Talk:Sarah Palin

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

Miss Alaska in lead

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

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

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

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

Disagree. Miss Alaska is a big deal! It should be included and would be on someone else's page. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 03:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

considering it has been a major tactic of the republican party to label the opposition as a celebrity i think it is a valid and importand piece of information.

Plus pageants are great events for young women that show them how to be a proper lady. Palin is a great model for all young women, for pageants in general, and proves you can be smart and pretty. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the Palin for president page. Its a LIVING BIO page. Heck yes miss Alaska is important. This should recieve more prominence not less. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If she won Miss Alaska then maybe however as I understand it she was only runner up. That's not important enough to make the lead.Filceolaire (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added and had deleted the following:

The Governor's husband, Todd Palin, served as a judge in the 2008 Miss Alaska Scholarship Pageant. [1]

I find this relevant to her history of beauty pageants. Especially in light of her criticism of pageant judges. I will add again. Please discuss. Poggio (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That her husband was a judge in a year she did not compete is irrelevant to her article, trivial at best to his article. I think we should remove this, if consensus exists to do so. --Coemgenus 01:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Further, since the quotation in the article is not a direct quote from Palin, I'm not sure we shouldn't rephrase it to fit the flow of the paragraph better. --Coemgenus 01:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Yes whoever wrote it was probably politically motivated but how can anyone not see the conflict of logic there? How can the American religious nutters who are so against abortion for religious reasons also be the same people who support the death penalty? I should also stress that I am against abortion but I don't feel its the place of a government to leglislate on this matter.--217.202.153.5 (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no conflict of logic. There is no fallacy of any sort, there is no error in reasoning for someone to hold bot those positions. Those positions are mutually exclusive and certainly not contradictory. Abortion is killing a human being who is exceedingly early in growth and development. Capitol Punishment is the killing of a human being who is developed and sapient as well as having been convicted of a serious crime against humanity like murder or treason. The former kills an undeveloped human being at the whim of anther's will. The latter kills a human being who has himself assaulted and destroyed another human beings life, or betrayed his country into the hands of the enemy. The moral implications of each position are radically different. Clear enough for you? Furthermore as a Christian (pro-life), an American, and an advocate of the death penalty please demonstrate some restrain and respect by not insulting a significant number of Americans, including myself, with the reprehensible attitude demonstrated in your use of the phrase "religious nutters". Thank you. Have a good day. -- An-Alteran

Except, of course, that previous studies have shown that any system which has employed the death penalty has made mistakes. While, in theory, the death penalty is about killing convicted criminals, the fact remains that the death penalty kills innocent people. Is it not on that same basic presumption of innocence that we object to the killing of an unborn child? For that matter, how can the United States ever seek a leadership role in the drive to convince countries like China to abandon their own death penalty (which is used, among other things, for murdering political dissidents) when it still clings to its own? 68.151.60.194 (talk) 10:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There absolutely is a conflict of logic here. The Catholic church is pro-life, and does not condone killing whether it is an unborn fetus or a convicted killer. the logical inconsistency is arguing that God's will says the life of the unborn is valuable but not acknowledging the same value in all lives. religious nutter is unfortunate, maybe religious extremist is the better phrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.249.86 (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The only accurate way to describe her is anti-abortion. She can't be classed as pro-life if she supports the death penalty.GiollaUidir (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: The BBC is describing her as anti-abortion rather than pro-life-see here.GiollaUidir (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Arguing over semantics? There is no error in logic. No paradox. It is only in the minds of those who judge anothers opinion to find the error in logic and that is unfortunate for us all. I have a personal problem with calling people pro-choice too. How can a person be called pro choice if they do not permit the right to choose ANY and ALL matters. I supoopse if we are to get THAT technical then we must say pro-abortion and anti-abortion. Yet the problem with that is that MOST people are a mixture of both and the silly labels we WANT to put on them are nothing more than our own fears and prejudices owning OUR logic. Neither do I buy that most people object to abortion to extreme religious reasons. Again, the flaws in our OWN abilities to comprehend are what drives us to label those with opposing view points. Get over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.42.13 (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

None has ever run for president

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

Nevermind, someone already beat me to erasing the line.

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

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

Not only did Gravel run for president in 2008, he ran for vice-president at the 1972 Democratic convention (and lost to McGovern's pick). But to say Palin's the first Alaskan to be nominated on either major party ticket does seem significant; it has been almost 50 years. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In 12 elections there are at most 48 major-party candidates on the tickets. It wouldn't even be possible for all 50 states to be represented. I don't think it's significant. —KCinDC (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Note to American wikipedia editors

When mentioning someone's birthplace and US states, make it clear that the place is in the United States. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Is that really necessary? Is it not safe to assume in an article about a US figure that their birth place is in the US unless indicted otherwise? – ukexpat (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

As a foreigner, you may also be unaware that the US Constitution requires presidential and VP candidates to be born in the United States. Furthermore, the WP pages for Idaho and Alaska are only a click away. Oren0 (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That is not true. The Constitution requires the President and Vice President be "natural-born citizens". There are two ways one can be considered "natural born", jus soli and jus sanguinis. I have known people born while their parents lived in Europe while stationed at US military bases there, who are absolutely "natural born citizens". 72.128.16.243 (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Except for John McCain, who was born in Panama. However, I think it is valid to presume that a candidate for one of those offices was born in the US unless otherwise stated.Alanmjohnson (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Not true. Simply not true. Gross Wikipedian misinformation. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone which was U.S. Territory at the time. Also, McCain was born in a U.S. Naval Hospital, U.S. Government owned land. So it is false and misleading to state that McCain was born in Panama when he was born in the Panama Canal Zone which was a U.S. Territory in a U.S. Militar base hospital.

It is also false and misleading to say that the Canal Zone was a US Territory. Ultimately sovereignty remained with Panama. It was under American administration and control, but it was not a territory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.236.143 (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Governor Arnold_Schwarzenegger was not born in the US —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.5.54.199 (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

As such, his entry states his birth country. --oZ (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)True, and it says so right on his page. But he's not a presidential candidate. And his constitutional ineligibility for president has been a matter of interest (people are trying to amend the constitution for him). Oren0 (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

And he is not a candidate for president or VP and can never be without Amendment. --RossF18 (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the issue isnt simply about place of birth but in general. The first line now says that Palin is the governor of Alaska, how many ppl outside the US know what Alaska is ? WP has some rules and conventions, and they must be followed as far as possible. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say that most people outside of the US know what Alaska is, and more to the point where it is. I would not be surprised to learn that more people outside the US can find Alaska on a map than those who live in the US. If I were to put in an article about myself that I was born in Albany, New York I'm confident there's no confusion that it was in the US and not Albany, Australia. The addition of a state name is pretty clear that it's in the US. There are some US states that arent well known in the world, but Alaska (and California and New York) is not one of them, it's a major geographic entity as well. We arent talking Alabama! (no offence!). On a second note- the constitution does not bar people who were born outside the US from being president. It bars people who were not BORN US CITIZENS. That is why Gov. Schwarzwhateveryouspellit can not be president. People who are the children of US citizens but born on foreign soil are still eligible. On another note- wow, is this entire article a giant republican propaganda piece or what! NPOV anybody? 24.182.142.254 (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this entire article is a pawn of the vast conservative conspiracy. :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 03:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there are probably people who do not know where Alaska is, but most people take geography at some point in their course of education. Edison2 (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont think you get my point, you said "I would not be surprised to learn that more people outside the US can find Alaska on a map than those who live in the US.", this a completely POV statement (in addition to being ridiculous), America's literacy rate is close to 100 %. You also said, "The addition of a state name is pretty clear that it's in the US.", is this standard wikipedia policy ? What about Rampur, Himachal Pradesh or Perth, Western Australia, are they in the US ? Follow wikipedia guidelines to avoid confusion.I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

All things being equal, if there is a desire to refer to US geographic locations such as Rochester, New York, US -- would the same be true in the near future for Europe in similar fashion, Cork, Ireland, EU? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.5.54.199 (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ireland is a sovereign country that can grant rights of citizenship, Alaska is not. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Pro-contraception?

Last night, the article stated Palin is stongly pro-contraception. Now that part's been disappeared. Anyone know the facts?

I don't really know for sure, but I assume she has no problem with contraception since she is a Protestant Christian. Contraception is usually only an issue for Catholic Christians. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd remove reference to either stance unless we have a source clearly stating her position. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I found a source for her being pro-contraception, and added the reference back in. JayareIL (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I just dug through all four sources. At first it seemed as if contraception wasn't mentioned at all, but it does get a sliver of attention in a 2006 article in the Anchorage Daily News. I'd love to see more detail, but I imagine that'll crop up in the media soon enough. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I honestly do not see the relevance of including her stance on contraception unless she is notably against it. Has she made any big policy moves or campign moves on that issue? If not, I do not see the importance as contraception is not too big an issue outside of conservative christian groups, such as Catholics.66.194.118.10 (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC) MikeD

I read on a blog she was against contraception, so that rumor is out there - whether true or false I don't know. In any case, since it's out there, it seems reasonable to include the accurate information - whatever that may be. Vcrs (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Weasel Words?

While I agree that a NPOV can be reached here, there seem to be a significant number of weasel words that need to be edited out. rather than being NPOV, i propose that we add a weasel words tag. Log'a'log (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Another important neutrality point

This article states that Palin is "pro-life." Pro-life is NOT a neutral term. This is similar to saying she is Anti-choice (some people would say being against the right to choose is anti-life). The correct designation would be that she is "Anti-abortion."

No, that would be POV. Nobody is actually 'pro-abortion'. One is 'pro-life' or 'pro-choice'. If you prefer, we could contrast 'pro government decision' vs. 'pro individual conscience'. Flatterworld (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a standing consensus to use the terms preferred by each side of the abortion issue. It's pro-life and pro-choice. --Elliskev 19:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Aye, deviating from generally accepted terminology in an environment as volatile as this would cause more trouble than it might solve. --Kizo

r 21:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd think the correct terminology would be "pro-choice" and "anti-choice". 12.40.5.69 (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Only if you are Pro-Choice. I believe that the decision on terminology is intended to represent the position as the person would want to be portrayed, not as their opposition wants them to be portrayed. As such, using the terms Pro-Choice and Pro-Live is a courtesy afforded on the individual. Make sense?--Tralfaz (Ralraz, yech) (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The widely accepted and supported terms in published North American political discussion are pro life and pro choice and there are reasons for this.[2] Gwen Gale (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE READ: According to Associated Press standards, the correct designation is "anti-abortion" (Associated Press Stylebook, 2006, p. 5). If Wikipedia has different standards currently then I think those should be under discussion as well. Regardless of what people who are against abortions want to be called, there is no legitimate or logical reason to refer to them as "pro-life". That is like referring to a Christian as "pro-good", it is a completely biased term. This label can not be used without perpetuating a problematic cultural assumption. The reason I especially take offense is because this particular label infers that people who are for abortion rights are somehow "anti-life" and I can only see thinking like that leading to an increase in women's health problems. It is just plain NOT RIGHT to refer to an anti-abortion person as pro-life, that is a semantic faux pas along the lines of referring to an ethnic group by a discriminatory slur. If people with such a little understanding of the English language are going to use an incorrect term on their own, that's their business, but in a matter of public record that is supposed to be objective, like the newspaper or an encyclopedia (even an Online one) the correct terms should be used as an example to everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.165.124 (talk) 05:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

it could be stated as for or against abortion. I think pro-life is a good term, because it helps communicate the perspective of pro life people, the same goes for pro-choice. refusing to call pro-life supports pro-life, is like refusing to call Christians Christians, or calling Marxists, anti-private property. I don't think any one is being fooled here. Pro-choice, implies that pro-life people are against choices. try to spin it your way. next you are going to suggest the patriot act, can't be called the Patriot Act, because it isn't patriotic? Rds865 (talk) 08:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The Patriot act is not Patriotic. That is the irony and why it was given that moniker. Much like "The People's" Republic of China. On the topic at hand, Palin is anti-abortion and it should be stated as such rather than given a euphemism. 66.186.173.180 (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The correct terms are those used by the group, themselves. Unless you want us to start calling the pro-choice side "anti-birth," please respect the CHOICE of the pro-life side to choose the description they feel best fits them. Izuko (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of power investigation

Undue Weight. Too much info. Too much is written on something that has only affected a small period of her life. — Realist² 19:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you kidding? she is CURRENTLY under investigation for ABUSE OF POWER, which is an impeachable offense Scottf43 (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Niggling details should go in Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal controversy; the main points should stay here. Homunq (talk) 23:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Gotta stay on top of this one. The entire section had been scrubbed as of a few minutes ago. I've reinstated it. BTW, the subtitle "Abuse of power investigation" is not a violation of NPOV. It is simply the proper description of what is currently taking place.--BenA (talk) 06:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This issue is a part of Palin's wikipedia entry not because she dismissed the public safety commissioner, but because she is the subject of an abuse of power investigation. The NPOV title of the section should thus be "Abuse of power investigation," as that reflects the actual core subject of the discussion.--BenA (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Despite providing no justification for doing so, others keep changing the title on the section on the abuse of power investigation to "Dismissal of Public Safety Commissioner." This matter would not appear on Sarah Palin's wikipedia page were it not for the abuse of power investigation. The accurate, NPOV title remains "Abuse of power investigation." Saying so is in no way to render judgment on the outcome of this investigation. Failure to title it "Abuse of power investigation" is a little like titling a section of Bill Clinton's wiki entry "Grand jury deposition" rather than "Impeachment."--BenA (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The investigation relates to the dismissal. The subtitle "Abuse of power investigation" is a violation of NPOV and undue weight. Rlendog (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There is an investigation. That is an objective fact. Were it not for the investigation this matter would not be a part of this entry. How is accurately naming this section either a violation of NPOV or undue weight? The violation of NPOV is attempting to cover up a public investigation into potential wrong-doing by giving this section a misleading title. The chief item of interest here is the investigation itself, without which the firing would be a minor matter.--BenA (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, Bill Clinton was not impeached. 208.61.250.70 (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC) MikeD

I have put the dispute over the naming of this section on the NPOV notice board for more general comment.--BenA (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Bill Clinton WAS impeached (only president ever to be so) and we should all review BLP guidelines. We can't just throw up sections that are potentially libelous like "She did something wrong maybe and is under investigation". Just be more neutral with the wording is all. Someone with a clear head (as opposed to a hot one) should probably be editing that section once we get a concensus. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)--98.243.129.181 (talk) 00:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Does the name Andrew Johnson ring a bell? Hint: He was the first U.S. president to be impeached. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.154.39 (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality of sources

Can someone come up with better sources than LifeNews.com and TPMCafe for Palin's pro-life stance? I don't doubt the position, mind you, but neither of those are acceptable as reliable sources. Tvoz/talk 23:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Reputable sources that aren't from a blog or activist web site have been an on going battle. If you have citations from balanced sources you could definitely help us out =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veriss1 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

TPMCafe -- which is part of TalkingPointsMemo -- is not a blog, and is considered by most experts (except for the right-wing partisans) to be a reliable source. However, practically every one of its articles are built around links to websites maintained by the Corporate Media Mainstream media, so unless you want to cite the opinion of one of the reputable journalists working there like Joshua Marshall, one should be able to follow the link to the kind of source you are looking for. -- anonymous, 01:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Moose hunting

Why does it state that she would wake at 3:00 am to hunt moose? Shouldn't this be cited or removed?

The citation covers multiple sentences in the paragraph. It shows how dedicated she is to outdoor activities so is therefore relevant. Entire Washington Post articles have been written about Bush landscaping his ranch. Veriss (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This should be related to the time of sunrise, for purposes of context. Her hometown should have periods of sun almost all night, and I doubt she was blundering around in the woods in pitch black. Wnt (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Merger of political positions article

This article [Political positions of Sarah Palin] contains duplicated material from Sarah Palin and does not add anything new. Merge proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• I oppose merging the political positions page with the main page. RobRedactor (talk) 05:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose There will be plenty of positions that will be made visible with citation, which would overwhelm the biography. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• I oppose merging this page with the main page. RobRedactor (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support merge from Political positions I agree with Jossi, at the present time - based on the amount of information available now - that there's no point in the separate article. Forks aren't needed if the main article is of a reasonable length, which Sarah Palin is. Can revisit this at a later time if reliably sourced material emerges that would overwhelm this article, and then it should be summarized here. Right now there isn't all that much. Tvoz/talk 06:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose too! Sorry I understand what you are trying to do but the page is constantly being edited and it is difficult to keep up with. The separation has allowed at least some of the traffic to spin off. At a later date we may recombine. .:davumaya:. 05:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I think positions should be expounded upon elsewhere at a length inappropriate for a general biography.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Feel free to give me more details about the beauty pageant and basketball stuff though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose This article is already too long. 71.233.230.223 (talk) 06:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Agree on merger. Present text overlaps broadly and will otherwise diverge. LarryMorseDCOhio (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose For now, look again in a week or two if this article doesn't grow. I have a feeling this article will grow a lot, to the point it will fork right back out. rootology (C)(T) 06:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Oppose maintaining a separate web site. It's already too hard keeping the neutral players on a neutral front. I maintain that any effort to maintain a separate site is merely to complicate the mission of the neutrals and to make the endorsement of them more difficult. Veriss (talk) 07:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose merge with main article. A politician on the caliber of a VP pick should have a detailed analysis of their views, noting specific instances and examples. For example, the phrase "pro life" is pretty damn generic. And what does she consider contraception? Some forms of birth control (say, the pill) are believed by some pro lifers to be able to cause abortion. Others may call this contraception. Answering responsibly what she thinks on numerous issues would get lost in one-page article on the woman. -Aknorals (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose merge with main article for reasons articulated by others already. The PP article will grow naturally in coming days as reporters delve into her past statements, and thus the article will become an increasingly salient and relevant one on its own. Arjuna (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose as creator (of "Political positions"). 1. This page is already 60k, which is double what it was a couple of days ago. It has to be split up, sooner rather than later. 2. Precedent: Joe Biden, and numerous other, less significant politicians have corresponding pages. 3. Even though the page originally, as a matter of convenience, was created by copying text from the main article, it is already taking on a life of its own. Lampman (talk) 09:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• OpposeDo not merge. Too much information to incorporate here, but a summary should be here. Edison2 (talk) 12:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sufficient information for separate article. --Crunch (talk) 13:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. McCain, Obama, Biden, and many other politician have a separate page. Palin should too. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too big for merge with main article + Biden had this article. --Cinik (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Consistency with all of the other candidates is important. Chadlupkes (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Way too long, plus many other politicians have the same page. Miquonranger03 (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Let's give her the same treatment as Joe Biden, see Political positions of Joe Biden. Truthanado (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Within a week we'll have to separate them again because of overflow. --Floridianed (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of Palin's education (consolidated)

degree?

Sarah Palin, if elected, would be the first VP in over forty years who does not have an advanced degree.

FORTY years?!! --Elliskev 01:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Even on the talk page, assertions like this should have a source. As I recall, Ronald Reagan had but a 4 year college degree.[3] Gwen Gale (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Who cares? Let the voters decide. We're not investigative reporters. Veriss (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about verifiability of content in a helpful encyclopedia article. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Gwen Gale, I tried to alter my indents so it wouldn't appear that I was replying to you. I was trying to reply to the original poster. I probably could have been more diplomatic in my response as well. I'll post the same on your talk page so you are sure to see it. Veriss (talk) 02:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be relevant if true, but I believe Al Gore did not finish his Masters of Divinity or his DJP at Vanderbilt University.[4] That fact pretty much makes it a moot point.--Appraiser (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

academic status and j-school

She has a BA degree, therefore I assume she has the right to display the "BA" or "B.A." postnominal letters after her name. Does she use these postnoms? Should we add them? Also, her degree is in journalism from UoIdaho. Would it be correct to describe it as a journalism school or j-school? NerdyNSK (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen anyone display a BA after their name. There is no need to describe "it" as a school of any kind, it could be a department, school, college or division, but nobody cares about these names. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I really cannot believe that you have never seen anyone displaying a BA after their name. Was that a joke or something? If so, sorry but I can't understand it. To the best of my knowledge most people who have postnominals do use them, whether they come from degrees, professional registrations, or membership to honour orders. NerdyNSK (talk) 10:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anyone who proudly writes "B.A." after his name. Maybe in some non-U.S. countries it is the custom. People who have more advanced degrees would be amused and those who didn't go to college or left without a degree would be annoyed. No one would be impressed. Edison2 (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Really strange. Probably the US has a different culture on this. NerdyNSK (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am from the US, and live in Guatemala. Here in Gt undergraduate degrees are more respected, not just because they are rarer, but also because they require a thesis, unlike in the US. Homunq (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well my friend, this is America, and not guatemala. In America, lots of people have undergraduate degrees, it's similar to a highschool or middle school degree in your country. She's nothing impressive, in fact her education appears to be lacking considering she's being compared to harvard and yale law school grads.71.114.19.245 (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Low Level of education

If elected she will be the first vice-president of the United States, in the modern era, who does NOT have an advanced degree. Her highest education is a bachelors at the university of idaho! This is certainly worth at the least noting in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakerking04 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussed above. Gore has no advanced degree either, though he did some graduate work. —KCinDC (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Gore's graduate degree got disrupted becuase he joined the military, miss palin's got disrupted because she had to do a beauty pegeant.

I don't think either of those is true. Gore's graduate work was after his military service; he left school to run for Congress. Palin didn't have any graduate work to disrupt. —KCinDC (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Now now, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. 68.43.197.22 (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but a good story isn't always verifiable... IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 17:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

George H. W. Bush also only has a bachelor's degree. --Coemgenus 21:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Having a degree is not synonymous with having an education. G.W. has an MBA. Does that make him a good businessman? Truman did not have a degree at all, and neither did Lincoln. 98.201.33.248 (talk) 03:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Photo discussion (consolidated)

Palin in photo with fur

The photo of Palin wearing a fur, why doesn't someone just come out and say that she's in support of hunting and trapping in Alaska. Why the allusion (sarcasm here). Either state it or get rid of it. I can't believe the partiality of Wiki's contributors. We don't show Barack Obama barechested in Hawaii while giving a press conference....75.73.4.221 (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

How do you know it's real fur? Kelly ^hi! 17:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Mmm. Dead fox heads...

(ec) I think it's the best photo we have of her speaking... In Alaska it is not unusual to wear fur, so I don't think there's any great fuss to be had here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

She's also apparently an avid hunter, so I don't think the image is trying to say anything that isn't already said in text. - auburnpilot talk 17:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If God didn't want us to hunt animals, why did he make them so delicious and their fur so wonderfully warm? Kelly ^hi! 17:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, they were given warm fur to keep them warm. Just had to add that for corrections sake, I personally am not against hunting or fur.66.194.118.10 (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

given that the native alaskans have hunting as part of their culture/heritage AND part of their dailies lives for survival/sustenance, we cannot ignore that fact. plus, there is no indication that the article of clothing she is wearing is real fur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.93.18 (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Miss Wasilla pictures

I would like to include her victorious pictures as Miss Wasilla into the article. Can someone check whether these images 1 and 2 ... are in the public domain? Thanks. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 04:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

They obviously weren't published prior to 1923 or produced by the federal governmet, so I really doubt they are in the public domain. Kelly ^hi! 04:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I use a fair use justification? Or could someone else? 72.91.214.42 (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the images would be acceptable under WP:NFC - we have plenty of free images of this person. Kelly ^hi! 04:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the help Kelly. However the link you give says we can use "Images with historical importance: As subjects of commentary" ... since McCain could die and she could be President, is it not historical that she was Miss Wasilla ? I think she would be the only beauty queen President -that's historical ... especially since most of the women who have lost in the past we're ugly. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If you can find the owners of the pics and they release them then you're on the way to including them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veriss1 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin's not professionally noted as a beauty contest winner (and most of such contests aren't notable at all). Any wry irony of political contests being "beauty contests" aside, following WP:WEIGHT, a picture like this would likely highlight this aspect of her background in a highly misleading way and hence be unhelpful to the article's NPoV. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I am bias because I have taken part in beauty pageants, but one of the first things commentators have mentioned about her was she was runner up to Miss Alaska (a big deal) and she only got that chance because she was Miss Wasilla (the town she won mayor of for 9 years). 72.91.214.42 (talk) 04:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Her pageant photos are all over the news, so the argument about not being NPOV is not well grounded. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly ! pageants are hard. I feel like the men here overlook the difficulty of them. Her win shows her determination. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 04:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen any of that coverage, so I understand what you mean, but my comment about WP:WEIGHT still has some sway. Wikipedia isn't (or shouldn't be) fluff telly news, I guess we'll see where both the sources and editor consensus go on this. As for pageants being "hard" that's true of lots of stuff and wouldn't have anything to do with notability or weight. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It gives a picture of her when she was younger, and should be included just because of that.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 06:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not a really convincing reason to add it. Perhaps after we clarify that the pictures are free and in public domain, we can continue this but please avoid inserting the photo. .:davumaya:. 06:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture of family

I love the picture of her family. But which one is which? --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Photo

Why are we not using her official Governor's portrait? I think we should.

Rick J. Evans 19:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In general official Governor portraits are not Public Domain.--Appraiser (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Photo

I think we should upload a better, and more formal photo for Gov. Palin. The photo on the State of Alaska's page seems more appropriate. This picture is available in higher resolution on various sites like here. Thoughts? - WilsonjrWikipedia (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What's the license on the official photo? - Jredmond (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The license is critical - while U.S. federal government photos are in the public domain, that isn't true of most (all?) state governments, which normally use a standard copyright. For example, this page of an agency of the Alaska government says "the unauthorized copying and posting of material contained within a department publication or web page to a non-[departmental] hard publication, web page or other electronic publication constitutes copyright infringement". So I'd guess that Palin's official photo is not note: added the prior word - my error in the initial posting - JB in the public domain at all. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What he said. The current photo, on the other hand, is GFDL, which means that it can be reused right alongside the article text. - Jredmond (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

John Broughton, would you please clarify? This sentence of yours does not seem to be gramatically correct: "So I'd guess that Palin's official photo is in the public domain at all." Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Typing way too fast (and not carefully reading) - my error. I've fixed it; thanks for checking with me. Not in the public domain. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Undue Weight Given to Kuwait Visit

Right, so in this article there are 4 pictures of Palin visiting soldiers in Kuwait, and in Political positions of Sarah Palin there are another 3. If I came to these two articles and didn't bother to read all the captions, I would get the impression that Palin has bags of foreign policy/military experience, when in fact all the pictures seem to just come from two trips (there are also a couple of photos from Germany) - rst20xx (talk) 13:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest taking all the photos of the visit to Kuwait and putting them in a gallery format. --Crunch (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I was the person who located and uploaded most of the photos we have of her - the reason there are so many of the Kuwait trip is that the military images are among the only photos of her in the public domain. (I also uploaded a ton of photos from Barack Obama's visit to the troops overseas.) I don't think including the images says anything about her foreign policy experience, but just a matter of style I think the article is too cluttered with photos right now. Kelly ^hi! 13:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do think it implies something, on some level, however would also agree that there were simply too many photos to start with. I see now though that many of the Kuwait pictures in Sarah Palin have been taken out, thus somewhat alleviating the problem - rst20xx (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

6 Photos of Kuwait visit is redundant. Please remove 5 of the photos. J23 08/30/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by J23 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree that there are too many photos, some of which are not germane or helpful to the article. Arjuna (talk) 23:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The idea of creating a gallery of photos makes perfect sense. I think we should do that. Sleeping frog (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Photos of Troops? It's too Much

Why are there so many photos of her visiting the troops? Casually scanning through the article gives you the impression that she's some kind of military leader.

User:NerdyNSK added lots of photos here ... but also to the Joe Biden article, of him speaking at various conferences, appearing with Obama, etc. I've started reducing them there, since there is too much replication from the same era. Same problem here. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this.....there are a lot of them for sure. I'll take a few out. RxS (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I took 3 out, they were pretty irrelevant to the sections they were in, not to mention there were too many. I left the ones that seemed to have some connection to the section they appeared in. RxS (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Has she spent her entire term as Gov in Kuwait? Or was that the only place she was photographed? --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's just those are among the few photos I could locate with a free license. I'm sure there will be more as she begins to make campaign appearances. Kelly ^hi! 15:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia always has strange place-of-image distributions, due to our highly restrictive rules. I read somewhere (would have to be checked) that the Kuwait-Germany trip was her first time going out of the country that required a passport, so giving the impression that she's a world traveller is misleading. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If true, that might make an interesting fact for here - rst20xx (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Photos, disproportionate weight

OK, why are nearly ALL the photos of her in the military context? I'm going to start swapping them out for others--we don't need nearly all of them showing her in Kuwait and the Middle East, plus it's a bit of disproportionate WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV, since he is distinctly NOT known for having any real foreign policy standing nor experience. rootology (C)(T) 16:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I certainly concur, they're making her seem like some kind of an expert on foreign relations. Her short visit to kuwait was in fact the first time she had been outside the United States, and didn't even own a passport until then!

Yes, I agree. Not intentional though, since the military ones are always PD and so easy to use. Meanwhile, User:calliopejen1 has found this picture; Image:Palin with kitty.jpg. --I am not Paranoid (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That picture is manipulated and irrelevant. I think it has no place in wikipedia and should be removed. Elwinda (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

A persistent Wikipedia issue with regard to images is that the US government and US military claim no copyright, i.e., all their material is in the public domain. This is why the only picture we may have of a foreign leader is on a visit to Washington. It's a problematic inherent bias and we need to monitor individual cases to make sure they don't slant the POV of an article. --Dhartung | Talk 19:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

An editor continually re-inserts her photo visiting an "injured" officer. I would incline to allow this but there is NO TEXT TO SUPPORT THE PHOTO. Photos are meant to further illustrate the text and simply mindlessly placing it in the Governorship section with no paragraph to reference it is not appropriate. FOr now the Don Young photo is important because it tells the viewer who this Representative is, since she is trying to oust him. .:davumaya:. 19:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Why all the military photos?

3 of 5 photos in the article show Palin in millitary settings. It appears that the person(s) editing in these photos are attempting to paint a picture of Palin as having millitary experience. People searching for Sarah Palin on Google will get this article as the first hit. A lot of visitors will not be interested in reading this very very long article, and will just read the lead and skim through the photos and photo text. The significance and impact of pictures are very important and makes the article look slanted. If the millitary background of Palin is not of high importance for her biography article, the emphasis of millitary elements in the photos should be reduced or replaced. Elwinda (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Cazort (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well we've been talking about changing or removing her military photos, but I currently don't have the credentials to since the page is semi-protected. Why don't you do it?

I don't mind if they're replaced with photos of similar technical quality. Kelly ^hi! 16:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is more important than pure technical quality. rootology (C)(T) 16:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The military photos are public domain; that's why they are used.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 16:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, we've got lots of free photos of her, and I've removed all the military ones for our others due to NPOV, which is more important than having a shiny pretty bauble of an article. rootology (C)(T) 16:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no rule saying each article must have at least 6 photos, and in an article this long the photos are very significant in conveying essential information. The Sarah Palin article (like others) is of course a very attractive item for use as a presidential campaign tool, but that is not what wikipedia is for. If only what appears as slanted photos exist remove them to restore a balance and neutrality. I am not saying that any one single photo is wrong, but that the overall appearance looks biased. Someone please look into this. Thanks. Elwinda (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I already did. Look again. rootology (C)(T) 16:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I replaced a couple of the military photos - some of the images being used were of poor resolution/quality. Exactly how does a photo of her in a military setting violate NPOV? It's silly. We should strive for high quality. Kelly ^hi! 16:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

She's got dead zero (per sourcing) military history, credentials, foreign policy skills/training/history/experience, nothing. To present her in a light like it was before I cleaned it up violates NPOV, WEIGHT, and other concerns, which trump image policies always. We can't present her in the light of being some military/foreign policy person like Joe Biden or John McCain--she's a village mayor and first term governor, so the photos should reflect that to comply with NPOV. rootology (C)(T) 16:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama contains two military photos. And I don't see that the case being made of a photo of her standing in a chow hall makes the claim that she's a foreign policy expert - it's just a photo. The technical quality of some of the images we are using is horrendous. Kelly ^hi! 16:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That is solely why you removed the military photos; you are an Obama bin Biden supporter. Haven't you heard of NPOV? A couple of those need to go back in.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 16:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think relevance should be the major concern when posting a picture. High resolution ant artistic quality is not essential. Wikipedia is not a press center. Elwinda (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The millitary photos just keeps pouring in it seems. This time a wounded German soldier. Germany is not even mentioned in the long biography, so why is this picure important?! Do not post photos unless they compliment information mentioned in the article. Even if you happen to have 3000 pictures of Sarah Palin with millitary personell readily available. I repeat that images have extremely in an article this long and thus should be selected to hightlight what is important in the biography. If the wounded German soldier is important the article should explain why! Elwinda (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless the Kuwait trip was somehow the most significant event of her life, there's no reason to include more than one photo from it. If there aren't other photos available, then let's just have fewer photos. —KCinDC (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

My concern is simply the technical quality of the images. If we have good, high-resolution photos with a free license, why use crappy photos? I don't understand how a photo carries a POV, could someone explain this? If photos of GIs are so objectionable, just crop the military people out. Kelly ^hi! 17:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting using crappy photos. There's no requirement that every paragraph have a photo even if it's irrelevant or redundant. Just delete them. How does having yet another photo of the same trip add to the article? —KCinDC (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Technical quality should not be the main reason for choosing a picture. Relevance to the main points in the biography should be the most important. We have several pictures already. If these extra pictures do not add significant explanatory value whey simply are not needed. The second point is how people read an article, which is by first reading the lead, then skimming the pictures and picture text, and then a lot of people stop there. Therefore the colletion of pictures should reflect the article and not be biased towards aspects that may seem to be slanted. This is even more important in a hight profile article as this. Elwinda (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The wikipedia user named "Kelly" seems to insist on posting millitary pictures because of their "superior technical quality". That user even removed a relevant picture of Palin with Alaska congressman Don Young (mentioned in the section), and replaced it with a picture of a wonded soldier in Germany (that had no relation to the text in the section). Please someone correct this misconduct. Elwinda (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It may be proper that we bring a formal complaint and request sanctions against this user. They are continuing to edit out other photos in favor of sensational photos of Palin with every member of the military. As well this particular user has added nothing of value to the page in terms of text. I believe its a very sinister SPA at work here. .:davumaya:. 19:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

<-- Yes, it's wonderful that all of the high-quality photos we had of this person have now been scrubbed out in favor of ugly, low-resolution photos. Kelly ^hi! 20:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Every news network has used many military related pictures of her, there is no reason we should avoiding using them. Sarah Palin is also commander in chief of Alaska’s National Guard. Please don't remove useful pictures. Pissed off starfish (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin's trip to Kuwait and Germany is now being mentioned in the "Persona Life and Family" section. The Kuwait photo should be moved to that section instead of being in the "Energy and environment" section. Elwinda (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Cute Kitten

File:Palin with kitty.jpg

like this?

We've got pictures of Palin with wounded soldiers, and in Kuwait in a cute t-shirt. I was wondering, can we get a picture of Sarah holding a kitten? --I am not Paranoid (talk) 05:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

How about a fish? Gwen Gale (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Your comment is sexist. She is cute, so her picks are cute. you must be ugly. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 05:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if I get through the day without crackin' a mirror, I'm happy. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not ugly, and I'm certainly not using Satire to ridicule the media for focusing on her good looks. I'd just like the article to have a picture of Sarah snuggling up with a rilly cute kitten. --I am not Paranoid (talk) 05:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! .:davumaya:. 05:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Fye, can't find any. My day is chaveled. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Shopped... >u<

Well, would little Sarah Heath as a toddler snapped up in her jumper on her dad's shrimp boat or somewhere with two live, shiny, mud-colored, antenna'ed(?/sp) jumbo shrimp, one in each of her paws do? (See here, but scroll down a bit.)  $\sim$ Just meow (  ) 06:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Should we use this photo as part of her gun-paragraph? Maybe we can even crop it tight on her and caption it out of context :) .:davumaya:. 10:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC) ---- If only her shirt was red, white and blue and with a giant Eagle - it would be purrrfect. --I am not Paranoid (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, we don't have any kittens, but guns are a close second, I guess. --I am not Paranoid (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Does it have to be a live kitten? 207.237.198.152 (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Do we actually have any good photos of her doing sporting? Would fit the article. rootology (C)(T) 06:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't seem to be any on flickr. Calliopejen1 (talk) 09:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Palin with kitty.jpg should definitely be the lead photo. Awwww. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That photo of Palin with the kitten looks fabricated. Not good enough to easily fool.Mdoc7 (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

All kidding aside, I actually think having a picture of her shooting would be a good idea, she is a hunter/fisher and it would show off her personality. We should use that picture. Pissed off starfish (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This photo illustrates her hunting/NRA/millitary background better than the photo of her drinking Coca Cola in an army camp in Kuwait. It is also high resolution (which wikipedia user Kelly insists on). Elwinda (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia user "Kelly" keeps adding random millitary pictures

The wikipedia user "Kelly" is very persistently insists insering photos of Palin in millitary settings throughout this article. He replaces relevant prictures with seemingly irrelevant pictures displaying Palin in millitary settings. At one time 3 of 5 photos in the article was millitary pictures inserted by Kelly. In section "Governorship" he removed the picture of Palin and Alaska congressman Don Young and replaced it with Palin and a wounded soldier in Germany. And now he replaced another picture in section "Energy and environment" with Palin in Kuwait. This was just a few examples. The photos he insert seem to have little or no relevance to the text, and if they are removed Kelly just keeps inserting new millitary pictures. It seems that he does not care what picture is put in which section. His argument is that the photos he insert are of a highly superior resolution and quality. He does not seem to care if they are relevant for the text or not, and the picture text he inserts seem to have no connection to any of the text in the entire long article (search for Germany or Kuwait for instance). From the Kelly users site it seems he is related to the US Army. My impression is that this user is biased in his contribution to such a degree that is harms this article more than it helps. What can be done? Elwinda (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Just one is fine, like it is now. And it's a decent photo. rootology (C)(T) 22:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The article says not a word about Kuwait (or The Middle East). What does the Kuwait army camp picture have to do with the "Energy and encironment" section in which it is located? There was also an adequate photo there before Kelly inserted the "Palin with Coca Cola" photo. Wikipedia has no requirement of 3200x2400 pixel photos or rule saying that the higher the resulution the more relevant the photo is. My main point is that user Kelly removes a relevant photo and replaces it with his own irrelevant photo. This does not make the article better and should be discouraged. If the relevance of Kuwait with "Energy and environment" is clarified in the section text I will be satisfied, otherwise I suggest removing Kuwait army base picture and restoring the trade show picture that was there before. Elwinda (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What did the crappy out-fo-focus trade show picture have to do with "energy and environment"? Kelly ^hi! 22:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing that I know of. But what is the point in replacing one irrelevant photo with another even more irrelevant photo? The right thing would be to move it to the relevat section or remove it. And your artificial criteria of photographic excellence is not warranted. Just because your millitar photos are perfectly focused 3200x2400 SLR photos it does not give you a manate to replace any other photo at your own discretion. E.g. the Don Young photo you switched with a wounded soldier in Germany. Please stop. Elwinda (talk)

There's nothing wrong with military photos, she has said herself that she's an avid hunter, and she is the commander in chief of the Alaskan national guard. A few military photos is fine. Sleeping frog (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

But what does the Alaskan national guard and hunting have to do with wounded soldiers in Germany or army camps in Kuwait? Elwinda (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that we don't have to erase everything military related. I think we can still have a balanced choice of photos even if one or two are military related. Sleeping frog (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I do see your point though, we want both relevent photos and a variety of photos, it can be hard to strike the right balance sometimes. Sleeping frog (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The right balance is no military pics, several threads here agree. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't think so. Barack Obama has two military photos - I think this is fine. A photo makes no statement about foreign affairs experience. Kelly ^hi! 23:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that last comment from user Kelly explains his point of view all too well. My point is that Wikipedia is not a place for political campaigning. What pictures the Barack Obama biography or Joe Biden biography or Mitt Romney biography has is irrelevant. This is the Sarah Palin article. If your reasoning is that biography X has N photos with theme T therefore biography Y must have equally many with theme T you should refrain from editing directly and instead post your suggestions on the discussion page first. Elwinda (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please take your bad faith assumptions and place them where they belong. My point all along has been that I went to some work to research good-quality images for the article, and it's a shame to let them go to waste. You know nothing about me or my politics, so please stop making stupid assumptions. Kelly ^hi! 23:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Until more free pictures of her become available, I don't see the problem in using the ones we have. And let's try to keep this polite and assume good faith. Coemgenus 00:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with using all the Kuwait or Germany photos, but then the text in the section they are being used should reflect them. Photos are there to highlight information, and are not there just to spice up the visual appearance of the article. Take any other picture - each one is relevant to the section in question. Elwinda (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement about the $1200

"and in its place she proposed to send Alaskans $1,200 directly"

Again, this statement is inaccurate. Only Alaskans that applied and qualified for the 2008 Permanent Fund Dividend check will receive the $1200 and it will be included in the PFD check amount, not sent directly. This information is publicly available, so the editors of this article need to stop being lazy and look it up from reliable sources, rather than misinformed sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.74.113.13 (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The only qualifications I see is that one must be a resident for at least 180 days and fill out the necessary paper work. Is that correct? How would you suggest rewording it? --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That is not correct, the 180 days was a part of the original proposal, but in the final legislation, the legislature approved it only for PFD recipients. One qualification for the PFD is that you are a resident for a certain period of time, but that is not the only necessary qualification. Therefore, there is a small percentage of people that can be considered Alaskan residents or non-resident Alaskans, that have not qualified to receive the PFD or the $1200 additional amount.

I have a separate concern about this issue, that to be honest, first came to my attention during her VP rally speech. While the information is factually correct, it is very misleading in that it seems to imply a philosophy that is not entirely reflective of all the details. As stated above this was directly tied to the 1976 development of the Alaska Permanent Fund which mandates such rebates - inspired, in part, by the 1971 Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act, which my family benefits from. It is hardly as if it was an original idea and the only real decision for Palin was how to distribute the excess funds that came in that year. I am not sure how, or even if it should be addressed in the article, but I feel I am unable to be unbiased on the topic and merely add this information to be used, if at all, as others see fit. Thanks OneHappyHusky (talk) 02:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Second major female VP candidate? discussion (consolidated

First Major Female VP Candidate

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

The article says, "making her the second female vice presidential candidate representing a major political party...." The implied reference is to the Libertarian and Democratic parties. Saying the Libertarian Party is a "major" party is hardly defensible by any objective measure. If it is major, then so is the Communist Party USA and it had a female Vice Presidential candidate (Angela Davis in 1980 and 1984), as no doubt have many other minor parties in 200-plus years of US history. Semaj3 (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Libertarians not implied. Geraldine Ferraro (Dem) first, Palin (Rep) second. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree respectfully. Millions in fundraising and succesful aquisition of electoral votes makes it a major party, no? If a party has never recieved electoral votes I'd agree with you. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Is Libertarian not a major political party?

I made an edit noting that the first woman to be run as VP and win electoral votes was the Libertarian VP candidate. The second was the democratic candidate and here we have the third woman in a major political party to run for vp. Why then did it get reverted to say that this is only the second woman to run when this is clearly not the case? Thanks! --98.243.129.181 (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No, a party that gets 1% of the vote is not major. Having a faithless elector vote for someone doesn't convert a minor party into a major party. —KCinDC (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, can I get some citation with that? --98.243.129.181 (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Check out the major party article. If the Libertarian Party in 1972, which got fewer than 3,000 votes across the whole country, counts as a major party, then what would a minor party be? How about a citation from you that describes the Libertarians as a major party? This is just common sense. If the party were getting 10% or even 5% of the vote, then maybe there'd be some argument, but it's not even getting 1%. There's no reason to mention it in this article. —KCinDC (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What I did in the article was let electoral votes be the guide (as explained in the footnote). For which she will presumably be the third. Maybe it would be notable that she is like the 32nd (or something) woman to run for vice president in all of American History. It makes sense as it is, I was just trying to put it into a more clear perspective that it's not a new concept and niether reps nor dems were the first. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You make an odd sort of sense. Heck, even The Green Party beat The Republicans on this one! 71.233.230.223 (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Wolf discussion (consolidated)

Alaska's aerial wolf hunting program

Alaska voters, led by Governor Sarah Palin, defeated a ballot initiative Aug. 26, 2008 that would have ended the state’s brutal wolf aerial hunting program. Governor Palin signed off on a $400,000 state-funded propaganda campaign to justify the state’s wolf slaughter from the skies. She worked hard to maintain Alaska's aerial wolf hunting program. Gov. Palin supports the use of aerial killing of overgrown populations of wolves in specific areas of Alaska that threaten other species, specifically the caribou and moose, needed for subsistence hunting by the natives.

Hoping to boost the number of wolves killed this year by permitees, Gov. Palin announced the state would pay $150 for each kill. According to an Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) news release, the bounty was instituted to "motivate permittees to redouble their efforts and to help offset the high cost of aviation fuel, ADF&G will offer cash payments to those who return biological specimens to the department." The state's press release, issued last Wednesday, indicates that "Permittees will be paid $150 when they bring in the left forelegs of wolves taken from any of several designated control areas." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg.cumber (talk • contribs) 19:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds pretty cool - aerial wolf hunting might make a good spectator sport. Kelly ^hi! 19:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This is really not that relevant to Palin, as I have described earlier. These policies have existed for some time and are mostly determined by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. I'm not sure how Alaska voters were "led" by governor Palin to defeat the ballot initiative. Has Palin's stance on aerial wolf hunting ever been mentioned in a general profile about Palin (rather than an article on wolf hunting specifically)? I can't find any. This really is not that important to her governorship. I think it's fine if it goes in a subarticle, but it is undue weight to include it here other than a brief mention. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I heard Palin eats wolf burgers. Any sources on this? --98.243.129.181 (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Animal Issues?

082908

Why is there nothing listed about Palin's basic massacre of indigenous wildlife in Alaska? To the point of putting bounties on the heads of wolves?

Please provide your suggested material with a source to back it up. --Elliskev 01:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: Blogs and activist websites are generally not suitable citations for biographies of living persons. See Wikipedia:Verifiability Veriss (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin in support of aerial gunning of wolves?

[5]

From the page linked above:

"If Governor Palin steps in to authorize it, she will be using her powers to benefit just a few Alaskans against the will of the majority of Alaskans," said Dorothy Keeler who is against the helo wolf hunt."

"It's a slaughter. It can't be justified by science. It can't be justified by ethics. In fact, the department's own research said it's not the cause of the moose decline and it will do nothing to help, unless it is continued forever and forever, is a long time," said Keeler."

To read the history of the issue go here: [6]

I would like to see reference made of these issues in the article, especially since it raises the question as to whether Mrs. Palin may in fact be contributing to the problem of undermining scientific integrity:

"On May 11, 2007, in the final days of the legislative session, Governor Palin submitted identical bills, House Bill 256 and Senate Bill 176, to the legislature. These bills, renaming “Intensive Management” as “Active Management,” attempt to avoid successful litigation by Defenders by weakening the scientific standards to be used by the Board of Game’s in approving control programs. The bills would end the requirement that the Board must determine that “predation is an important cause” for a depressed prey population. Instead, the Board would merely need to conclude that same-day airborne or aerial shooting is “conducive” to meeting a population or harvest objective." --AmandaEP (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with including it if there is a consensus that it's important, I think it needs a link with more substance, to be written more neutrally (i.e. without the word "brutal", that's an opinion) and a more neutral source than "Defenders of Wildlife" though.GatorOne (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

IMO blogs and activist web sites are not reliable sources for a biography of a living person. Veriss (talk) 01:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - needs reliable, neutral sources for claims like that. Kelly ^hi! 01:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Current version looks good to me, except the article being cited says there's a loophole in the ban for Alaska. It's not violating the ban in that case.GatorOne (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is really relevant here. Maybe on the Political positions of Sarah Palin page. It has not be a major issue during her term as governor, and aerial hunting of predators was just endorsed in the most recent Alaska election on Tuesday. Her role in this debate appears to be exaggerated by these activist pages. How much of this is her doing, and how much is the legislature's or the ADFG's? This policy was in place long before Palin came to office. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If people think it should be moved/removed I'm not opposed, I was just fixing the facts in the posted version GatorOne (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved to issues page as per discussion above --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

One wonders how many biologists go hunting wolves with helicopters anyways. Seems like a nonissue to me. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 03:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wolves are dangerous to people. She was making Alaska safer. She also hunts large bears picture which I think is awesome ! What a woman, my new hero. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 05:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the idea is to increase the number of prey animals such as moose and caribou, which are important for subsistence hunting in Alaska. Safety really doesn't have anything to do with it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Right now, it reads as if the program's sole purpose is to have hunters use helicopters to shoot Alaskan wolves for the hell of it. As controversial as the program is, I think some mention that it is an attempt to control the wolf population is necessary. --Andonee (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to take a long swill of strong coffee, not koolaid, and offer some constructive edits. 06:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veriss1 (talk • contribs)

The biggest problem is how addictive this can be. I here some wolf hunters are up to two packs a day.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 06:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If many of you would take a closer examination of my stance on this, it's not about the environmental aspect alone. It is the fact that the game herds' population declines have nothing to do with wolves, but this is the excuse used to cull the predators. Palin has presented two Bills in tandem seeking to bypass the scientific consensus in order to fulfill a private sector agenda. This is undermining scientific integrity. That, over and above the inhumane wolf gunning (I'd rather see normal fire arm hunters and bow hunters than this, what an unnecessary waste of taxpayer dollars), is the issue of ultimate import here, as well as, some might argue, the more important issue of her ignoring the will of her constituents as well as the judiciary of her state. --AmandaEP (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm still looking for an article that covers the fact that both judges AND voters did not support the ballot (they did in fact support measures aiming to STOP aerial gunning). And for those of you that still think about Little Red Riding Hood as the poster child of wolf behavior, try a brief study of biologists that have lived with wolf packs, so you can get a dose of reality, I implore you.

More "neutral" sources, as per request:

[7] [8] [9]

"March 23, 2004 in print edition F-3

Despite two popular votes to prohibit the practice, Alaskan hunters using airplanes have tracked and killed more than 100 wolves to increase moose and caribou herds.": [10]

"Voters in 1996 and in 2000 approved ballot initiatives banning aircraft-assisted wolf hunting, Joslin pointed out.": [11] --AmandaEP (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The unintentional irony of Veriss1's comments notwithstanding, I'm happy to see that there's more context to this on the current version of the page. --Andonee (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought the edits I offered were very constructive, and that I addressed the matter very professionally by posting here for debate before editing the main article myself, especially now that the "neutrality" of the sources I propose are not questionable. I do not drink coffee or koolaid, and I'm pushing thirty, so the "irony" matter is entirely lost on me...unless I'm not the one being referenced there, and if that's the case, then good. Maybe I should log in so I can sign with my user account instead of anonymously. --72.185.241.40 --AmandaEP (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Are the "biologists who lived with wolf packs" kind of like that guy who lived with the bears until they got hungry and ate him? Kelly ^hi! 20:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Animal rights seems off

I think the section of Animal Rights Controversies seems a little biased; not neutral at all. it seems like it was done in hurry as well, having too many formatting errors and layout is not too well

most importantly, here are no citations to back up what it is claiming. Without such, it looks more like someone's opinion.

And it also got removed right away, thankfully, considering it wasn't objective in the slightest. - Cair

Wolves bit

I see the wolves bit has been reintroduced, and expanded, despite discussion to move it to political positions yesterday. This relatively minor event seems to be given undue weight in the current form. I think it either needs shortened or removed. Other opinions? --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It has a bit of flair that it doesn't need to. Let's see if we can just shorten it. .:davumaya:. 16:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Her role is minor - she only appears to have approved a measure that the legislature/Alaskan people wanted. It's not like she personally hired a helicopter and started machine-gunning wolves from the air personally. Kelly ^hi! 18:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? I thought I saw a picture of her with a machine gun somewhere. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be so cool, if she hunted wolves from helicopters herself, but that picture of her with the gun is from her visiting the national guard in Kuwait. Rds865 (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Outrage over censorship on Wikipedia

Miss Palin's page has been sanitized over night and that is an outrage. Important, relevant information about her stances on abortion, gay marriage and such has been removed, and that is clearly POV. Wikipedia is supposedly an encyclopedia, can't we at least pretend the part? Instead of succombing to the republican noise machine? 71.114.19.245 (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Be more specific. Provide links.--William Saturn (talk) 04:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

For example In 2007, Palin agreed with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to allow Alaska state biologists to hunt wolves from helicopters as part of a "predator control" program which was allowed under a provision in a 35 year-old federal ban on the practice granting 700 permits to the state of Alaska. HUNT WOLVES FROM HOLICOPTERS!!! I believe that most people will find this stance unusual and is therefore fit to be mentioned in the article. The sick woman wants to shoot, maime, and destroy animals from helicopters!

Added with sourcing here. rootology (C)(T) 05:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

So do 55% of Alaskans, as of the last election.[12] The idea is that we should be increasing the population of moose and caribou for people who eat them to survive. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

the last comment is clearly partisan in nature =( Veriss (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Good thing they're not hunting cute little kittens from helicopters (ZING!). Okay, seriously, I understand that people get riled up over this issue but in context of the national picture, its not very unusual that politicians from Mayors to Governors are necessitated to approve such actions. In Minnesota, we have approved sharpshooters to limit deer populations due to disease on both city and state levels, but it doesn't mean Governor Pawlenty is a sick man, it's unfortunately part of wildlife management (in reference to Calliope). As well, anonymous IP, you are proposing a synthesis that just doesn't work. .:davumaya:. 11:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

These things weren't 'censored' - rather they were moved to the political positions page, as per community discussion.--ThaddeusB (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Approval ratings

The approval ratings paragraphs need some work:

Palin frequently had an approval rating above 90% in 2007.[25] A poll published by Hays Research on July 28, 2008 showed Palin's approval rating at 80%,[26] while another Ivan Moore poll showed it at 76%, a drop which the pollsters attributed to the controversial firing of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan.[27]

A subsequent Rasmussen Reports poll from July 31, 2008 showed 35% of Alaskans rated her performance as excellent, 29% good, 22% fair, and 14% poor.[28]

I'm not sure what criteria are being used for choosing which polls to cite. In any case, the first sentence isn't supported by its ref. And it's not valid to compare the ratings between polls conducted by different pollsters asking different questions, especially with "very favorable / somewhat favorable / somewhat unfavorable / very unfavorable" versus "excellent / good / fair / poor". —KCinDC (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Reporter approval rating

The current article reads "According to Gregg Erickson of the Alaska Daily News, Palin's approval rating among reporters and legislators would be 'in the teens or twenties'." The guy making this estimate is clearly not a fan and it seems POV to include someone's opinion of a possible (and very narrow) approval rating, and in any case rather irrelevant. I think it should be removed. Other opinions? --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so. Some other sentences about approval ratings should probably be removed too. There are too many, and comparing results from completely different polls by different pollsters to say they went up or down isn't valid. —KCinDC (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Young Trigg discussion (consolidated)

campaign or family edits ???

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

The edits are rather positive in tone, as well.

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

Isn't Trigg the name of one of her sons? The edits certainly seem politically motivated. I noticed that her quote mentioning that she has gay friends has been removed just before the big announcement.Kevin mckague (talk)

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

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

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

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

How about running or requesting a wikipedia:checkuser on user:youngtrigg. The edit history seems to indicate some proficiency with wikipedia. The information edited gives a POV spin or slant that is partisan. There are many questions raised here. Given we are talking about edits to our information about someone who might end up VP or President I don't think it would be unreasonable to know the facts of the matter. Rktect (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It would appear that the edits are also consistent with general scrubbing of other sites that mention Palin's previous relationship with indicted Sen. Stevens. In view of this, it appears the edits are entirely partisan in nature, an intended to harm truth to favor the GOP. Could a Wikipedia Editor restore this article to its original tone and content 48 hours prior to the announcement, leaving the relevant factual evidence of her nomination intact? Erichd (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Per NPR the page was locked because of campaign/family edits. Were the suspiciously favorable edits left in or removed, or ??? Girlgeek z (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, learn the nomenclature of Wikipedia. The page was semi-protected due to a large number of non-productive edits by IP or newly registered accounts. Not due to "family" or "campaign" edits, despite the suggestion of foul play by NPR. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Inside VP Knowledge

I do not understand Elliskev's comment. I can put a link to the actual history page where lobbynoise identified McCain's running mate before McCain announced it. I feel it is important that this information made it out in Wikipedia, because it seems that no media outlet was able to uncover it. --Bertrc (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Original research aside, we have no way of knowing whether lobbynoise had special knowledge or was just trying to prank people. cf. Chris Benoit; cf. also the pranksters who sent false VP reports to the press ahead of Obama's announcement of Joe Biden. - Jredmond (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It is original research and unverifiable claims. It does not belong. Happyme22 (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wasted Time R's Tim Pawlenty links convinced me that many wikipedians had been posting guesses of the VP nomination as fact, but (for future reference) how was my addition original research? I was referencing something that is clearly documented in the Wikipedia History pages: posting . . . Or were you complaining that Lobbynoise had posted was original research? --Bertrc (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Besides which, I read the time/date incorrectly. It wasn't Lobbynoise that spilled the beans Thursday night. It was from an IP address. --Bertrc (talk) 03:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors had even more inside knowledge about McCain picking Tim Pawlenty for veep: this edit and this edit and this edit and this edit and this edit and this edit and this edit and so on. And also this edit told us that McCain had picked Mitt Romney for veep. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The Mitt Romney link doesn't quite equate, (it states that rumors had been floating around, not that Mitt had been chosen) but the Tim Pawlenty links make your case. --Bertrc (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for future reference, a note on my talk might have helped. I just kind of stumbled across this. Anyway, I can't add anything to what's in the answers above. --Elliskev 00:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Can ask a really stupid question? Is anybody really surprised that the article was edited? I would be probably be more surprised if it was not modified. If anybody is truly interested in what the article said 2 days before the announcement they always have the option to look at the history of the article. Do not think for one second that Obama's team is not constantly watching the Obama pages for changes, good or bad. Think about it this way. When you apply for a job, don't you read over your resume before sending to your potential boss? The American people are the President's boss. Any wikipedia article is part of their resume. 01:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.135.108 (talk)

Busted

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/29/AR2008082902691.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

This is just dumb. Here name was already ~ #2-3 most speculated about by last night. This speculation is likely what led to the edits, not McCain/Palin aides updating in advance of the announcement.--ThaddeusB (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

They don't know what they're talking about, at least relative to the McCain page. The spike at 5 pm yesterday was due to me and Ferrylodge going around on the Naval Academy record and Ferrylodge and someone else going around on which way an image should point, neither of which had anything to do with veep. The only veep edit was this one accouncing that Hillary was the pick. I did do a bunch of editing to the Biden article a few days before he was named, on a guess that it would be him, no inside knowledge whatsoever. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history from the day before she was announced, a massive overhaul was done on the article in the morning and afternoon, by one account, Young Trigg, which was apparently created just to edit this article. I think it's pretty clear that this was done by Palin's or McCain's staff -- if it was a Wikipedian who just wanted to improve the article, why would they create a sock puppet for it? I don't think there's actually anything wrong with this, since the edits appear to be of an acceptable standard of quality, but far from being dumb, it's fairly clear that this is what happened. Politicians do know about Wikipedia. 201.236.144.99 (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Miss Marple. --Elliskev 01:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, what about me? Don't I get any credit for the massive overhaul?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, of course you do. 201.236.144.99 (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, just for the record, I had no idea Palin would be the pick. I assumed that the recent controversy over the firing of Walt Monegan would make her radioactive, either fairly or unfairly. That's why I started overhauling and expanding that section of this article a couple days ago, before Young_Trigg ever showed up. I wanted to figure out if this was a real scandal, or just an insignificant tempest, that was shaping the course of history. Then Young-Trigg showed up just as I was getting ready to hit the sack. Bleary-eyed, I worked with Young-Trigg to substantially upgrade several sections of the article. I have no connection to any political campaign. I did donate to McCain, and will very probably vote for him, but I never met him (saw him in person once in Connecticut but didn't shake hands or get autograph). His staff has never contacted me, nor has Palin's nor the RNC, except to the extent that they contact everyone who they think they can squueze for money. I hope that addresses the matter. I'm just a hopeless Wikipedia addict and political junkie, and none too proud of it. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you get no attention for being a normal editor. :( I'm just piqued because of how much expertise Young Trigg had on a new account. --\/\/slack (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

NPR reports on the gush of flattering edits by User:Young_Trigg

Trigg is a variant spelling of the name of her four month old son. National Public Radio report (link to audio). Hurmata (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This should be listed under controversies, once the controversies section is restored and the offending editors are dealt with. Get on it, Wikipedia, this is a developing story, and people are turning to the site for an encyclopedic bio, not a public relations piece. 72.244.207.149 (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't do "controversies" sections. I saw a lot of Young Trigg's edits gogin up, and they looked ok to me, and sourced to boot. Coemgenus 17:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

NPR story

There is an NPR story (Flash audio, about 5 minutes) about possible COI edits to this Wikipedia article.[13]

Yes. We are definitely in NPOV region. Witness User: Young Trigg, a single-purpose user, whose only contributions have been to make this article more favourable to the subject. Seriously, keep your politics out of my encyclopedia, thanks. EvilStorm (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Scrubbing of Sarah Palin's Wikipedia Entry

Well, let's be honest. It's no mystery. There's almost no doubt that either the McCain campaign or somebody close to Palin is responsible for the unethical whitewashing of history just hours before her candidacy was revealed.

This is of course a major no-no for Wikipedia. And their source is unimpeachable: a pro-Palin Wikipedia editor.

See http://www.jedreport.com/2008/08/the-mysterious-scrubbing-of-sa.html

NPR also ran a story on the topic in their All things Considered segment on friday the 29th. [14]. I believe that there has been sufficient media coverage and controversy related to the topic that it warrants a mention on the article.O76923 (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree it warrants mention and also justifies close monitoring of the entry to ensure further manipulation doesn't take place. Benzocane (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I second Benzocane's opinion. Cyrusc (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I third. Movingboxes (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, there was a scrub effort but not by McCain or Palin campaign officials directly as far as I know. It was organized by one or more commenters early Friday morning to the Draft Sarah Palin for Vice President blog. EvWill (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, true or not, it *is* a news item. NPR and others are reporting it, so it deserves a mention in the article. Something like "On August 30th, 2008, NPR and other news sources reported that thirty mostly favorable changes were made to Palin's Wikipedia biography, one day before her official nomination." This doesn't say that Palin or her supporters made the changes, but does (accurately) state that the changes were mentioned in the news. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 21:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ugh... I love how it now says that "either her or her supporters" scrubbed the entry. Seems that she might have been too busy to do so herself :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.104.140 (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Consolidate the "omg conspiracy" posts?

Anyone mind if I start consolidating the posts related to the NPR or Blogosphere suggesting bias in our coverage of Sarah? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I beat you too it! not quite finished though. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Brilliant minds think alike. :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I was considering archiving, but all this 270kb is since yesterday! This talk page is insane. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Mention in article

The article currently read "On August 30th, 2008, NPR and other news sources[76] reported that thirty mostly favorable changes were made to Palin's Wikipedia biography, one day before her official nomination, leading to suggestions that either her or her supporters had 'scrubbed' her entry." The statement is neutral enough, but is it really relevant? Is this sort of speculation featured in any other article? Also, is anyone disputing that the changes made were relevant and NPOV? --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Also it is currently sourced to dailyKOS, which is clearly not a reliable source. If the comment is to stay, it must at least be properly sourced. I'll resource it to NPR now, but the relevance question remains.--ThaddeusB (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe this should be mentioned in the article. Of all the things that could and should be said about Sarah Palin, wiki editing? This is a minor to-do with brief media coverage, nothing more. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Exxon VALDEZ

Any news on her reaction to the recent Supreme Court decision lowering the damage awards to fishermen from the Exxon VALDEZ oil spill?

Vasa2 (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

She got mad and ate a wolf. Who cares! This is a living bio not a tabloid. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It basically goes to the heart of numerous political issues facing Alaska and the rest of the country. Energy, environment, political power, justice, Supreme Court direction ... That's not tabloid stuff, it's trying to evaluate the fitness for high office of a potentially serious political candidate. Vasa2 (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It is newsworthy and political... this is highly relevant, hardly tabloid/scandalous stuff. Ex0pos (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Note for Flip Wilson

Flipping images is not kosher.[15] We had a similar issue at the John McCain article. See here.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

So, someone told you on some other page not to do it and now it can never happen anywhere else ever again? You'll need to do better than that, Ferrylodge. --I am not Paranoid (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on it. Give me a few minutes. The point is, we're making the right side of her face look like the left side, and vice versa. That's not accurate.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ya, I see what you mean, the huge mole moved to her left side ;) --I am not Paranoid (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, the person who gave me this guidance is one of the most respected editors on Wikipedia. I'll have more for you in a few.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel uncomfortable with this practice too. There are little differences on each side of anyones face, making a flipped picture look slightly off. Pissed off starfish (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent)See MOS:IMAGES: "Images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines; doing so misinforms the reader for the sake of our layout preferences. If an image is ever reversed or otherwise substantially altered, there should be a clear advantage to the reader in doing so (for example, cropping a work of art to focus on a detail that is the subject of commentary), and the alteration must be noted in the caption."

Special thanks to Maralia for this info.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Governance Section

The Governance section should give a brief overview of what being Governor of Alaska entails. There's a lot of discussion about the size of the Alaska state workforce and budget, and this information is not as easy to confirm as one might think (it appears to be 24,500 employees and $11.5 billion budget).DarrylEKk (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that of the four people presuming to take office, she is the only one with governing experience. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Her being the only one in the race with executive experience has been strongly noted by the media, It would be okay to mention it if you can find credible sources (the more the better since a major candidate article is under lots of scrutiny) Sleeping frog (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Clean up needed

The footnotes (starting at #81) are in dire need of a clean up. Would someone who has editing rights take care of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.154.145 (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It was caused by a wiki error that I just fixed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Religion discussion (consolidated)

Palin a Pentacostal? Not according to Palin.

Palin's wikipedia author, no doubt in an attempt to pacify the typical GOP, has taken liberties in describing her religion, as seen in her bio. The author dubs her a Christian Pentacostal. Palin says she attends a non-denominational bible church. Which is it??? (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1837536-3,00.html)

Crob67 (talk) 07:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Where's the contradiction? Pentecostalism isn't a denomination. —KCinDC (talk) 07:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The rest of the interview makes it pretty clear though that she doesn't identify as Pentecostal. This source http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/08/is-sarah-palin-the-first-pente.html also shows that different sources are reporting different things. I've removed the "Pentacostal" bit for now. Hopefully as the news media gets a bit of time to do some research, the details of her religious affiliation can be firmed up. Calliopejen1 (talk) 08:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What part of the interview? The word "Pentecostal" doesn't appear in it. —KCinDC (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I read somewhere she's an Evangelical Protestant. Maybe someone wants to research this more.

EDIT: Here it is: "John McCain's vice-presidential pick, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, is an evangelical Protestant..." http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2008/08/sarah_palin_on.html 69.122.100.82 (talk) 09:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There was a section above this about this issue this area should be merged with...and, again, who cares? Religious affiliation is not under consideration for public office, or have you all forgotten.? See our Constitution for more information, you know, that "piece of paper" our fighting men and women are dying for overseas? --72.185.241.40 (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If constitutional qualifications are the only things that can be included in the article, it'll be pretty short, consisting of only age and birthplace/citizenship. In any case, some people take candidates' religious beliefs into account when voting, and there is of course nothing in the Constitution preventing them from doing that. —KCinDC (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal says she's Lutheran. --Coemgenus 20:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Is she Pentecostal?

The main article does not include any mention of her being Pentecostal, but the "summary section" on the right does. If she is, this should be included in the main article. rich (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Who cares? It's not a condition for public office. See our Constitution for more information. --72.185.241.40 (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether it is a condition for public office has nothing to do with the Wikipedia article. All facts on Wikipedia need to be verifiable or removed. CopaceticThought (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is the information that supports Palin's affiliation to the AoG? Without a source, isn't the alleged connection sloppy at best? I'm also not quite sure using blogs as a source is a good idea, as blogs are usually a collection of thoughts on a subject, as opposed to actual reporting from a trained and less biased source. 99.168.79.111 (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Religious Affiliation of Mrs.Palin

Anyone with citable info on this? I'd sure like to see some in the article. Thanks! --98.243.129.181 (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussed above--Coemgenus 21:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

THanks! --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/08/more-about-sarah-palins-religi.html According to that she attends "Church on the Rock" --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC) http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2008/08/is_palin_an_eva.html According to this.. she says she was baptised a catholic but now claims to be non-denominational Christian. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Today she sometimes worships at ‘the Juneau Christian Center, which is also part of the Pentecostal Assemblies of God.’ Her home church, however, is ‘The Church on the Rock, an independent congregation.’" http://poligazette.com/2008/08/30/palin-reassures-evangelicals/ Anyone want to edit some of this in? Thanks! --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

..and then.. "The 44-year-old mother of five, who led her high school chapter of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, was baptized as a teenager at the Wasilla Assembly of God Church, where she and her family were very active, according to her then-pastor, Paul Riley." http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g4-w_DCWffagBaQb8Il9a0R2hkPAD92SL7E00 So she got re-baptised at an AOG church which is Charasmatic but she doesn't affiliate with that denomination now-adays but is non-denominationally Christian.. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have sumarized this info into 2 sentences and added it to the personal life section. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey it looks nice, non-biased and well summarizing of the cites presented. Thanks! --98.243.129.181 (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Caution against making too many religious references

Obama is also religious and heavily involved in church, one thick with controversy. Obama has followed black liberation theology nearly his entire adult life. Yet Obama's article contains very little religious information. I'm asking the authors of this article to be very careful about going out of their way to start drawing up all kinds of evangelical associations and implications with Palin when no such attempts would be successful on the Obama page. Keep it fair please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This request is unnfair. Obama had problems in that area. Palin doesn't seem to. She seems pretty happy about her church and her values seem integrated into her life and policiy. So I'm curious and she's not shying away from talking about it. I say lets keep the info up to date. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 04:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Article should specifically note that she has 5 children.

While the names of the children are given, the total count of 5 children is a significant piece of information that should be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.24.5 (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just thinkig that too. More info on family, etc. Anyone? --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It says three sons and two daughters, which I think is enough (3+2=?). It's discussed in the family section at the bottom. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh.. my bad. I didn't see it down there. Why is it sandwiched in between "Politics" and "Electoral.." ? Shouldn't it be elsewhere, like next to early life or something? Just a thought. :) --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Gay friends

Is the note about how she has gay friends really relevant to the section detailing her political positions? I tried to remove it due to it being unencyclopedic, but it was replaced. --NeuronExMachina (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I thinking keeping it shows a more rounded picture of her as a person. Just saying she doesn't believe in gay marriage makes her sound like she dislikes gays, rather than showing that she simply doesn't believe in gay marriage for religious reasons. I think it's fairer to keep it. Sleeping frog (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Her self-stated opinion on gay people should be as important as her opinion of marraige because it's pertinent now-a-days. It's pretty widely reported that that she is against gay-marraige but not against people who are gay.. youknow the whole Christian ideal of loving people even if you don't approve of what they do? :) It's relevant. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, NeuronExMachina, it's not relevant. The section is supposed to be about her Political Positions, not about offering "a more rounded picture of her as a person" or about mitigating any appearances of nastiness or narrow-mindedness that might be provoked by the anti-LGBT politics she supports. Catuskoti (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly.207.237.198.152 (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the way it's currently worded in the article though it sounds rather silly, to make it seem like she's using that as part of the reasoning for her stance. Would we also have a hypothetical article say, "Such-and-such politician has said he has African-American friends, although he opposes such-and-such affirmative action legislation"? The cited link doesn't include the exact quote from Palin, so it's impossible to say how much it factors into her reasoning. --NeuronExMachina (talk)

00:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad someone brought this up so that we can reach consensus. First, the fact that she has claimed to have gay friends has been a part of this article for a long time. I know this because I've been working on this article for months and months. That being said, this particular issue goes all the way back to her 2006 race for Governor, which is when the cited source was written. The facts are clear. When asked how she felt about the constitutional amendment (banning gay marriage), Sarah Palin herself said that she has good friends who are gay, doesn't judge anyone, yet supports the constitutional amendment. She choose to claim this at the same time that she gave her opinion on the issue of the amendment. She herself tied that claim to her opinion. While it's true the cited source does not use exact quotation marks and quotes, it's clear that they are using Sarah Palin's own words. She volunteered this claim, it's sourced, she said it in context to this particular social issue (the constitutional amendment) and it think it should stay.

PanzaM22 (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC) Mike

Because this will be deleted over and over again

A section that I just added and that survived around 30 seconds even though it was referenced and from a source who himself (Alan Wolfe) has a Wikipedia article. It discusses whether or not Palin's western evangelism type would sit well with southern evangelics. From the BELOW, it may appear that the choice of names was one one of the things they might disapprove of - in fact, within the article, Wolfe makes it clear that this was one of the MAJOR things they would get suspicious of. However, for NPOV reasons I toned it down a little. Apparently I should have been MORE direct?

In a blog entry for ''[[The New Republic]]'', [[Alan Wolfe]], a researcher comparing southern [[evangelicals]] with western evangelicals (like Palin), noted that adherents of the southern type of evangelicalism might be suspicious of Palin's religious credentials, amongst other reasons because of her choice to give two of her children names generally connected to [[witch]]es.<ref name="What The Palin Pick Means">{{cite news | last = Wolfe | first = Alan | url = http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/08/29/what-the-palin-pick-means-for-evangelicals.aspx | title = What The Palin Pick Means For Evangelicals | work = [[The New Republic]] | date = 2008-08-29 | accessdate = 2008-08-30 }}</ref>

Anyone have objections to his passage? And why? Lets clear it up. rootology (C)(T) 22:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The "witch" thing apparently originates with a joke by Andrew Sullivan about Willow and Piper being witch characters on TV series. Apparently Alan Wolfe took it a little too seriously. I don't see how any reference to it belongs in the article. —KCinDC (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The claim that a girl born no latter than 1994 was named after a character from Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series), a TV series that debuted in 1997, is just not credible. --Allen3 ^talk 23:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is relevant. There will always be diffences between charasmtic non-denminational evangelicals and southern baptist evangelicals. They all agree on abortion and gay marraige though. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Also.. this is blog. Hardly reliable. Some persons seem to be on a controversy witch hunt... it's kinda nice to have a candidate with so little controversy that you have to start making junk up. :) --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Although I don't really support any candidate I lean democratic (just to be clear), this witchhunting for dirty facts is getting stupid. I intend to enforce BLP on this article and I invite others to, as well. This is "serious business" as ED like to call it. --mboverload@ 23:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not relevant and engages in speculation. It is also sourced from a blog. That's three strikes and its out. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be wise to instead present this type of information for review at Snopes. Biographies are no place to play games with rumors. See WP:BLP and WP:REDFLAG.   — C M B J   03:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant...if you want to do this start talking about black liberation theology on Obama's article....yup I thought so.

the religion of candidates is relevant. Some "expert's," who from all appearances, is neither a southern nor western evangelical, speculation on how those groups think, is not. when people start saying they won't vote for her, due to the names of her kids, then it will be relevant. Rds865 (talk) 04:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule Broken

User:Fee Fi Foe Fum has just broken the three revert rule by removing a picture three times. Two seperate user have tried to add the picture back, and I also believe it should stay. Sleeping frog (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen any logical argument for the repeated removal of the photo. I even cropped it to eliminate the offensive military people... Kelly ^hi! 23:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The military photos were definitely getting out of hand earlier, but I don't understand the problem with having a single photo from her trip to Kuwait. If it were more than one, then I would say it was disproportionate. —KCinDC (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Look at the picture's description. She visited her own Alaska national guard troops to learn about their mission. How anyone has a problem with that I have no idea. Hobartimus (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Since she's visiting her own troops I don't feel we should have to crop them out to make the picture less military like. Uncropped would probably show the context of the picture better. Sleeping frog (talk)

I vote uncroppd to maintain context.--98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Constitutional scholars "stunned"

I'm removing the comment about constitutional scholars being "stunned" by her selection, sourced to this Politico article. The scholar who stated that, Joel Goldstein, is an Obama supporter and has contributed to his campaign.[16] Kelly ^hi! 23:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with removal. Also she has more actual experience in an executive position a decision making type position than her rivals. If talking about experience at all this must be noted. Hobartimus (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Truth be told, under the Constitution both Obama and Palin are qualified for the Presidency, in addition to McCain & Biden. GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Both McCain and Obama have been running national presidential campaigns involving many thousands of volunteers and hundreds of millions of dollars for longer than she's been governor. I think they've been making plenty of decisions, even if you somehow think people don't make decisions in legislatures. Singling out executive experience as the most important qualification is POV (besides the fact that it implies McCain himself isn't qualified). —KCinDC (talk) 23:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't seriously suggest that running a campaign courting donors ,thinking about ads is somehow good training for the presidency itself? McCain was also a high ranking military commander but you are right that he has the same type of legistlative background as a politican. I never implied that being a senator is not enough qualification just that governorship (which let's admit it is a bit more similar to the presidency than voting on laws) should not be discounted at all. Hobartimus (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL was just about to post about that quote, good catch Kelly. Politico articles mix opinion pieces with straight political reporting, so it's important to verify that a given article is journalism and not opinion pieces. Like I said, agree totally with cutting it. Wellspring (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the other "shocked" historian who says she is unqualified, Matthew Dallek, is a former Dick Gephardt speechwriter.[17] Surprise, surprise. Kelly ^hi! 23:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting this article from hawks that want to slant it with biased sources....you will need to be diligent about it because the "NPOV" facade (insert biased controversy in the name of NPOV) will be relentless. a lot of wikipedians want nothing more than to slant this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Those people like Dallek, need to read the Constitution (above). The not qualified stuff in this election, gets flung around too easily. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I just searched the Barack Obama article and it doesn't contain the word experience in any shape or form there is no section or even a sentence dedicated to discussing if Obama is experienced enough or not. So it seems the question is whether to discuss this at all in this article? Hobartimus (talk) 23:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course you wont find that word in there...and it will never get in there...the guardians of the Obama article are absolutely relentless. But the wiki hawks will try to stuff that word in this article...they will persist without rest to slant this article as much as they can in the name of "NPOV". They will come up with all kinds of logical ploys why this article needs to be stuffed with their 'controversey', but call it for what it is- spin and slant. HEre is a good rule of thumb to be fair and neutral: if in principle Obama's article would forbid such comments that would otherwise equally apply to him, then it has no place here as well. Wiki, as a whole, should not show any bias towards any candidate.

Agreed - McCain, Palin, Obama & Biden are all qualified. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that anyone isn't constitutionally qualified, but if that's the only criterion then we might as well flip a coin to decide which candidate to vote for, since all natural-born Americans who are over 35 and have lived in the US the last 14 years are equally qualified. "Qualified" has meanings other than "constitutionally qualified". —KCinDC (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, KC is correct about what is meant by qualified in this context. And we should certainly think about including well-sourced, critical commentary by non-partisan sources if there are some. Tvoz/talk 00:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It is irresponsible to decide what we should be saying, especially based on the politics of the commentators. Where are we going to find commentary on Palin which has no alignment at all? and including only Republicans is a recipe for POV, even if we limit ourselves to responsible Republicans. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The real problem is that this article is being presented as a consensus among academics, and that is not true. Criticism and praise are both welcome in a biography, but this is the only source that claims that "scholars are stunned" and it is already being called out for being false. Sleeping frog (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

KCinDC's points are definitive. Tvoz makes a good point in principle, but finding citable reliable sources that are completely untainted by any political affiliation or opinion is going to be next to impossible. There is nothing at all wrong with the original "stunned" quotation; it does not violate any Wikipedia policy other than - perhaps - WP:NPOV. On the other hand, it's a bit early to suggest that a consensus has been established as to her qualifications (non-constitutional sense), although things are quickly moving in a certain direction. Here's what's going to happen. A mainstream media consensus will likely emerge as to her qualifications/merits; if and when it does, is it legitimate to put this in the article, and other dissenting opinions need to go in but not with equal weight. Until then, I suggest leaving this material out of the article. In short: patience, Grasshoppers. Arjuna (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"Stunned" may be a loaded term, but there's no controversy over their collective opinion that Palin is the "least experienced, least credentialed" candidate on a major party ticket since 1908. That claim is based on objective measuring criteria mentioned in the article. Nor are these fringe historians; say whatever you want about their personal political affiliations, but they are well-known, mainstream, and respected in their field. The people here objecting to the inclusion of the Politico article are doing so on the basis of ad hominem attacks against the scholars themselves and do not address the substance of their relatively uncontroversial conclusion that she is the least experienced candidate in modern history. That's not a compelling reason to exclude this material from the article. Right now, the "Reaction" section reads like a total whitewash of the significant debate/controversy over Palin's experience and fitness.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What was the same analysis about Barack Obama? Who has more executive experience, running things Obama or Palin? I tried to look up the Obama article but it doesn't contain the word experience in any shape or form there is no section or even a sentence dedicated to discussing if Obama is experienced enough or not. It seems there is no discussion in the Obama article whatsoever about the experience or credentials of Obama. You say that there was less of a debate/controversy about Obama's experience? How about Hillary stating that "Obama has a speech he gave in 2002" as all of his experience? Yet there is no mention of any controversy in the Obama article. This strongly suggest that having some sources and alleged "controversy" is hardly enough for inclusion. Hobartimus (talk) 03:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• UPDATE to the article "After reading this article, the McCain campaign issued the following statement: "The authors quote four scholars attacking Gov. Palin's fitness for the office of vice president. Among them, David Kennedy is a maxed-out Obama donor, Joel Goldstein is also an Obama donor, and Doris Kearns Goodwin has donated exclusively to Democrats this cycle. Finally, Matthew Dallek is a former speech writer for Dick Gephardt. This is not a story about scholars questioning Gov. Palin's credentials so much as partisan Democrats who would find a reason to disqualify or discount any nominee put forward by Sen. McCain."

Death Penalty

An earlier version of the article said she opposed the Death Penalty, now it says she supports it, but the ref admits the link is dead. Can somebody find out? Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 01:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin and Abortion in Rape/Incest cases?

"... She opposes the use of abortion even in cases of rape or incest[81]"

The citation provided comes up dead. I've heard from various news outlets that she SUPPORTS abortion in rape/incest cases, and have found no references that this is not the case. I suggest this be deleted or modified.

The only source I see is under the Political positions of Sarah Palin in which she states that she would choose life if she were raped and became pregnant - This is a personal view, and not a political view.

this info was added as spin. You wont see mention of Obama's vote against the born alive act on his article....this quote needs to be removed. Simply saying she is "pro life" is enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone actually used a NARAL press release for the source on that. It's been removed pending a more reliable source. Kelly ^hi! 01:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe she does support abortion when there is a threat to the mothers life. Sleeping frog (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That may be true, Sleeping frog - That needs to be clarified with sources, also, if needed.

http://www.naral.org/elections/election-pr/pr08292008_palin.html may be the source you were referring to, Kelly? Coming from a deathly pro-choice site, I think it's accuracy is questionable... Political stances should have multiple solid sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VaughanTheSpawn (talk • contribs) 02:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's this from the Anchorage Daily News coverage of the gubernatorial debate: http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/2006/governor/story/8372383p-8266781c.html

The candidates were pressed on their stances on abortion and were even asked what they would do if their own daughters were raped and became pregnant. Palin said she would support abortion only if the mother's life was in danger. When it came to her daughter, she said, "I would choose life."

Her spokesman confirms the view here. I didn't put that link in because it's just the spokesman but someone can if they think that's a good idea. http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/101906/sta_20061019031.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neiladri (talk • contribs) 03:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess that since the reference to rape and incest has just been taken out, we might as well link the spokesman piece and put it in.

Thanks for the reference, Neiladri. Whether to put that citation and comment back in? If her views have changed since then, it would be a good idea to leave the current statement. I think for now, it should be re-instated with the reference noted above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VaughanTheSpawn (talk • contribs) 04:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Todd Palin, Beauty Pageant Judge

Can anyone explain why the info about Todd Palin being a 2008 Beauty Pageant Judge keeps being reintroduced? I don't see how this info in anyway relevant to the Sarah Palin article. (It could go on the Todd Palin page though). --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems irrelevant to me. There's some conversation about it in the section above. I've deleted it three times, so I won't do it again. I've warned the editor who adds it about the consequences of 3RR on his talk page. --Coemgenus 01:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Its about as relevant as including Malik Abongo Obama who is a militant islamist on Obama's page. You would *NEVER* see mention of Malik Abongo's affiliations on Obama's page, and including this on her page is irrelevant. Again note how the hawks who protect the Obama article from anything that is trivial and controversial are the first in line to stuff this article with it. If it sounds negative, and puts Palin in a bad light...the hawks are eager to include it using the name of "NPOV" as a fasad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk • contribs)

Start throwing some blocks, please

Could an admin watching this page start blocking folks for libelous speculation like this edit? I'm getting sick of removing this Daily Kos garbage. Kelly ^hi! 01:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. As much as I love Wikipedia, I'm not going to stay up all night to enforce WP:BLP. --Coemgenus 01:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the article needs more admin attention. A LOT more, we have BLP for a reason. Hobartimus (talk) 01:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

4th'd. I imagine this page is getting a hundred hits a minute. That's 100 people who read speculation and violations of BLP as something noteworthy. That is not acceptable. I authorize the use of the ban hammar. --mboverload@ 02:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The first half of the referenced edit, about her pregnancy coming as a surprise to many and the flight from Texas to Alaska, is sourced from legitimate, established media, however. I'm all for removing the Daily Kos speculaation, but I think care should be taken to ensure legitimate information isn't removed in the process. Llanwar (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The Kos stuff was meant to only be mentioned, in the same way that pro-life groups' enthusiasm for Palin's willingness to carry Trig to term, was mentioned by another Wikipedian. But in hindsight, I do agree that, given the conservatism directed by BLP, the Daily Kos stuff doesn't deserve mention until / if it has some more established basis. But in the meantime, Kelly, will you please restore the uncontroversial, properly sourced material (the vast majority of the edit) that you reverted? I do understand your frustration, but think that in this instance, you might have been overly hasty. With thanks and all best wishes, Catuskoti (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your well articulated post Catuskoti. To be more clear could you give us the diff that you wish reverted/modified? If you don't know how please leave a note on my talk page and I'll help ya out. --mboverload@ 02:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The "uncontroversial bits" seem irrelevant by themselves and serve only as a lead-in to the speculation. (Think: why would it be noteworthy to say Palin's pregnancy was a surprise? Most pregnancy announcements surprise those who hear them and it also a trivial bit of info.) I suppose the flight might fit in somewhere, but I don't really see where.--ThaddeusB (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly noteworthy. A person who may need to be counted on to make good decisions for the country makes the decision to keep her pregnancy secret until very late, and then makes the extremely questionable decision to take a cross-country flight while nearly in labor with a baby she knew had Down Syndrome. I think every instance of decision-making that any of the candidates in the election make is noteworthy and should be included in their wiki bio simply as insight into their personality and decision-making style/ability. Llanwar (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Daily Kos is a blog, not a credible source. I haven't heard any medical professionals write or talk about this through a credible source. Besides, everything must be verifiable, that's wikipedia policy. Sleeping frog (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The above comments were regarding facts from sources other than Daily Kos. In the case of those edits, it's an issue of WP:WEIGHT. Switzpaw (talk) 03:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure how you see the flight and pregnancy announcement as a matter of WP:Weight when it's not a viewpoint, but purely factual information, verified by reporting from legitimate, established news sources including quotes from Palin herself: http://www.adn.com/626/story/382864.html You could certainly argue that it's not worthy of inclusion under WP:Notability, but that's a different argument.Llanwar (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

From WP:WEIGHT, The principle of undue weight applies to more than just the way descriptions of viewpoints are worded in the article; undue weight can be given in various ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. Switzpaw (talk) 03:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, so you know, from WP:NCC: Undue weight, which is formulated in the neutral point of view policy, applies to factual content and not just viewpoints. Switzpaw (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to be more specific about the material I'd like to revert in a little bit. But in the meantime, the weight concern is, I think, inapplicable. While pregnancy announcements are often surprising, announcements in the third trimester rarely (though sometimes) are. Plus, traveling from one end of the country to another and delivering a big speech while knowing that labor is imminent IS unusual, as is being fit enough to return to work just three days after delivery. These events could indicate that Gov. Palin is unusually strong, cool-headed, and committed and don't necessarily imply the Daily Kos-sourced speculations. Given how unusual the circumstances are, the events seem to me to meet the Weight wiki-editing guidelines. Catuskoti (talk) 03:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree -- I think the facts do show an unusual circumstance that are telling about her character which would justify the weight of reporting on that incident, and it is supported by a reliable source. Though I'd be careful about how you write it. Switzpaw (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) PLEASE NOTE that the link to DailyKos is an independent diary entry is and NOT AN OFFICIAL POST. It is at the same level as a post on blogger.com. Please do not cite DailyKos as being the author. This is the author --mboverload@ 03:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Goodness. There's absolutely no way on Earth that a blog, diary entry, or Daily Kos is a suitable source for this kind of claim to make its way into Wikipedia. I have a feeling this issue will be investigated further. If it makes its way into reliable sources, then there could at least be a discussion, a la John Edwards, but at this point it's just an egregious WP:BLP violation. If someone inserts the claim with Daily Kos or equivalent sourcing, revert them (3RR does not apply) and leave them a note clearly indicating the inappropriateness of the edit and referencing WP:BLP. If they do it again, then please notify an admin (you can leave a note on my talk page or go elsewhere) and they will be blocked. MastCell ^Talk 03:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sentence about downs syndrome baby needs to be edited

I was just about to ask that the "allowed a fetus to become a child with down syndrome" sentence be removed. What a twisted sentence, and a twisted way of looking at her heroic decision. Thanks for removing that sentence! Csmadore (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Christian S. Madore

Having children is heroic. Great. (it has been removed. You saw a version that some POV pusher made. Sorry about that) --mboverload@ 03:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

main photo

The main photo has been changed, but the new one is grainy when blown up, could we change it back? Sleeping frog (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah serious.. where'd the old pic go? Can we get it back? --98.243.129.181 (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool thanks. That outside, sweater picture is nice. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"Palin for Governor" External Link

"Palin for Governor" External Link should be removed. It now forwards to the same URL as the first External Link. Bigware (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Todd Palin's business

He owns a commercial fishing business. <ref>William Yardley, "Palon, An Outsider Who Charms." New York Times, August 30, 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/us/politics/30palin.html?pagewanted=3&ref=politics.<ref>

The edit suggested above should replace the text in the "Personal Life and Family" section that currently reads ". . .and works as a fisherman in his hometown in the summers." The suggested edit is more specific and accurate.

~~~~

Birthdate of eldest son Track

Track, Palin's oldest son, appears to have been born April 20, 1989. This date was reported by Alan Colmes, http://www.alan.com/2008/08/29/conservative-family-values/. An edit to this effect was deleted as unsourced and irrelevant; however, it was added just after Track's age (currently 19). The birthdate doesn't go out of date, making it a better statement of his age.

The fact that her eldest son was born less than eight months after her elopement may represent a political problem for her, and it is therefore a relevant addition to this article.