rearrange disparate facts into the shapes that lead only to the conclusion that enforces your opinion. I've been frustrated constantly by you in our cooperative editing. Frankly, I hoped you'd have gone away after your candidate won the election. Fcreid (talk) 10:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You created an account just to POV push on this article. I created an account long ago to fight POV pushing articles on Wikipedia. You obviously don't even understand NPOV and you still think it means "No Point of View". Intellectually dishonesty is you ignoring the entire substance of the discussion we had and then coming here trying to say misleading things about it. I am not bothered by your opinion of me; it is not well-founded. Nor do I ascribe any great quantity of good faith to you or your intentions here. Nor are you alone in feeling intense frustration at the conversations we've had.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not sure how she became such a magnet for undue abuse. Some of the crap that made it in here is amazing. Contrast it with any number of other articles on politicians, and it's an embarrassment of mincing words and insidious POV shots. I stand ready to assist however I can. I actually put together a much briefer synopsis of the Stambaugh firing paragraph a few days ago, but it never got traction. Fcreid (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree whole heartedly. I came here just to make sure that my state, Alaska, was being treated fairly, but had not the time nor the lawyering skills to compete with the endless arguements over clearly written policy. I've never seen anything like it. I'll be glad to help out in anyway I can, but in the meantime I have to go speak in tounges, handle some snakes, and roll down the hill before we all go to the big book burning at the local liabrary. :-) Zaereth (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, a typical Alaskan evening, eh? :) Fcreid (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Haven't you heard? Right now I think I'll go over tho the Hilary Clinton article and find out what is the deal with her accent. And maybe Bush too. And Harrison Ford. This is important stuff. ;-)Zaereth (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Something you guys just don't get is that all this emphasis in the media on her clothes, accent, etc., is due to the fact that she had nothing to say. However, here at this article the emphasis has not been on her clothes, etc - it has been on substantive issues such as her abuse of power, her wacko religious views on public life, her place in the women's rights spectrum, her duplicitous public statements about pork-barrel spending, as well as her total lack of understanding of foreign policy issues.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Lx4, It's gratifying to see that you have a such a genuinely Neutral Point of View on the subject of this article. --Paul (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you heard Harrison Ford's accent? And what about Bush? I mean, I know he's from Texas, but what's this accent he's speaking with? Everybody has an accent, only we can't hear our own. But all kidding aside, to me, tabloid journalism is tabloid journalism no matter where you find it, whether it's the National Enquirer, or the New York Times, or Wikipedia, or Bill Allen's company, the Anchorage Daily News. Religious views, if those in fact are her religious views, (the next time I pass her on the street I'll ask her), are only wacko in your opinion.Zaereth (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with LamaLoLeshLa that there wasn't a lot of substance to Sarah Palin's candidacy. And with the rightwingers that this article too often turned attack-addish. Overall, this article was way too contentious, and I personally grew to hate thinking about it. We didn't get along very well at all and a few of us were banned in the process. Maybe we should try to learn from this experience. There should be at least a brief pause to the divisiveness but I think we should remain wary. Palin is being touted as the next Republican candidate in 2012.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Also agree. Unfortunately, particularly under the conditions of a presidential campaign, we could never get beyond the divergent objectives of the user community here. The prank call is a perfect example. I sensed there was a measurable impact of that event as soon as I read the story. However, in our WP World, we had some editors with an apparent stake in "marketing" the show itself by touting the significance of the accomplishing the prank. We had another group sounding like adolescents after watching Jackass and crowing "did you see how she got punk'd?". Finally, we had yet another group of editors injecting essentially their Op-Ed material on how the prank clearly demonstrated why their candidate was a better choice. In all of that, no one forwarded an edit on the prank that actually spoke to its significance as it related to the biographical subject. Fcreid (talk) 11:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I, and I believe everybody else, can agree with that point. Palin herself expressed some of her frustrations with the way the campaign was handled on a local talk show just this morning. I apologize LamaLoLeshLa if my jokes came off as rude or directed at you personally. When I read some of the crazy stuff that comes up here it just makes me laugh, but then when its actually taken seriously, I, and many other Alaskans, begin to take it rather personally. Case in point, the notion brought forward that Alaskans are so removed that we don't even know what Achille's Heel means. The silly statements of political commentary brought about as proof; "she didn't appear to know ...", "either she doesn't know or she was avoiding the question", "maybe she ...". And the dinosaur thing, wow. Believe it or not, some of us Alaskans actually got us a little book learnin'. But, now I'm starting to rant again. In the future I'll try to keep my comments constructive. I'd like to see Wikipedia be something we can all look upon a serious source of information, and not, how did Carson Daily say it, "the world's biggest collection of rumors ... written down."Zaereth (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Fcreid (1): "we had some editors with an apparent stake in "marketing" the show itself by touting the significance of the accomplishing the prank. We had another group sounding like adolescents after watching Jackass and crowing "did you see how she got punk'd?". Finally, we had yet another group of editors injecting essentially their Op-Ed material on how the prank clearly demonstrated why their candidate was a better choice." Looks like a personal attack on all the editors who tried to contribute to this section. Fortunately the vigilant Risker is sleeping after her exertions.

Fcreid (2) "[N]o one forwarded an edit on the prank that actually spoke to its significance as it related to the biographical subject." Incorrect. I made an edit, and posted here the reason for the prank's significance:

"[T]he prank call was more significant [than the SNL appearance cited by Ferrylodge] in relation to the BLP of a candidate for the second-highest office in the most powerful nation on earth as it casts light on her grasp of foreign affairs.

"See the WP:WELLKNOWN policy on material about Well-known public figures:

" '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.'

"IMO the incident as documented in the full, unmolested sentence is notable, relevant, well-documented by reliable public sources, and belongs in the article."

— Writegeist (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall your specific edit for the prank, Writegeist. There was such a flurry of them, and the ones that stand out to my recollection fell pretty clearly into the three categories I described above. Given that the incident is well-documented and put in context now with multiple sources, I'm sure there's something we can agree upon (if such hasn't been included already... been traveling and haven't checked the history). Fcreid (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is that most editors did not believe it was notable or relevant to her life to such an extent that it would not be granting this event undue weight.LedRush (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there was an ebb and flow of editor contributions and editor POV's. The list of editors that provided leadership and instruction without a political POV is very short. The list of editors that were staunch supporters of Gov Palin (or staunch adversaries) is quite a bit longer. Of the 50 or so of editors that responded regularly in the talk, I'd say only 2 or 3 could present their comments without their own political desires from being obvious. For myself, I'm glad I participated. It was a great learning experience for a novice editor. I dare say that this article and the related talk is wikihistoric and will be discussed/used as a barometer (or will it be a "Palin-o-meter) for BLP/Candidates.--Buster7 (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh? I might point out that not only did I not get paid by anyone, I did not contribute to any campaign. Care to see how many editors can make that statement? This BLP is a farce. It is time that all concerned prune out all the political stuff, and make it a genuine biography. Collect (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't work for or volunteer for any campaign, although I have in the past, nor did I make any political contributions. But once again, I will say that BLPs are primarily articles about the subject's notability, not the subject's life. For months various people have been pushing this idea that a BLP is supposed to be "a biography" in the traditional sense of a book published about the person's life. This is simply not the case. Palin is notable as a politician, hence her BLP is largely about her political career.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The word here is "Biography." If you wish to redefine that word, buy a dictionary company. In WP, it has a specific meaning, and not that which you assert. Biographies are about notable persons, but that does not mean that they conform to your outre definition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. " "These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel." In short, the policies are exceedingly clear. Collect (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Mayor of Wasilla - involvement in 1997 abortion ban

In 1997, while mayor of Wasilla, Palin joined the board of a local hospital to make sure its ban on abortion was enforced while courts considered whether the ban was legal, according to Alaska Right to Life Director Karen Lewis. This was published in an article by the AP which was carried by several different news outfits.

I was thinking that this should be mentioned in the "First term" section, after Stein's comments that she injected religion into her politics and the inquiry about book banning. Both chronologically and topically, this seems to be where the issue fits.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Still pushing? --Tom 19:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there are policies which forbid you from constantly harassing and insulting editors in an effort to drive them away from an article with your persistent rudeness. Why don't you look those policies up and start obeying them?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Somehow, I thought these calls for adding controversial material would stop (after yesterday). Oh well, it's pie in my face. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought similarly, though at least the Obama article seems only to be receiving half the attacks as before.LedRush (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

What you call attacks some others consider more akin to attempting to see a reflection of some semblance of truth. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with her position as mayor, so where's the issue? Are you suggesting that just because she was mayor at the time, she lost the right to her own opinion when acting in her private capacity, as a board member of a private hospital? -- Zsero (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC

The hospital board was packed to institute a new anti-abortion policy enforced by the hospital alone, the new hospital policy effected a local ban on abortion even though abortion was legal in Alaska and certain abortion rights are guaranteed by Federal law, a court ordered that the hospital was not allowed to enforce its ban pending the ruling in the case, the court ruled permanently that the hospital could not enforce the ban, the hospital appealed to try to establish its right to enforce the ban, and Palin, the local mayor, joined the hospital board to ensure the ban would hold even though it had already been declared illegal. Obviously I'm not trying to say her actions were illegal, but if you're trying to say controversial political positions including upholding a ban ruled illegal by multiple state courts is irrelevant to her role as a politician, the source of her notability, you're quite mad. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. This again? It's a private hospital. Therefore Palin was on its board in her private capacity. Until the court ordered it otherwise, the hospital was entitled to implement whatever policies it liked, and the board is who determines what a hospital's policies are. She was just as entitled to participate in the hospital's policy making, and to vote according to her own views of what policies it ought to have, as she was to participate in the PTA of her children's school, or on the board of her local church, and vote for whatever policies she felt were appropriate for those entities.

It's a quasi-public hospital which received free land and nearly $11 million in cash from the state. Like I said, Palin was absolutely not prohibited from doing what she did. I'm not sure why you want to pretend it didn't happen or isn't notable. And it's not just a case of her "voting according to her own views"; the article specifically states that she joined the hospital board for the purpose of enforcing the ban. It's clear she is interested not just in voting based on her beliefs, but also forcing them upon other people, even in ways which are not otherwise allowed by law, requiring innovative methods to be pursued. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Calling this a "ban" is inherently misleading, because only governments can ban things; all a private institution can do is decline to engage in something. If you choose not to buy carrots, you might be described as "boycotting" them, but not as "banning" them. The same applies if, as a greengrocer, you refuse to sell them — even if you're the only greengrocer in town. You're still not banning them. The same applies to a private hospital refusing to perform abortions. This was not a political position, because it had nothing to do with politics, which are inherently about government. -- Zsero (talk) 08:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well said Zsero. JenWSU (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm... you ought to write the Associated Press and let them know they were mistaken in calling it a "ban". I think it's funny you say that, because trying to call it something OTHER than a local ban on abortion is intentionally misleading. Personally, if I have to drive 100 miles to the next town to get an abortion because a bunch of religious nuts started telling doctors what they could or couldn't do, I'd say abortion is banned in my town. I mean, it's not like another town hospital can just spring up... it's not a freaking convenience store whose owner refuses to sell cigarettes. Board members were ousted from the hospital because they supported abortion rights; the court papers note "VHA has a 'sincere moral belief' that elective abortion is wrong."; it's clear the hospital didn't have that belief before its pro-choice members were ousted! The whole thing was very thoroughly political. It's quite disingenuous to claim that it was not a political position simply because an extralegal method was used to implement the abortion ban because no legal method existed. It's a hot button political topic and Palin participated in an effort to achieve outside the scope of the law what could not be achieved through legislation due to US Supreme Court precedent.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

From the source in question:

Palin's former church and other evangelical denominations were instrumental in ousting members of Valley Hospital's board who supported abortion rights — including the governor's mother-in-law, Faye Palin.

Alaska Right to Life Director Karen Lewis, who led the campaign, said Palin wasn't a leader in the movement initially. But by 1997, after she had been elected mayor, Palin joined a hospital board to make sure the abortion ban held while the courts considered whether the ban was legal, Lewis said.

"We kept pro-life people like Sarah on the association board to ensure children of the womb would be protected," Lewis said. "She's made up of this great fiber of high morals and godly character, and yet she's fearless. She's someone you can depend on to carry the water."

In November 2007, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that because the hospital received more than $10 million in public funds it was "quasi-public" and couldn't forbid legal abortions.

My emphasis. Hope that helps. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 03:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody have an objection to referencing this incident that is based in Wikipedia policy rather than a desire to keep a positive spin on this article?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Future political career

 Done

This section is a crystal ball. As governor of Alaska, she will serve out her term? Really? Mostly unsourced and a magnet for further speculation. IMO, it should be removed. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed. Though the thought of her as a presidential candidate (which, btw, is sourced to an op-ed piece) did make me laugh really hard. The section should be removed. GlassCobra 17:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

In agreement, remove the section. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it adds nothing to the article. Coemgenus 17:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Section removed. GlassCobra 17:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I would not be so quick to remove the section. Discussion and prediction of future events by reliable sources is not excludable as "crystall ball" material. Newsweek (Nov. 5, 2008) [13] calls her the "new potential standard bearer" and says conservatives they surveyed say she has "at least an even shot for 2012." Canberra Times (Australia) Nov. 5. says she is "one of the strongest brands the Republicans have got," and that she has "clearly indicated the 2008 run wasn't an end-all to her national political ambitions." They cite a Newsweek survey showing her at the"front of the field of 2012 hopefuls." The Evening Standard (London) Nov. 5 ran an article[14] "Palin already tipped as 2012 candidate." Many conservative Republicans and in fact many Democrats (though for different reasons) hope she is the Republican nominee in 2012. We could have such a section now based on these sources. If Palin takes material steps toward such a campaign, as by having a fundraising committee and helping candidates nationally with fundraising as Newsweek suggested, that would be yet more substance to add.Edison (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like Public image and reception of Sarah Palin may be a good place for that. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Could be so. The articles I cited are about perceptions of her. In this biographical article, action of Palin which receive substantial coverage in reliable and independent sources should be covered. These would include if, in the future, she travels around the U.S. building up a political network by fundraising for like-minded Republicans, as Reagan did in the four years before his nomination. If she does things which reliable sources say look like the early phases of a 2012 run, then the polling data and the comments cited above should be added here to provide context. Right now she may be busy catching up on being Governor and getting ready for the upcoming wedding and grandkid. Edison (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep. And certainly if she starts a campaign. :') But then those won't fall into a "future" section either. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If she has done something, then I agree it is "present" but mainstream commentators may say her present actions are intended to promote a future run. One source said that if Stevens manages to get reelected, the Senate is likely to remove him, and when Palin looks around for a replacement, she may decide to appoint herself to the Senate to gain a brief Obama-like Senatorial seasoning before a 2012 presidential run. Edison (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought Alaska law prevented governors from appointing Senators to fill unexpired terms. Coemgenus 21:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

They do prevent it (thanks to Frank Murkowski). Besides, a Governor can't appoint him/herself (breach of seperation of powers). If Stevens got re-elected & later resigned, Palin would have to resign as Governor & hope her successor (Pernell) would appoint her to Stevens unexpired term. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Governors certainly can appoint themselves to the senate; it's happened nine times in the past 80 years or so. And she may very well have the power to appoint a senator to replace Stevens — but that senator would only serve until a special election, which would have to be held within 90 days. Politically, though, it would be stupid of her to appoint herself. The record on such appointments is not good; only one self-appointed senator has ever won the next election. And if she wants to run for president in 2012 she's far better off doing so as a governor. -- Zsero (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I referenced the National Review.com article that you linked and looked up the governors cited there. It makes it look kind of frequent for a governor to take a senator's place in case of a vacancy. But the governor can't appoint themselves, as was noted already. According to the 17th ammendment of the US Constitution, the governor has the power to appoint the senator. The governors in this list all seem to have arranged with their lieutenant-governors to appoint them after they resign. When they resign, the lieutenant-governor becomes governor, then appoints the senator. The state of Alaska passed a law in '04 saying governors no longer can appoint senators: "appointed his daughter, Lisa Murkowski, the Majority Leader-designate of the Alaska House of Representatives, in his place. This led his opponents to accuse him of nepotism; as a result, a ballot measure passed in 2004 stripped governors of the power to appoint U.S. Senators, making Alaska one of only three states to do so." It looks like she's not legally able to appoint herself, can't resign and have her lieutenant governor appoint her, Alaska law prevents it. I guess I'm just restating pretty much what has already been posted here. VictorC (talk) 11:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Such a section could be appropriate, if it restricts itself to well-sourced speculation, and is phrased in appropriately speculative terms. What is not appropriate is bold declarations about what will happen, which is what the section seems to have originally contained. -- Zsero (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I didn't know Governors could appoint themselves. In the case of Alaska, I believe that power was stripped after Governor Frank Murkowski appointed his daughter. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to look into it, but I believe the only power that was stripped was the power to appoint a relative.Zaereth (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it needs to specified that it is speculation. It is possible, depending on the situation, that Palin could replace Ted Stevens. IP75 (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I don't think the law says anything about a relative. The way it works in most states is that the governor appoints a replacement senator, who serves until the next general election, which in this case would be in 2010. But the reform that was passed after the Murkowsky appointment was that a special election has to be held within 90 days. But the reform was passed in two different versions, and under one of them the governor still appoints a temporary replacement (who can be a relative or even herself), to serve until the special election can be held, i.e. for a term of no longer than 90 days. The other version says that the post remains vacant until the special election. It's not clear which version rules. -- Zsero (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. If you don't mind me asking, where did you find this info?Zaereth (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose, concerning Sarah Palin, Ted Stevens & his Senate seat's future. We'll cross that bridge when we get to it (no, not that bridge). GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I referenced it above. And no, definitely not that bridge. -- Zsero (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Alaskan Law requires a special election to replace Steven's.......--Buster7 (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Stevens has not won yet. He is currently leading by about 3,400 votes with more then 55,000 ballots left to count.IP75 (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Palin is still getting considerable coverage on CNN and other national news sources as a popular and important figure in the conservatie and evangelical branches of the Republican Party, and is getting considerable discussion as to her chances of and interest in a 2012 nomination, right up there with Huckabee and Romney. Edison (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Lede

As it currently stands, the lede has three paragraphs. The first gives the two reasons why she's so notable. The second lists the other important positions she's held, and gives a tiny snippet of what made her race for governor so notable. The third gives her "firsts", which also make her notable. We then go into the main article. -- Zsero (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, then the outcome of the election need to accompany that statement to provide the necessary context: Palin is notable for running as well as for losing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No, she's notable for running. If she won she'd be notable for winning. When you say someone was a candidate for something you can infer that they didn't win. The lede is supposed to cover the highlights, not all the details. -- Zsero (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Zsero. She is not notable for being on a losing ticket. People are not notable for what they fail to accomplish. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Guy Faulks. Manticore55 (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Being a candidate for VPOTUS is the most notable event in Palin's political career. Per WP:SS, the lede must mention 1. McCain and 2. The result of the election. I have no preference as to where it is placed, but it would be less obtrusive in the 2nd or 3rd paragraph. IP75 (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: Below is the last paragraph of the lede from FA John McCain:

"McCain unsuccessfully sought the Republican presidential nomination in the 2000. Eight years later he was the Republican nominee in the 2008 presidential election, but lost to Democratic candidate Barack Obama." IP75 (talk) 06:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You missed the point. The lede should be kept as short as we reasonably can, and should only mention things that are significant to her notability. She is notable, among other things, for being a candidate. She is not notable for having lost. That is to say, losing did not make her more notable than she had been; it merely prevented her (temporarily, I hope) from being even more notable. Therefore I see no need for the lede to explicitly mention that she lost, or who she was running with or against; merely saying that she was a candidate in a past election implies that she lost, and the full details are available in the body of the article, and at the wikilink for the election. -- Zsero (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That argument does not hold any water. The outcome of the election needs to be on the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I Agree w/ Zsero...mention of candidancy without mention of victory implies a defeat. If she had won, we might add "successful" or change to VP-elect.--Buster7 (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey you guys, don't you understand Zsero's argument? Surely you're not seriously arguing that her failed 2008 candidacy for vice president of the United States is as much--let alone more--of a highlight than her failed 2002 candidacy for lieutenant governor of Alaska? — Writegeist (talk) 01:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? VP versus Governor? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Kidding? Yes. VP failure should go in the lead. Writegeist (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The leads for John Edwards and Joe Lieberman both mention that they lost. Why bury this fact? I don't think it's a big deal, but it seems harmless to include in the lead.LedRush (talk) 02:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

All of the following articles mention the unsuccessful outcome of an election, running mate or both in the lead: John McCain, John Kerry, John Edwards, Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, Walter Mondale, Lloyd Bentson, Geraldine Ferraro, Richard Nixon. I do not see why Palin should be treated differently. As the current lead is very short, adding one sentence is not an issue. See: WP:LEAD. IP75 (talk) 04:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

A lot of energy is spent here trying to give the appearance of a rational argument to positions that are simply based on emotion, personal feelings and really nothing else.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If other prominent political bios mention defeat(s), as pointed out above, the same should go for this bio. --Tom 16:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Concur. I'm not sure what the big deal is on this one. Fcreid (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability

My time in the brig did not go to waste: I learned, for instance, that Notability, WP's grand old warhorse, has been wrongly deployed both here and at McCain.

Notability is a criterion for inclusion of the topic or person in WP, not the content of the article. All arguments and negotiations re content that are predicated on notability are irrelevant. Had I known this sooner, what has looked to me like multiple suppressions and subversions might have been prevented, with considerable benefit to the encyclopedic depth and reliability of the articles in question. See WP:NOTABILITY and WP:Notability (persons). Let's, er, take note.

Surprisingly the food was OK, thank you for asking; and on a clear day, if I stood on tippytoe on my bunk-buddy's head, I could see Russia under that "little tent of blue which prisoners call the sky", so I have volunteered as Secretary of State in the Obama administration. — Writegeist (talk) 05:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. For there to be an article, there are strict rules about the notability of the subject. Once there is an article, though, we still don't just jam in any random facts. Every fact in the article must be in some way notable, but will generally not be notable enough to have an article all to itself.

The standards are different, and the particular policies you referred to don't apply to content, but there are some standards. In particular, WP:NNC says: "However, because of the nature of an encyclopedia, the concept of notability nonetheless affects article content. Treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." "Significance" and "notability" are pretty much synonymous. -- Zsero (talk) 08:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Operative word is "affects". NNC states: Notability guidelines do not regulate the content of articles, except for lists of people. Instead, various content policies govern article content. (Emphasis added.) Furthermore: Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. (Emphasis added.) Notability is not a criterion for inclusion or exclusion of content; the criterion for that is compliance with WP content policy etc. Notability affects only the weight given to content. The fact remains: "notability" has been misused here as a means of limiting, removing and suppressing content that fully complies with WP content policies. — Writegeist (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

To me, the operative sentence of NNC is the last one: "Keep in mind that an encyclopedia article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, not a complete exposition of all possible details." When people say that an individual fact is not notable, they're generally referring to some combination of this, WP:WEIGHT, and/or WP:IINFO. Oren0 (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The word "notability" is used informally as a shorthand for whether material is significant and relevant enough, as evidenced by the weight of reliable sources, for inclusion in the article. So you are right that the notability guidelines do not rule. But they do share some features - the requirement that things be sourced, the notion that things be of due WP:WEIGHT, etc. Various guidelines have been proposed for content inclusion within an article but they have all been rejected and nobody has come up with a complete formulation for editor discretion here. The closest I've seen is that content proposed for an article should bear some significant relevance to the notability of the subject of the article. If you propose to add a Tina Fey joke and people say "that's not notable", they do have a point - they're just using the word in a different sense. Hope that helps. Wikidemon (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Informed and insightful. Danke, Wikidemon. — Writegeist (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Carl Cameron leaks

This is definitely the beginnings of a story, which will end up either in this article or the campaign article, or more likely both. But so far it's too early to tell just what the story is. The story is about the tensions within the campaign staff, and over the next few days we'll learn enough to be able to write a concise paragraph about it. Right now there is too little information, and too many contradictions, to produce anything coherent. But it is simply not credible that Palin didn't know that Africa is a continent; that's pushing the prank too far, rather like those Masked Avengers. Speaking of which, that incident may turn out to be more significant than I'd thought; some of the reports coming out claim that the call was a cause of strife between the two campaigns. -- Zsero (talk) 09:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I added a sentence about her preparations for the Couric interview since that (in my opinion) has more weight than the Africa/Continent thing. Manticore55 (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I just was going to post a question about this. How is it possible for a college educated governor of one of the United States to not know that Africa isn't the name of a country, it's the name of a continent? I agree. It is unbelievable. There has to be a plausible explanation. There has to be more corroboration before considering anything on this. VictorC (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Given how ignorant of geography Americans are on average, I would say it is implausible, but not impossible, that the Governor might have believed Africa was a country. Even so, that kind of story needs more corroboration than an anonymous source (who might just be a little bitter about losing). Dragons flight (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"How is it possible for a college educated governor of one of the United States to not know that Africa isn't the name of a country, it's the name of a continent?" All too possible, sadly, for a college-educated governor of one of the United States who also, as the redoubtable McCanaanite Jeffrey Goldberg points out, doesn't know where Gaza is, doesn't know what happened there, doesn't know who rules it--and doesn't care. And who, again per JG, not only doesn't know the answers but doesn't even know the questions. But as Sam Harris wrote in Newsweek, "half the electorate revels in Palin's lack of intellectual qualifications. When it comes to politics, there is a mad love of mediocrity in this country." — Writegeist (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Please, fellow editors. Give Gov Palin a break. The study of geography is not high on the list of things to do. Especially for someone that reads "all the newspapers" and "all the magazines". She has a very busy schedule. The snow mobiles need tuning. The walrus harpoons need sharpening. And, don't forget the diapers that need changing. Mediocrity/Schmediocrity. Maybe she wasn't in class the day they studied THE WARM CLIMATES. --Buster7 (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Come on, the Africa story is simply not credible. More interesting, and possibly notable significant, is who spread this story, and why. We'll eventually find that out, and that might be worth including. -- Zsero (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Just watched the report on Fox News. It looks like unsubstantiated hearsay so far. He also states that she had no idea what NAFTA was. But he only attributes this to "the McCain Camp says," which is hearsay? He also indicates that this is only the beginning of a larger number of other similar stories about Palin, to come out in the next days or weeks. VictorC (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you guys make of the Newsweek article that provides behind-the-scenes information about the two campaigns, much of which is not very flattering to Palin? Should any of the information presented in the Newsweek report be included in the article? http://www.newsweek.com/id/167581/page/1 WhipperSnapper (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

See my comment that started this section. There will almost certainly be a paragraph's worth of material in this story, but right now we don't yet know what the story is. WP is not a newspaper, and we don't need to breathlessly report every development; once the full story comes out and we can look back on it, we'll be able to write a coherent paragraph, with reliable sources, that will document whatever this turns out to be. -- Zsero (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

There's probably plenty of story here, but it's proper place is in an election article, not her bio. Aprock (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This is another example of how stupid we Alaskans are being portrayed here. I won't quibble too much over it, though. Palin herself was having a good laugh about this Africa thing during her interview this morning on local talk radio. And I know this is OR, but if it makes anybody feel any better, she also said she has no intention of appointing herself to Senator Steven's seat, if it comes to that.Zaereth (talk) 01:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And she's a politician, so we believe everything she says. — Writegeist (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've tried to keep my politcal opinions out of here, but the truth is I don't agree with a lot of Palin's stances on the issues. But one thing I have to respect her for, she has kept all of her campaign promises, and I've never seen a politician do that before. But judge for yourself, you can listen to the interview at http://www.bobandmark.com/ .Zaereth (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And of course as you will have noticed I'm also at pains to conceal my political opinions. Is there a transcript of the interview somewhere? The sound of her voice makes me physically sick and my dinner was expensive. — Writegeist (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

With that introduction, how can you put the "O" in "objective" for this article, Writegeist? Fcreid (talk) 01:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You mean, like Palin putting an L in "pain"? Or being an anagram of "plain"? BTW, "Sarah Palin" is an anagram of "Piranha Sal." Neat, huh? — Writegeist (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And Writegeist becomes Get Ire's Wit. Hey that is fun! :-D But not very helpful.Zaereth (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me that there's a lot of talk based on a single announcement that a single newsman made on TV. Since it's to the detriment of at least one aspect of the political party that the TV station favors, it's of unusual interest, but I wouldn't get too excited about it quite yet. It might be that Palin heard something about "Africa" in a noisy situation, and understandably misheard a background harrumph just before "Africa" as "South", or on the contrary that some irritated GOP person misheard "South" as a background harrumph. I suggest staying tuned but also staying calm. -- Hoary (talk) 03:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Damn! I can't get an anagram out of "Zaereth"; and to answer your question, Fcreid, I guess I put that O in "objective" the same way you do: up front.  :~) Writegeist (talk) 03:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well maybe I'm not so dumb after all. Pick a name that starts with Z, then add a lot of vowels - unanagram-able! ;-D Zaereth (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest we wait a bit until a true reliable source provides all the relevant details of this "leak" before we start plastering "she didn't know Africa was a continent" on her biography? This is a WP:BLP biography and WP:NOTNEWS, so such an extraordinary claim should warrant a bit of additional caution. Fcreid (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The 2008 campaign is over & the Republicans are peeved off with the results. IMHO, this she said/they said stuff isn't overly important. Let's wait until the dust has settled, folks. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't her knowledge of NAFTA and Africa. We may never know that because we are not privy to her thoughts. What is credible and verifiably reported in reliable sources is that McCain insiders told prominent news organizations about the NAFTA/Africa isses. That fulfills WP:V and WP:RS, it is notable, and thus the reports remain in the article. Ward3001 (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If we're gonna add this info, we must balance it with Palin's denials. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add that, with source(s), in a balanced way of course. Ward3001 (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't even know that. It may have been reported in lots of places, but if they're all based on one anonymous person's unverifiable claims then we have nothing. Let's hold off on this until we have something definite. It's not as if this must go into the article today. Give the real story time to get out, and then see where we stand. -- Zsero (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Maybe if the unnamed sources come out and this delevops into more, then maybe add to sub article? --Tom 15:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Per both the wording and spirit of WP:BLP we should keep it out of the article till we have agreement on it's inclusion. Not the other way around, warring to include it because "there's no consensus to keep it out".--Cube lurker (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I said from the start of this thread that these stories will probably eventually add up to a coherent, verifiable and significant paragraph that can be added either to this article or to the campaign's, or perhaps both. But the key word is "eventually". -- Zsero (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless this "really" delevops into something more, ie, named sources, it does not belong in the bio. The idea of balancing this with Palin's denials is silly. If unnamed sources say XYZ is an idiot and wife beater, ect, we do not add this to a bio with denials from XYZ. --Tom 15:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The difference here, however, is that we're not talking about whether someone is a wife-beater. We're talking about someone identified by a reliable source as being an insider in the McCain campaign. Remember history, folks. In the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, a pivotal source was known only as Deep Throat for decades, but it was reported in a reliable source that Deep Throat was an insider in the Nixon administration. Because it was in a reliable source, the identity of Deep Throat, although a curiosity, was not critical to determining the authenticity of the information provided. If Wikipedia had existed in the 1970s, would we have omitted all information about Watergate simply because we didn't know Deep Throat's name? We don't have to know the name of the the source inside the McCain campaign as long as it's being reported by a reliable source.

And balancing the story with Palin's statements is not "silly". It's encouraged by Wikipedia guidelines. Ward3001 (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Just so I got this straight, you are equating Palin being accused of being dumb and throwing tantrums and being a clothes horse to the break in at the DNC and the ensuing coverup by the President? Ahh, ok. --Tom 16:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sarcastically putting false words in your opponents mouth is a poor debating strategy. I did no such thing. If you'll take the time to read and think about what I said, I am equating the validity of accepting a report in a reliable source from an unnamed McCain campaign insider with accepting the validity of a report in a reliable source from an unnamed insider in the Nixon administration. It simple logic, not rocket science. Ward3001 (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And my point is which report is cruff and which has some real importance? --Tom 17:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

An entirely different issue which has nothing to do with all the arguments thrown around above about verifiability and WP:BLP; another poor debating strategy: if your best argument doesn't work, inexplicably change the argument to a different issue. Whether it is "cruff" is determined by consensus, and at this point there is no consensus to remove the information as cruff. Ward3001 (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I just don't understand why there's "pressure" to include this story with such an obvious dearth of reliably sourced information. As GoodDay suggested above, intra-campaign squabbling is an expected immediate after-effect of a loss, and an "unnamed source" is far from the level of reliability one should demand for comments that are clearly intended to malign the subject of this BLP. Also, from what I understand, Huffington Post has never been acceptable as a reliable source on WP. Perhaps someone can confirm my understanding, but for an "extraordinary" claim like this, I simply urge a bit of restraint until the claim can be validated by legitimate U.S. mainstream media sources. Fcreid (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This will be the fourth time, and two weeks since I first asked, for linked verification that Huffington Post is not citable in WP. "intra-campaign squabbling is expected" and ""extraordinary" claim" are only not mutually exclusive in that they both say "nothing to see here, move along" Anarchangel (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I found this, but I'm no expert in this area. WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_16#Huffington_Post.2C_Gawker_and_About.com Fcreid (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to minimize its importance, but that's a discussion page, not an official policy or guideline. Ward3001 (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It's also reported in The Canadian Press and was attributed to that source when it was most recently in the article. I'll repeat a point I've made earlier. The important issue here is not how much Palin knew about NAFTA or Africa, so it doesn't have to be viewed as "clearly intended to malign the subject of this BLP." The important issue is that this information is being revealed from insiders in the McCain campaign. And it's perfectly appropriate to balance that with Palin's response if it is properly sourced. This is well within Wikipedia guidelines. It is subject to change, of course. For example, if the "McCain insider" later says he/she misspoke, or if another McCain insider refutes the claims, then the article can be changed. But we are not jumping the gun by briefly summarizing a reliable source's report of information from McCain campaign aids. Ward3001 (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ward, in the context you provided, perhaps the appropriate article might be the McCain campaign article. I still contend there is far too little on this story to "run with it" here. If none of the MSM have picked it up, we need to be particularly cautious. Seriously, there's no "fire" that warrants its premature inclusion. Fcreid (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"None of the MSM"??? Have you looked at a newspaper or TV news program in the last 24 hours? It's all over the place. That's a moot point. "Premature inclusion"??? Again, read my comments above. It's in a reliable source and it's relevant right now, even though it's subject to change if more is revealed. As to whether it is more appropriate here or in the McCain campaign article, there's no reason it can't be here unless it gets bigger with a broader storyline (e.g., lots of bickering within the McCain camp about it). Ward3001 (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you not provide some other MSM source for the story then, e.g. NY Times, Washington Post, etc.? And I don't understand the second part of your rationale. You state the importance of the story is not whether it's true that Palin did or didn't know where Africa was, but rather that there was campaign bickering. Given that, I don't understand why the campaign article would be a less appropriate choice. Fcreid (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstood, although I believe in good faith. I never said the issue is campaign bickering. My only reference to campaign bickering was a hypothetical reason that might warrant moving the story to another article. What I did say is the important issue (now for the third time) is that it's irrelevant how much Palin knows about NAFTA or Africa; rather, it's important that the information is being provided by a McCain insider to a reliable source. Stated differently (in response to your statement: "clearly intended to malign the subject of this BLP"), this does not have to be an attack on Palin (and in fact I have repeatedly encouraged providing her response); it is a story about what McCain insiders are saying about Palin. Regarding "some other MSM source", there's nothing wrong with The Canadian Press, but it also was reported on Fox News, which hasn't exactly been in the forefront of McCain-Palin bashing. Ward3001 (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No "faith" issues at play here, Ward. I'm only suggesting that it's far more important that a WP:BLP article be "right" rather than "fast". We're not here to scoop the media on these things. I'm certain there are countless MSM that are scrambling to source this story fully and put it in a more thorough context for us to cite here. In addition, it's undoubtedly insulting to the subject of this BLP. For that reason alone, we must adhere to the fundamental WP:BLP tenet that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources". That said, I'm not going to argue about this all day, though. If the story is important, it will be here in 24 hours for us. Fcreid (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I still don't think you're getting my point. If you look at my line of thought, there are no WP:BLP issues. Remember, I'm not arguing about whether it is "right" or "wrong" that Palin said Africa is a country rather than a continent. I am saying that a McCain insider has been reported by a reliable source as making the statements about her. There is a big difference in those two issues. And I'm not trying to "scoop" anything. I've done my share of arguing against turning Wikipedia into Wikinews or (worse) a tabloid. This story is not a news flash. And it would still be a credible story if someone provided unequivocal proof that Palin knew a year ago that Africa is a continent, that South Africa is a country, and the the USA, Canada, and Mexico signed NAFTA. Those revelations might expand the story, but it would not change the part that has already transpired. Ward3001 (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess I am missing your point. Can you provide the edit that you want to include in the article? Fcreid (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) This is the statement at the time I last edited the page:
After the election, prominent news organizations report that campaign staffers stated that Palin had refused preparation for her interview with Katie Couric, was at times emotionally intractable, and did not know the members of NAFTA or that Africa is a continent rather than a country. Although Palin disputed the accusations as "foolish". (followed by citation to The Canadian Press; note also that the grammar error is not mine).
The statement does not say that Palin did not know that Africa is a continent. It says that campaign staffers said she didn't.
Now, let's suppose for the sake of argument that later today someone found a source verifying that Palin knew one year ago that Africa is a continent. The above statement could remain intact, but an addition should be made similar to: "Palin's representative, however, provided evidence that Palin knew ..." etc. The statement as it was last in the article has no WP:BLP issues, it is not an attempt to "scoop" a news story, and it can certainly be added to if other events unfold. Ward3001 (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That is not how BLP works. We don't introduce negative accusations against XYZ and then provide rebuttal. Just because the talking heads are telling you this is a huge story, doesn't make it so. Does anybody think there is political motivation for these "stories" that are being floated out there? --Tom 19:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting what I said. WE are not making negative accusations about anyone. Read my comments in their entirety. We are summarizing what McCain campaign insiders have said, followed by Palin calling their statements "foolish". There are no BLP issues; there is only summary of what political staffers and politicians have said. That is well within the scope of Wikipedia. The article Assassination of Abraham Lincoln states that John Wilkes Booth called Lincoln a tyrant. Should we leave that out because we don't want anyone to think that WE said he is a tyrant? (And, please, don't accuse me of trying to equate Lincoln's assassination with comments about Palin; that is not my point). Ward3001 (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to throw a wrench in the works, and maybe this already was raised, but isn't Lincoln a BDP while Palin is a BLP? It would follow that maybe different rules apply then? VictorC (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

With respect, that misses my point, which is that Wikipedia doesn't have to refrain from reporting properly sourced accusations made by someone; reporting it is not equivalent to Wikipedia making the accusation. Thus, when Wikipedia reports a statement made by a McCain insider, that does not violate WP:BLP. Ward3001 (talk) 05:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were talking something along the lines of, "Leaks from unnamed McCain sources indicate friction in the campaign" or something. I couldn't support what you've proposed here, Ward. No matter how you attribute them, the statements make WP a megaphone for these extraordinary claims that insult this person's basic intelligence. I suggest we hold off for some far more reliable sources for this story if we include that level of derogatory detail. Fcreid (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Although I respectfully disagree (including the "megaphone" idea and need for far more reliable sources), thanks for your opinions. Let's see what others might say. Ward3001 (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Gladly. I'm almost at the point where I might say include it. Let's make this article look as ridiculous as possible. In fact, maybe we should include all of the absolutely ridiculous claims about her, so that all who come here will have no doubt that what they're reading has no bearing on reality. Does anyone here honestly think that we don't have kindergarden in Alaska. I guess if I want to see what a real Sarah Palin BLP looks like I'll have to wait for the next Encyclopedia Brittanica to come out. The thing that gets me the most, from the anti-Palin crowd out there in the media, is that this is the best that they can come up with.Zaereth (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I've already proposed that idea out of total frustration in the past! The amount of derogatory attention Palin receives is beyond comprehension, and it has been that way since she was thrust into the spotlight in August. This issue reminds me of the Sarah and the Dinosaurs story a few weeks ago. Speaking of which, why isn't that in the article yet?  :) Fcreid (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a fundamental difference between the 'alaska is a country' and the unwillingness to cooperate on the preparation for the interview. The public perception of her interview by non Palin supporters was resoundingly negative and addressing a potential source of that (as shown by another source) is a very legitimate thing for inclusion and consideration. Manticore55 (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Argh. I think I just hit the Wikipedia parody site. Collect (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Alaska's not a country, any more than Africa is.Zaereth (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The point of the statement was that 'africa is a country' (or 'alaska is a country') is not as weighted as the actions she took with relation to the rest of the campaign staff or the preparations for the debates. Manticore55 (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. But why don't we wait until a reliable source provides us with actually real facts on that, and not nonsensical tripe from the Huffington Post? The Washington Post on Sunday will almost surely provide us relevant details for inclusion in the article. If they and the NY Times decline to turn this "unnamed source" into a Palin attack, you can be sure it's just another lie from the Huffington Post. Remember the Huffington Post? The one that published her Down syndrome child was actually her daughter's child? Fcreid (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Given how ignorant of geography Americans are on average, I would say it is implausible, but not impossible, that the Governor might have believed Africa was a country.":

I've encountered lots of persons who thought Africa a country, I'm sorry to report, and given what we know about Palin it's not just possible but perfectly plausible that she is (was, I suppose) one of them. What I've read about this story suggests to me that Palin's interview and debate coaches were merely venting their understandable frustration. TheScotch (talk) 07:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly and well-said! This is pure "damn, we lost" finger-pointing nonsense by some underling of the campaign. The biggest problem with the story (like most everything coming from Huffington Post) is that it was distilled and packaged to be poisonous, and there are too many willing to lap it up without an iota of critical thought. For example, ask yourself what context this might even have arisen? Were they running Jeopardy-style quizzes of sixth-grade material? Of course not. Is it plausible that in some late night debate cramming session that she verbally slipped and said the nation of Africa or something, to which a debate coach admonished her to use continent instead? Possibly. She is human, as we clearly see. Regardless, no one will ever surface to substantiate these claims, and it's quite possible that it's either half-truth or no-truth! There may be a nugget somewhere in the story regarding her relationship with the campaign handlers, but I suspect even evidence of that is not forthcoming. It's just post-election sour grapes and will pass quickly. Fcreid (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure TheScotch was just pointing out that the comments are plausible and came from legitimate sources. I don't believe he was making any assertions about "finger-pointing nonsense"; rather, that seems to be your own defensive and highly partisan spin. Anyway, this stuff is all sourced to major news outlets, not blogs.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't just the Huffington Post. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/25/palin.tension/

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/386926_crouchonline09.htmlManticore55 (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Great. As I suggested at the top of this topic, I suspected there would be more forthcoming to provide fuller context during the weekend. Tomorrow's papers should provide even more. I contend it's unbecoming of WP to present unsourced (i.e. from unnamed sources) material only to counter with rebuttal from the target, but now that the MSM have provided more information, I'm certain we could craft the incident in an NPOV manner that acknowledges the controversy, states that the accounts of the incident are at odds with one another and concludes by McCain telling his campaign staff to knock it off. Did you have a particular narrative in mind? Fcreid (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The devil here is in the details. The nonsense about Africa is irrelevant. However, the more post analysis that I see, the more it indicates that the Couric interviews were the turning point for Palin. If she did actually refuse to accept preparation from her handlers, then it would help explain her behavior, which quite frankly seemed highly erratic. I'm not saying Palin is....Einstein....but every debate performance, press conference or statement I've seen her make was considerably better than her performance in these interviews. The initial analysis at the time they came out suggested that her handlers were telling her what to say and she was just really bad at repeating the talking points, but if she IGNORED her handlers, it may have simply been an honest ignorance of the subject material and an attempt to give non answers without really knowing much about the national political discourse. If that is the case, then it says a lot about Sarah Palin simply because she felt supremely confident about going on national television and answering questions without any preparation whatsoever. No doubt 'tell all books' will come out both from her and the campaign which should provide more salient information in the long run. Manticore55 (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Parodies

As at present there is a separate article on the Tina Fey parodies, I adjusted the link accordingly and added a little bit about Fey's resemblence (which is supported by the cited source that was already there). I also added a sentence to link to the main parodies article, but I didn't feel it necessary to add a source to support that there were other parodies as the linked article has ample sourcing in this regard. 23skidoo (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

POV and propaganda

I'd like to quote Oshaughnessey's book, Politics and Propaganda: Weapons of Mass Seduction: the “empirical” scientific request for “'proof' is often an argument deployed to conceal the sins of government”p.121 “Propaganda is the denial, as well as the provision, of information...propagandists seek a truth rather than the truth”p.204 I have restored the public image section (deleted without explanation or any attempt at editing, prior to the elections), as such a section is featured in other articles. Feel free to add pro-Palin balance as you see fit, but do not deny this well-sourced data. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want to rewrite all the WP standards, try promoting your view to the admins. Until then, live with the existing standards -- like wanting facts in BLPs. Collect (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, here's an idea. Let's make this propganda quote you've cited the first sentence in the lede. It's a perfect way to start off this article. I don't know why some feel that any bad thing about Palin must have a good thing also to cancel it out, or the article's not balanced, (and visa versa). As I've said before, I would not expect an article about the Pope to have a bad statement to counter every good statement. Likewise, an article about Hitler does not need a statement of good to balance out all of the bad he did. We should report the facts with a neutral delivery, and let the article take the slant, good or bad, that it will. I have a feeling this is going to bring on a slurry of policy quotations, but really, fact presented with true NPOV are naturally going to put a good slant on the article, judging by the fact that the only really bad statements that anyone can seem to find about her are so damn laughable I can't believe there is anyone who could take them seriously. Zaereth (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought this wanting to add negative stuff, would've eased off after Tuesday. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sighhhhhh. I did too. Oh well .. the best laid plans of mice and men ... Zaereth (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I get disgusted every time I refresh my watchlist. I'm about to pack it up and let this article become a lampoon. Fcreid (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean. There's nothing like the mis-information super highway. I'm just glad that thousands of people clicked on the link I provided to the fully unedited interview, and actually got to hear the real Sarah Palin. That radio station apparently had tons of approving emails from all over the world this morning from people who checked it out. Just imagine how many people are watching this petty squabbling right now.Zaereth (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Editing requests

Someone changed her last name to Parasailin'. I can't edit it currently because of the protection. Someone want to change it? Hydrokinetic (talk) 07:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Palin's Churches and Associated Controversy

The controversial nature of Palin's churches have been noted in Newsweek, the New York Times, MS-NBC, and other news sources. I have included this information, with sources, under the VEEP campaign section. Some have protested that this information is not relevant. Apparently, they just want to accept Palin's self-description as a "Bible-believing Christian" without noting that Palin's churches held to a very extreme interpretation of the Bible that creeped out many people, including evangelical Christians. I disagree.

--ManicBrit (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest a different approach? Instead of being creeped out by her religious views, and trying to explain why they creep you out, why not provide reliably sourced information on how those views have demonstrably impacted her personal and professional life? Of particular interest would be examples where those views have directly impacted her governance. I mean, after all, lots of people are creeped out by the religious views of others that differ from their own. That's largely why we have wars (well, that and greed). Fcreid (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Its really funny, but religion never once came up as a factor when she was running for governor. Never once during her term as governor. Everything brought forth since the campaign appears to be nothing more than blind speculation. But I guess if people take enough potshots in the dark eventually they'll hit something.Zaereth (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%, just as I agree that "Obama is a Muslim" (i.e., terrorist) and "Obama is defined by his radical ex-pastor" were potshots. No, make that cannon blasts. Ward3001 (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I always thought that Obama stuff was way over the top as well. All I want is real information presented in an unbiased way so that I can make truely informed decisions. After this election I am truely disheartened with the American media.Zaereth (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There is certainly speculation about what Sarah Palin personally believes - but this speculation exists because Palin refused to answer questions about it. We have video of Palin being anointed by an African "apostle" known to have incited violence against women he accused of witchcraft. Before he anointed her, he gave a sermon calling for Pentecostals to take over government and banking. Such things should have prompted the media to inquire about Palin's personal beliefs. Obama addressed the issues surrounding his pastor. Palin just tried to dodge the whole issue. This is notable not only because of what it suggests about Palin, but because it is an example of how the Internet and new media played an integral role in this election. Because of YouTube and the Internet, Palin's religious associations couldn't be buried, and her attempts to avoid the whole topic worked against her, even though the traditional print and TV media largely capitulated to her wish not to discuss it until the Internet buzz got to big for them to ignore it. If she had given a speech about what it would mean to be the first Pentecostal in the White House, she probably would've turned her background into an asset rather than a liability.

--ManicBrit (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The withchunter thing again? Listen, I once had a rabbi tell me,"Bless you son.", but I certainly don't think that makes me jewish. Ask me my religious beliefs and I'll tell you its none of your business. Alaskans tend to be different that way, I guess, but up here we sort of have a "don't push your religion on me and I won't push mine on you" type of mentallity, and it has worked pretty well for us if you ask me. If Palin chooses to keep her views private, (whether for her reasons or the campaign's), that is her right. Since that is the only real fact we have, then the only statement we can credibly make is that she chooses to keep her views private. (And that should go for Obama too, and any other article tas well).Zaereth (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Zaereth, might I suggest that your Alaskan views are myopic? There are several issues that make the Muthee affair relevant to Palin biopic. Pentecostalism is exploding in the global south, and it will be increasingly impossible to ignore its political influence in the coming years. The fact that a woman associated with the most politically-inclined and ambitious strain of the movement nearly became one 72-year-old's heartbeat from the White House is surely relevant to discussions of Pentecostalism's place in the world. Pentecostals have a right to look to Palin as a John F. Kennedy - or in their own words, Queen Esther - figure for their movement, and many did. By excluding this part of Palin's life from her biopic, you're preventing Palin from becoming an appropriate part of a discussion about Pentecostalism and its growing influence, and how this growing influence is not without controversy. Also, it isn't just that Palin sat in the pews as Muthee delivered a theocratic screed, or whether Palin was fully aware of Muthee's violent activities. Palin was physically anointed, by laying on of hands, by Muthee. She also credited his prayers with helping her win her governorship. I see no reason why Jeremiah Wright should be relevant to Barack Obama's history when Muthee and the Wasilla Assembly of God are not relevant to Palin's. Ted Haggard was also associated with the New Apostolic Reformation's chief apostle, C. Peter Wagner, and his politics regarding global warming and poverty were closer to the Democrats than the Republicans, so we should hesitate to draw conclusions about what type of policies Palin might have supported as vice president if she had been elected just because of where she went to church. But that doesn't mean her religion is something that should be ignored. When you put yourself forward as a public figure in the United States - don't know about Alaska - you don't get to decide which parts of your life are private. Also, what should be added to the article isn't a theological discussion about whether or not God is really anointing new apostles for the end times, or whether spiritual gifts are real - what should be added is simply the fact that videos caused controversy, which is plainly true.--ManicBrit (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Traditional print & TV media had other Palin stories to run with. GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The very idea that any politician believe there's an invisable something living among the clouds, is unsettleing. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither candidate for President showed any sign of disbelief in the interview with a church leader on tv. Collect (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Scary, ain't it? GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Off topic for sure. Not scary. Countries ruled by avowed atheists have a very poor track record, to be sure. Collect (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Not all atheist are rulers. But, you're correct, we're off topic. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

While we're off topic, are you including Helen Clark or David Miliband in that description, Collect? There are several more here. You're entitled to your opinion, but are you sure you want to make a blanket statement like that? Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 01:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It's Ok FangedFaerie. I'll take the blame for this one, as it was I who started this side-discussion. GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

In regards to Palin, it isn't just that her theology might be considered odd by non-Pentecostals. The controversy stems from video that shows her being anointed as governor by Thomas Muthee, an "apostle" in the New Apostolic Reformation movement. Prior to anointing Palin, Muthee delivered a sermon in which he outlined the need for his brand of Christians to take over government and business. The NAR movement is openly theocratic, seeking to take over society's institutions and impose their views on others. It is also considered heretical by most

Again, and even presuming your perspective on Muthee is correct, what is the significance of this to Palin? In her years of governance, there aren't any examples where any religious beliefs (never mind those that might fall outside the mainstream) have influenced her decisions. She's made that statement directly, and there are examples where it's true, e.g. teaching contraception in schools. In addition, there are multiple well-sourced reports from both friends and enemies that state unequivocably that Palin does not even discuss religious matters in normal conversation. Are you suggesting that she's somehow feigning that until she finds herself in a position where should could turn the U.S. into a theocracy? Fcreid (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank You Fcreid. I couldn't have said it better.Zaereth (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

"there aren't any examples where any religious beliefs ... have influenced her decisions" .... This made me laugh. Let's see what's on record... helped enforce a private abortion ban, check; thinks abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape or incest, check; inquiry about banning a gay-themed book, check; advocating creationism in public schools, check; shrewdly pandering to a growing conservative Christian majority in Wasilla to make a battleground of a previously friendly, low-key mayoral election, check. You freaks sit here with your fingers in your ears whining at the top of your lungs about the "biased media", etc etc, until people get tired of refuting the same nonsense over and over. It's the "temper tantrum method of Wikipedia consensus" also known as "if we get enough people to scream loudly enough we can ignore all the rules". I promise you it will not last.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Beyond your typical distortions of the facts involved, Factchecker, not a single one of these ever manifested in her execution of her public duties. Tell me. Is it just your belief that politicians aren't entitled to have personal religious beliefs, or is it actually your desire that we rid our nation completely of this scourge of religion? Perhaps the books we should be banning are the Bible and the Koran? That would make things much better, eh? Fcreid (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No distortions of fact whatsoever... just the mention of facts which you would rather suppress. And I just object to politicians trying to use the government (or any other means, really) to try to force their personal religious beliefs on other people. But since you like tossing out ridiculous straw men and beating-your-wife comments, I'll respond in kind: Tell me, Fcreid, is it your belief that US citizens aren't entitled to be free from religious oppression, or do you actually desire to exterminate all non-Christians in America? Perhaps we should tattoo several verses of Genesis on every newborn child? That would make things much better, eh?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems your particular feared "oppression" is the availability of abortion. Is that what this is about for you? Are you a single-issue person? To answer your direct question... while I don't share Palin's religious views, I do respect them, and more importantly, I deeply cherish that form of government that gave her the right to hold them. I trust in democracy, and I take comfort in our national history that demonstrates that societal change on issues of morality reflect not the whims of a single person, but the sea-change reflected in the aggregate of Americans. Some things take more time than we want, e.g. abolition, suffrage and gay rights, but I am confident that democracy helps us get it right more quickly than any other model of government in history. As far as national elections, I believe that deciding upon a leader based on how closely his morality mirrors my own is silly, and to do so at the expense of far more important qualifications is suicidal. The impact of that is less relevant than the ballot you cast for your local dogcatcher. Fcreid (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Er... nice speech? I like freedom and democracy too. I also dig the whole "representative democracy" thing and the nifty "republic of federated states" we've got going on. And most of all, I dig how the founding fathers recognized that popular sentiment was a fickle thing and that it was necessary to safeguard the rights of the few against the tyranny of the majority. And anyway, if you're suggesting I voted strictly based on my own "moral code", or that anybody should vote without consideration of their own "moral code", you're quite mad. So... are you a single issue person? When you're done answering you can explain what that means, for my benefit.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You know... a single-issue voter... one of the herd driven to the polls by marketing prods that prey upon innate fear and ignorance, like "if Person X wins, there will be gay sex in kindergarten" and "if Person Y wins, women will lose their right to choose". After all, they account for the majority of Americans, and every campaign realizes they're a force to be reckoned with. As for your other point, we are a nation of laws, and our current record of ensuring every American is equally protected is pretty damn good in the scheme of things. After all, we have a black president-elect! Fcreid (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You think the majority of Americans are suggestible sheep who base their political support on a single hot-button issue? That's an awfully low opinion to have of an entire country of 300 million.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Now you're just pulling my leg... Fcreid (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I feel that most people have a highly emotional and often knee-jerk response to certain issues but I also think most people carefully consider a broad range of issues when making their decision.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Question...

I heard rumors that one time she totally flipped out in a diner because some kid dropped his spoon. Is there any truth to that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youdontownme (talk • contribs) 14:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Who cares? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Source? If none, forget it. And BTW, I've seen many normal parents get upset with their kids for goofing around in a restaurant. If it has a shred of truth, there may be more than simply "dropping his spoon". Ward3001 (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And I heard rumours that Barack Obama is a secret scientologist and Sasha's name is really Xenu. Is there any truth to that? Oh, and John McCain was really born on board a naval vessel docked in Mombasa. Honest, I heard it, so it might be true. -- Zsero (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You are being trolled, the bit about the diner and the spoon is from Real Ultimate Power. Mike R (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Suggestion for Public Perception: Ninety-one percent (91%) of Republicans have a favorable view of Palin, including 65% who say their view is Very Favorable. Source: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2012/69_of_gop_voters_say_palin_helped_mccain

Well done, whoever spotted this poll. It should be included. In Public Perception or maybe in the 2008 VP campaign section? It's significant and relevant. (And hilarious.) — Writegeist (talk) 06:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone think the new controversy should be added to this article ? I am talking about the in-fighting that was recently released between the Palin and Mccain campaign and claims about how she didn't know africa was a continent and didn't know the members of NAFTA. Wether is true or not I think it is worth mention in a controversy section either here or in the 2008 campaign page with a mention that they are just claims by the Mccain campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.183.205 (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a topic above on this, IP69, and at the moment it appears consensus would be no. Fcreid (talk) 10:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Closed the editsemiprotected request. No consensus for this change. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Johnston. Are you referring to the editsemiprotected request re. the Rasmussen poll? If so, why the unseemly haste to close it? Don't you know that consensus takes time? The poll is significant and relevant IMO, as I have already stated. So far, mine is the only comment on the proposed edit. You should give time for other editors to weigh in, for discussion to take place--for consensus to form. Therefore if you have closed the Ramussen poll edit request, kindly reopen it. — Writegeist (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with EdJohnston on this. Collect (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Forgive my terseness. As a registered editor, Writegeist can make any change that he or she feels has consensus. It is only IPs who have to wait for someone to close the request. Anyway, any registered account can close an 'editsemiprotected' themselves; it doesn't require an admin. EdJohnston (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Still fighting I see

Sad. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 00:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Imagine what this talk-page will be like in 2012, if Palin decides to seek the Republican presidential nomination? GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

OMG! I hadn't considered that. We're not gonna have to keep this up in here for four more years are we? :-< Zaereth (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are just a couple of editors who have returned to this page (probably after being banned for some period) to run roughshod over the opinions of all others. A true spirit of community editing. Wipe out the article and cut/paste in what you think it should say. Yes, sad indeed. Fcreid (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Let the record show that both Fcreid and I are speechless at the ongoing abusiveness and agenda pushing. Irony ain't just something de wife does to de shirts after dinner.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Fcreid: "Unfortunately, there are just a couple of editors who have returned to this page (probably after being banned for some period) to run roughshod over the opinions of all others. The only editor who has recently returned to this page after a block is me. As for the other editor who, you say, has also "returned...to run roughshod over the opinions of others", I think you'll find that he/she, whoever he/she may be, did not return from a block. Nevertheless, please cite instances of our having "run roughshod" etc. Thank you. — Writegeist (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at the edit history on the article, Writegeist. It's pretty clear which editors were intent on making the article read like they wanted. On one issue, an editor merrily added new disputed (and BLP-violating) content while we were in the middle discussing it here in talk. "Be bold" does not mean be an asshole. Fcreid (talk) 10:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it is pretty clear which editors were intent on disregarding policy in order to get the article looking the way they wanted. Shall I name them?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least we had this contructive contribution yesterday: [[15]] :) IP75 (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably backordered! :) Fcreid (talk) 11:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Four more years of this? Bah. The odds of Palin winning the nomination are about the same as the odds of Dubya admitting that there are strong parallels between the 1939 invasion of Poland andthe US invasion of Iraq.

But seriously: Palin really isn't that interesting. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Public Safety Commissioner Dismissal

The part of the article under title "Public Safety Commissioner Dismissal" seems unnecessarily long and detailed, considering there already exists a link to the very comprehensive article, "Main article: Alaska Public Safety Commissioner Dismissal." I'm new enough to Wikipedia that I don't feel comfortable making such a radical edit, but does anyone else feel that we could cut the discussion to one summary paragraph in the main Sarah Palin article, and leave the link for those interested in further reading on the subject? I know the subject was kept alive in the press for weeks on end, but it is really a pretty minor part of her life, all things considered. DoctorEric (talk) 05:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Concur and great suggestion. We actually discussed that a couple weeks ago, but the aggregate of editors who had spent so much time tracking that "in the news" wanted their respective pieces preserved. Now that we've come to a conclusion on the incident, the entire thing should (as you say) be summarized into a single paragraph. Fcreid (talk) 10:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)