Talk:Sarah Palin

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

Approval ratings

Resolved

 – --lajolla2009@ 03:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be included that approval ratings are for Alaska only and not the entire United States. Soon, if not already polls will be out on her approval ratings for the entire United States and it could be concluded from the way it is written that Palin has an 80% approval rating for the entire United States

Now there's no reference to her approval ratings within the state of alaska? The rating ranges that are given for her within the state of Alaska should stat - it is significant when compared to other governorship. The additional of national rating should be added as well when they become know - under the "2008 vice-presidential campaign" section though. Theosis4u (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The source Hays Research home page is inappropriate as well - A More Specific Survey Result. It leaves it completely to the reader to hunt down the poll numbers. This information was within the article before and the old references showed a 80%+/- poll and another around 70. Theosis4u (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please list disputes that need to be resolved

Could we get a list of those items that are in dispute so we can work to getting the page unprotected? I'll start:

Actual Budget Actions and Voting History

I have been looking up to find the source of claims about her budget actions and voting record.

Most of the claims on the net claim to come for the "wasilla comprehensive annual financial report (year)" and I haven't found the 2003 record, just references to it. The "Politico" document here: http://www.politico.com/static/PPM106_palin_doc.html that harshly criticizes Palin's performance is referenced like crazy all over the 'net, and it references FY 2003.

However, the only ones available on the City of Wasillas site are from 2004 to present, for a different Mayor. here: http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=67

Where'd they go? Did they ever exist?

This be fishy. (yet another pun... :P)

Please post verifiable info on her budgets and voting. t1n0

Groomed

{{editprotected}}

At one point the article says that she was "groomed" by the Republican Party for higher public office. ("During her first term, the state Republican party began grooming her for higher office.[19]") The source does not say this. What it says is, "Party officials say Palin was already being groomed for bigger and better things, even as she talked about sewers and road-paving projects." So the source is just quoting the opinion of some unnamed "party officials". I think the whole sentence should be removed. The same thing could be said about any young politician and it is really meaningless. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The source is local and from 2006, though, and can therefore be safey assumed to be a window into that time, uncolored by current concerns. And how is "higher office" really different from "bigger and better things"? The reporter is from a reputable Alaska newspaper, and nobody from Palin's office or the state GOP complained back it 2006. It has meaning, because part of Palin's story is that she bucks the old-boy network; this source says that in the beginning, she was supported by the state party. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to "bigger and better things" being changed to "higher office." I do object to "Party officials say Palin was already being groomed" to "the state Republican party began grooming her." One is just a newsreporter's interpretation of statements by anonymous sources. The other is a statement of fact. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't report truth, it reports what reliable secondary sources say. The source headline is 'Fresh face' launched Palin RISING STAR: Wasilla mayor was groomed from an early political age. I think that if a reporter, his editors, and the headline writer all did that, it must mean something. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the headline too. But the only thing in the article about the subject was the one line. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that Steve Dufour's point is that the article is synthesizing a statement that wasn't directly made in the reference. I think it should be reworded as discussed above, or removed. Pianomikey0 (talk) 03:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think the statement has much value, but I don't object to leaving it in either. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Declined More discussion please; consensus has not been reached. GRBerry 20:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Remove It's just blurb and dubiously rephrased to boot. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • T0mpr1c3, you should read the whole article. Really. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Dispute #1: Alaskan Independence Party

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{editprotected}}

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Proposal:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The legality of the marijuana possession in Alaska

The federal laws on marijuana are very clear: it has been federally illegal to own, sell or buy marijuana since 1937 (Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, then the Controlled Substances Act in 1970).

The Alaska Supreme Court decided that small quantities of marijuana are allowed to be owned. This does not mean that the Federal law on controlled substances isn't still valid in Alaska, but just that they decided not to enforce it.

The blog post used as source says that "At the time, marijuana was legal under Alaska's liberal drug laws.", but that's plain misleading, because the states do not have the power to change or repeal federal laws."

Saying that marijuana was "legal" is either just POV or plainly wrong. That's why I think the "during the time when possession was legal in Alaska" phrasing does not belong there. bogdan (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not including that fact is POV, as you're making the assumption that Palin would have used had the state law not decriminalized possession. Fcreid (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Tim Vickers last edit. PhilKnight (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Then not including the fact that it was still federally illegal is also POV. bogdan (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

See discussion above where I have suggested changing to to simply "Palin admits to smoking marijuana as a youth, though she says she did not enjoy it." --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Again, as the "offense" was still within local jurisdiction, and the Alaska decriminalization law is relevant to (and, as far as we know, the reason for) her usage. Fcreid (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The federal law has always been valid in Alaska, just that it wasn't enforced for small quantities. See this article, from NYT:

The state now allows people over 19 years old to possess up to four ounces of marijuana in private without penalty, though it can not be sold or bartered. Technically, the state is in conflict with Federal law, which prohibits possession of any quantity of the drug. But Federal law is rarely enforced in Alaska when small amounts are involved, except at the Canadian border or when drugs are found in the mail. (New York Times, october 1990)

bogdan (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree also, CBS isn't a blog, and your interpretation of the U.S. legal system isn't relevant. PhilKnight (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It's the blog of a journalist. Anyway, it's not my interpretation: look at the New York Times article I linked. bogdan (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Still counts as original research - have a look at WP:SYNTH.--PhilKnight (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times reference should be included, it adds useful context to the article and comes from a reliable source. - Francis Tyers · 20:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If adding one and one is original research, then here's a source that gives the result outright:

Palin said she has smoked marijuana -- remember, it was legal under state law, she said, even if illegal under U.S. law -- but says she didn't like it and doesn't smoke it now. Anchorage Daily News, quoted by Examiner.

bogdan (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think "decriminalized" (versus legal) is the correct term to use in the statement. Certainly, there are people who would not have smoked pot had it not been decriminalized, and we have no data to indicate Palin was not among them. Back in the days of High Times, people actually moved to Alaska so they could possess pot for personal consumption. This is not a referendum on U.S. drug laws, but it is clearly POV to omit the fact that Alaska had decriminalized possession during her usage. What's the significance of this again? Fcreid (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

New suggestion: Change "Palin admits to smoking marijuana as a youth, during the time when possession was legal in Alaska, though she says she did not enjoy it." to "Palin admits to smoking marijuana as a youth, during the time Alaska had decriminalized possession, though she says she did not enjoy it."--ThaddeusB (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that's misleading, too.

Actually, the wording in this 2006 article in Anchorage Daily News is the most factually accurate:

"legal under state law, but illegal under U.S. law"

http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/governor06/story/8049298p-7942233c.html

bogdan (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

So what was wrong with the first one? She was in Alaska, and it was legal under Alaskan law. When in Rome... :) Fcreid (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Alaska is not an independent state. Federal laws are still relevant, even though they're not enforced by the local authorities. (federal organizations like the FBI did enforce them) bogdan (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Bogdan, you are misquoting your cited source. Please do not misquote cited sources. Thanks ever so much. Also, please note that the constitutionality of the federal law was highly disputed until 2005. See Gonzales_v._Raich.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I was paraphrasing, the exact quote is "legal under state law, she said, even if illegal under U.S. law". bogdan (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"if"Ferrylodge (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

it's "even if", meaning "although". What is your point? bogdan (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"even if" is not equal to "if". - Francis Tyers · 21:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"even if his former GOP rival John McCain wins the presidency in November, Romney says he won't emulate his father by taking a Cabinet position." See Johnson, Glen. "Romney readies for White House run if McCain fails", Associated Press (2008-09-03).Ferrylodge (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you trolling or simply you don't understand English? "Even if" can be an expression (as used in the ADN article, meaning "although") and it has a different meaning from the "even" "conditional-if" in the AP article you link. The key of differentiating the two meanings is the fact that the first one has no verb. Conditional-if requires a verb. bogdan (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

See WP:Civil, WP:AGF, and any elementary school grammar textbook, if they have those in Bucharest.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

from dictionary.com: al·though [awl-thoh]

–conjunction -- in spite of the fact that; even though; though.

—Synonyms --- notwithstanding (that), even if, albeit (that).

22:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of the words "even if" is ambiguous and is not always clear from the context. Instead of looking up the word "although" at dictionary.com, you might try looking up the words "even if" at dictionary.com. "even if: no matter whether". Are we through here?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I support Thaddeus' wording "decrimalized possession", above. Kelly ^hi! 22:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And he's a lawyer folks! :) 79.74.252.173 (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you'll get them riled up against me.  :(Ferrylodge (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick canvass

Should we change "Palin admits to smoking marijuana as a youth, during the time when possession was legal in Alaska, though she says she did not enjoy it." to "Palin admits to smoking marijuana as a youth, during the time Alaska had decriminalized possession, though she says she did not enjoy it." or leave it as it is?

Change wording

1. The second version is more technically correct as far as I can tell. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
2. I agree. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 01:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Also agree. Although the controversy has subsided, I believe it's technically more correct. Fcreid (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Agree. Alaska decriminalizing it did not remove the federal law, so it is not correct to say it was "legal to smoke marijuana" then. Edison (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Agree. My understanding of the situation concurs with those above; if this is the situation, the current wording is inaccurate. -Exucmember (talk) 04:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Agree. Federally illegal, so cannot be "legal" in a given state. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Agree. "decriminalized" is much better than "legal", which would get some people riled up. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
8. Remove the clause altogether and not change her word "like" into enjoy, which has – although similar – a different meaning. Digitalmandolin (talk) 07:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Undue Weight on "God" quotes

"In June 2008, Palin spoke at her former church. On the topic of Iraq, she asked that people pray for the soldiers and that "there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan." In regards to a proposed natural-gas pipeline she said, "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built."[136]"

This does not belong in the Personal section. The intent is clearly POV, i.e to paint her as a religious zealot (which she may or may not be), but the simple inclusion of using "God" in such platitudes amounts to no more than someone closing a speech with "And may God bless America" (which every candidate obviously does). Moreover, I suspect the other candidates do not have similar selected quotations in their personal bio where they used "God" in context or platitudes. The narrative that precedes this clearly states what Palin herself believes with regard to the Bible, and these selected quotes contribute nothing more substantive. They may belong elsewhere, but not in this section. Fcreid (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this hasn't gotten nearly the coverage to merit all that quoting, and the paragraph immediately above does a good job of summarizing her religious history. I'd say either whittle it down or strike it out. Joshdboz (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Other editors want this sort of thing expanded. (Not me.) And she did say those things, right? They are reported on by secondary sources, not lifted by a Wikipedia editor from the church circular. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I vote to strike the quote as undue weight. (You should've seen the original version though, it was much worse.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree. It seems obvious that Palin's faith is influencing her personal and political life, with everything from a child's education to the rights of women. Referring to building a gas line as "God's will" is completely bizarre and definitely noteworthy. The same applies to referring to anything related to Iraq as "God's plan" - particularly because you get into questions about which god. These are not the same as "God bless America" speech closings at all. Maybe you are looking at the wrong coverage? Reliable sources for these statements are legion. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I do agree on the undue weight. American politicians invoke God all the time, in nearly every speech. Bill Clinton did it frequently, particularly when discussing military operations with the American people. This is unremarkable. Kelly ^hi! 21:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not an undue weight issue at all. Invoking God is common, but the extent to which faith plays a role in Palin's political views mostly certainly isn't. The two instances described here are unusual and reliably sourced. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not simply an invocation of God, it is a statement that she knows God's will and wants to implement it. Quite a different thing, and noteworthy. Doug Weller (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

How do you know that? She's not saying she knows God's will. Cite, please? And presumably she has given hundreds or thousands or speeches - why only these quotes? Kelly ^hi! 21:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The pipeline quote says it by inference. I think that these quotes should be moved into political positions and merged with other content re: energy and Iraq policy. It is noteworthy to base policy statements in religious terms, particularly outside the area of social policy. These are not quotes about her personal life, and don't belong in this section. They are quotes about her policy views, and belong in that section however. Huadpe (talk) 02:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, the Iraq thing seems less noteworthy than the pipeline thing, but if we take out the Iraq material, then the pipeline material is more prominent. I say we let the woman's words stand. She is who she is. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Why quote only snippets of this particular speech? Kelly ^hi! 21:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason is that secondary sources quoted her. If some IP was getting this stuff out of online videos of her church meetings, it would be a primary source and should go. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of undue wieght of things taken out of context.. look at AL GORE who clearly made crazy statements all the time that were well reported in the news. However keeping the article clean was more important than pointing out little tidbits of wierness for the sake of pushing a POV. It's an isolated comment, out of context, from a church service.. its got undue wieght. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying there's no case to be made, but these quotes don't make it. If there's a case, there should be ample material to put that in a more thorough context (and into another section on political views or something, where it belongs). Fcreid (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I elect that the statements remain. They add relevant texture to the article and are not controversial. zredsox (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say this discussion shows they are obviously controversial. Kelly ^hi! 21:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment I read the pipeline quote as saying it can only happen if it is in God's will. See the full context in the linked source. If so, it is hardly noteworthy. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. You are attempting to define her as a person (and even in the "Personal" bio section) through these quotes, and if that is appropriate these simply don't provide that weight. As an aside, I actually watched her speech last night (and I typically don't follow politics), and I don't recall any invocations that would warrant painting on an extreme. If there's material out there, someone should find it and assemble it. Fcreid (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is some type of synthesis to divine and define her religious beliefs. Only Palin herself can be a reliable source on what she believes, not out-of-context quotes. Kelly ^hi! 21:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the quotes showing her using religious language on specific issues seem to me to be entirely off point. Palin has been forthright about being a strongly believing Christian. We should be quoting her on her religious beliefs, because she has placed those front and center, but not on her using religious language to talk about issues unless those are her key statements on those issues. E.g. if she is talking about abortion in religious terms then it might be relevant to quote that. If she happens to mention God in talking about a pipeline, that is no more relevant than if someone else happened to mention the Constitution or Americanism in a similar context. - Jmabel | Talk 21:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not synthesis; there are 307 Google News hits on the praying for a pipeline material. Much of it is analysis; secondary sources are interested. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well said. If she were quoted saying, "I stand against abortion because I believe that's God's will", it would be noteworthy. These are taken purely out-of-context. Fcreid (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Here is an entire AP article on the subject. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I will point out once again that the amount of news coverage does not determine an item's relevance. If it did, Barrack Obama's article (for example) would look quote different. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Or quite different. In any case, the tone and manner in which a deity is invoked does have relevance. Talk to McCain about that ... •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like the Iraq quotes could be added to Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Iraq. Joshdboz (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I had not seen that. The fact that she believes that Iraq is a holy war is quite significant. zredsox (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that is quite a jump from the actual quote. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Beyond the very selective quoting in this, she was clearly speaking to theology students in execution of her religious "duties". Would you want her to be cursing? It's already well-established and non-controversial that she believes God. Lots of people go to church. Find something that shows she legislated or administered from that perspective. Show where she asked for the pipeline money because she was on a mission from God or something. Otherwise, this is a witchhunt. Fcreid (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Cursing has what to do with claiming to know the will of a deity whose "ways are not our ways"? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

She's undoubtedly a religious person. I don't know how that taints her ability to administer or legislate, and nothing that's been put in front of me provides greater insight. Tie it to specific actions or lose it. Fcreid (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, she told people to go out and do things to bring the pipeline into existence, invoking God. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In a church - I fail to see how that indicates a policy decision in any way. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Bill Clinton invoked God sending soldiers to fight. So did FDR, JFK, Reagan, and every other American leader. Kelly ^hi! 22:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Info from a blog does NOT belong on a BLP. please remove. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The AP is not a blog. There are many non-blog sources, in any case. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources for what? That she mentioned God in a speech? How is that an indication of religious beliefs? Kelly ^hi! 22:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick canvass

Support inclusion of "God" quotes in religion section

Is it normal discussion to reference "god's will" for a clearly mundane and secular enterprise such as a natural gas pipeline? The fact that she referenced that the pipeline is "god's will" implies that she is extending theological beliefs into clearly secular activities and it is significant that she uses theological arguments to justify actions that are secular.

1. Opposed-- Just giving out of context quotes has very little value. What we need is a notable commentator saying that she is too religious or else that she is a politican who cynically uses other people's religous feelings for her own aims, whatever the point is supposed to be. (Then counter opinions need to be given too.) Steve Dufour (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion of "God" quotes in religion section]]

1. Undue weight and apparent synthesis to try to determine religious beliefs. Kelly ^hi! 22:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
2. As I said above, this would fit much better in the relevant section of the article on her policy positions. Joshdboz (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Opposed (if my vote counts... don't know how that works!) This wiki, possibly more than anywhere else, represents a battleground for independent voters. Both sides know a web search for Palin will see this article ahead of all else, so it's imperative that we get it right (NPOV). Those on the left and those on the right have made up their respective minds and are stewing in their respective blogs. These quotes paint her as a religious loony in just two sentences. Now, I've not researched whether she is or she isn't, but these quotes in their original context don't make that argument. If there's fire somewhere outside this smoke, someone should research it and make a compelling case. Fcreid (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Opposed. It is not the image the McCain Camp is currently crafting for Palin (now that the base is strongly in tow) and to echo her religious beliefs (as well sourced and as relevant as they might be) could be off putting to some moderate and independent voters who are currently the focus of the campaign. I think in place of the disputed quotes we should instead have a passage from a PTA meeting (or something inline with that hook) which will play better in the all important battleground states and be directed toward women.zredsox (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   Sarcasm noted. :) Seriously, there's gotta be more than this from her past to raise this specter. Fcreid (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

5. Opposed. The only reason for inclusion is that some editors feel the quotes are more important than the other things she said in all the other public appearances that aren't covered, and the reasons given may or may not be valid but are original research in either case. There may have been a few mentions in new articles, but there have been more articles about other things she said. So again singling these out is undue weight. A.J.A. (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Opposed. It's a small out of context speech at her church. Undue wieght as well. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Opposed. including them gives them undue weight. There is no evidence that these two quotes are more important than any other she has said.--ThaddeusB (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
8. opposed, for reasons cited above Pianomikey0 (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
9. support, It happened, it's well sourced and video of the event is readily available. Palin is clearly a very religious woman so inclusion of this information and quotes is not out of line at all. If asking an audience to pray for a pipeline isn't extending theological beliefs into secular activities, I dont know what is. To remove this information takes out an important facet of the intesection of her religious life and political life.--Rtphokie (talk) 04:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
10. Opposed-- Just giving out of context quotes has very little value. What we need is a notable commentator saying that she is too religious or else that she is a politican who cynically uses other people's religous feelings for her own aims, whatever the point is supposed to be. (Then counter opinions need to be given too.) Steve Dufour (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
11. Opposed - per Steve Dufour immediately above. As one supporter of keeping admitted, the intent of inclusion is to paint Palin as out of the mainstream. There is nothing similar in the Al Gore article, which someone mentioned as a comparison. If she is out of the mainstream, let's quote published commentators making their case, not have an argument by stealth by Wikipedia editors with short out-of-context quotations that are somehow purported to represent her religious beliefs. -Exucmember (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
12. Opposed. It really ought to be in "humor" section. It's God's will that a pipeline get built? That's funny stuff. However, praying for soldiers is not funny, nor is out of mainstream. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest removing the phrase

"In June 2008, Palin spoke at her former church. On the topic of Iraq, she asked that people pray for the soldiers and that "there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan." In regards to a proposed natural-gas pipeline she said, "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built."[136]"

on the basis of the apparent consensus above, Zredsox's sarcasm aside. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Car wash info

"Palin also had a 20% ownership in an Anchorage car wash business, according to state corporation records filed in 2004. Palin failed to report her stake in the company when running for governor in 2006; in April 2007, the state issued a "certificate of involuntary dissolution" because of the company's failure to file its biennial report and pay state licensing fees.[16]" Is BLP appropriate? --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a full description. I don't think this is notable enough on its own, unless as part of a list of business she has taken part in or if it becomes a scandal. Joshdboz (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah.. this is sad. Ever since this happened "repeated violations of Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy." we can no longer edit the contentious, unsourced stuff out. It's like the protection is set up to protect the bad edits.. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick canvass

Keep car wash info as notable

1. Keep. Notable, according to LexisNexis database search and Wikipedia notability standards. Issues were discussed in the following newspapers: The Kansas City Star, The Philadelphia Daily News, The Anchorage Daily News (6 times), McClatchy-Tribune Business News (twice). National Public Radio (NPR) discussed it once. MSNBC discussed it twice. Business Dateline discussed it once. Then, of course, there are all of the so-called "notable blogs" that discussed it including (but not limited to) The Ohio Daily Blog, the Moderate Voice, etc. Overall, it's a fairly notable subject, according to our standards. J Readings (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   What is the claim to notability, aside from appearing a news article? We don't include everything here that is in the news - WP:NOTNEWS. Kelly ^hi! 00:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

True, we don't include everything that appears in the media, I agree with you. Then again, by that standard, I'm sure you would agree with me that we should probably be removing large sections of this article if something only appeared once or twice in the news. In this case, "significance" of coverage is measured by the number of times independent third-party sources measured by WP:RS decide that it is noteworthy. Personally, I try not to inject my own agendas into this situation and I take no view either way of whether readers should disagree with the judgment of the mainstream media. As it was discussed multiple times in the mainstream media -- highlighting its significance, I see nothing wrong with including it provided that it is properly sourced (currently it is not, I agree) and it is written in a NPOV manner. Regards, J Readings (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So we should use the number of times it has appeared in print as our main (sole?) criteria to decide if somethign should be included? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Besides, compared to other aspects of her story, this has been largely ignored, if those are all the sources you could find. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, in actual fact, those were only some of the English-language sources. We haven't even discussed the foreign-language sources generated by Factiva, but let that pass. At this point, it isn't even necessary (in my view) to discuss Factiva results considering that below some editors are quite happy to include a section on "book banning" whereby the only sources presented are a single indirect reference in a Time Magazine article and something in the Boston Herald. I look at this situation a little differently. Obviously, everything added needs to be sourced properly. So it goes something like this. 1. Was it original research? No. Was it a reliable source? Yes. Can it be verified? Yes. Was it discussed multiple times? Yes. Was it (can it be) written in a NPOV fashion? Yes. Does it violate WP:BLP? I don't see how, so no. Therefore, on balance, I honestly think it only needs a bit of a gentle re-write. FWIW, J Readings (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove car wash info as non-notable

1. Remove, I don't see how this is notable at all. Kelly ^hi! 23:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Remove, the way it is written makes it look like there was something wrong. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Remove, so un-notable Sarah seemed to have forgotten about it. And poorly sourced at that. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Remove, unremarkable, non-notable.--Paul (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Remove as non-notable. Also it is placed in the early life section which is just plain inaccurate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
6. As stated, its a non-story. While it could be story if she was involved in some meaningful way with its management/failure, the existing blurb and reference doesn't establish that. Dragons flight (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Remove. 20% notable. A.J.A. (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
8. Remove this trivial detail. As to the arguments about book banning below it should also go, what's the great contradiction? Erase them both. Hobartimus (talk) 03:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: We'll see how this situation plays out. If the "car wash" material is removed on notability grounds, but the "book banning" stays, something is terribly wrong with the transparency on our inclusion criteria considering the quantity and quality of the sources at issue. J Readings (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment - as I have tried to point out numerous times on this talk page, the number of news sources covering a specific detail is not a good way to judge whether something is notable or not for our purposes. This is a biography, not a news source - our purposes are mostly different than theirs so we should use our judgment as the primary tool to decide notability. We should ask ourselves "how did this event impact Sarah Palin's life and/or career" not "how many third party sources have covered this." The library detail is unquestionable more important than the fact that she once owned a piece of a car wash, despite the fact that it has been covered by far less sources. The book banning at least potentially effected her career, whereas the the car wash certainly did not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is that you're making a personal judgment call. It's quite arbitrary because unless you're prepared to document via social science (i.e., refereed journals) all the ways it supposedly changed her political and personal life, the situation becomes partisan. As editors, we have no idea what impacts her life nor should we get involved in that kind of discussion. Inclusion criteria needs to be transparent, verifiable, NPOV, reliably sourced, etc., etc., etc. The minute we start to make judgment calls on what people should and should not read about the subject, we need at least to be consistent and fair. Right now, we're not being consistent, in my view. J Readings (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I hate to do this, but the prove my point about using our own judgment here are google news hits for various terms (all searched as: "Sarah Palin" term)... oil - 1126, gasline - 873, moose burgers - 1027, hockey mom - 3027 ... guess we better beef up our hockey mom & moose burger lines and reduce all that thinly covered gasline & oil stuff. And just for reference car wash gets 20 hits while book banning gets 119. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You might not be aware of this, but Google hits are largely considered to be inappropriate and flawed measures for demonstrating notability on Wikipedia. If you were to ask the Reliable Source Noticeboard, for example, they would confirm that we generally don't acknowledge them as relevant and reliable sources in the abstract because they include personal websites, blogs, and other sources that do not have editorial oversight or fact-checking. Add to that problem, the fact that the situation becomes original synthesis and we have a genuine concern. For this reason, it is always a better practice to source information generated by widely respected media databases such as Factiva, LexisNexis, JSTOR, and Worldcat -- to name a few. In addition, notability guidelines make it clear that we are looking for "significant" coverage. What constitutes "significance" has largely been accepted to mean what the reliable sources decide to be relevant (not us), barring a few contentious WP:BLP issues. So, to bring this discussion back to the original question, barring your personal judgment (which is irrelevant), why exactly would anyone insist on including one but not the other piece of information given the quantity and quality of sources involved? Obviously, arguments like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:GOOGLEHITS, and WP:BIG are not compelling reasons for either. If the amount of the space isn't more than a few sentences, it certainly does not violate WP:UNDUE either. So what exactly seems to be the real problem? As you can see, I'm not convinced yet -- in all good faith -- by the answers I'm reading. Back over to you. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well my point was not to blindly add info just because it appears in many sources. It still has to be relevant to our purpose. Controversial and salacious material will ALWAYS be more covered, but that doesn't make it more relevant. In any case, I am sure the ratio of hits would be similar whatever method you used - but that doesn't mean we should alter our article because of it.

Basically, my question to you is should we work EVERY fact covered by a sufficient number of RS into the article? --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

9. Remove. It has not been established that there was an oblibation to file any LLC renewals with the state of Alaska as the state permits, but does not require Artilces of Dissolution to be filed. Barring any such obligation, and without evidence that the LLC did indeed exist when Palin filed financial disclosure forms the asumption that she failed to provide any needed information does not prevail. We could also say that Palin failed to file Alaska State personal income tax returns for the last ten years - that indeed is true, but insofar as there is no personal income tax in Alaska is it simply a red herring.

In all good faith, I'm trying to understand what the problem is. Answers so far are unhelpful. Some people were asking it to be removed because of (then) sourcing issues. Given that reliable sources are now present, surely those people have their concerns addressed. Others simply asserted "non-notable" as if that were a compelling reason. Folks, it really isn't because Wikipedia does not make edits (as it does not resolve AfDs) based on the number of votes one way or the other. And we all know this. Others inject what appears to be original research. Please, I guarantee no admin will make edits based on that. Finally, there is the subjective "I don't like it factor" which sets a dangerous precedent for this article, as it would anywhere on Wikipedia. I could understand if editors wanted to remove material consistently across the board based on policies and guidelines, but in this case there is no consistency at all. Where does that leave us? Well, I agree with Jossi. The burden falls on people now wanting to remove the material to indicate which policies and guidelines preclude its inclusion. That seems like a sensible non-partisan question. J Readings (talk) 04:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

10.Remove. Completely spurious. Has the vague potential of becoming a minor scandal in the nondescript future, but completely UW.

Comment. Which reliable secondary source published on this issue and what relevance does it have to the current discussion of inclusion? More troubling, if it was not published and discussed in any reliable third-party sources, why is this original research relevant to the current discussion? J Readings (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

11.Remove, not notable. -Exucmember (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

12. Remove. Same level of "scandal" as having overdue library books, or tearing a tag off a mattress. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} Seems to be fairly clear consensus on removing the information on the 20% ownership share of a car wash. Kelly ^hi! 03:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I object, of course. The edit would be completely against policies and guidelines, but please do as you like for now. It can be reverted later given the inconsistencies on the page and the most important fact: Wikipedia is not a democracy. J Readings (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm, Keelly. Not so sure. There are sources such as NPR and the Washington Post that report on that business and the implications related to a failed disclosure. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Joossi. Could you please make your arguments in the attempt at consensus above? Kelly ^hi! 04:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I too would be interested in a cogent argument for including this seemingly minor factoid in the article. Please state your argument.--Paul (talk) 04:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if either of you could take the time to outline what the problem is based on policies and guidelines. "Seemingly" implies an arbitrary judgment call. That's not for us to decide. We simply need to cite reliable sources, present the information accurately in a NPOV way, and be done with it. Otherwise, Wikipedia quickly degenerates into chaos. Regards,J Readings (talk) 04:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• "A Full-Fledged Feeding Frenzy On Sarah Palin : NPR". Retrieved 2008-09-04.
• "Palin Scrubbing Turns Up an Undeclared Car Wash". Retrieved 2008-09-04. {{cite web}}: Text "The Trail" ignored (help); Text "washingtonpost.com" ignored (help)
• "Campaign 2008: Patchwork Nation: Palin scores big on aggressive evening, but tone, specifics linger as questions". Retrieved 2008-09-04. {{cite web}}: Text "The Christian Science Monitor" ignored (help)

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Kelly. We should avoid the dull accretionistic article that comes from adding every referenced fact that anyone can find. Do major news sources say that a part ownership of a business is somehow significant in creating a fortune, or that there was criminality, or that the experience shaped her philosophy, or that she worked so hard at it that it affected her or her family, or any such way in which it is of encyclopedic importance? If not, leave it out. If a newspaper published Herbert Hoover's hat size, (7 3/8 per [2]) we would not be compelled to include it in his article. Many well referenced facts are trivial. Edison (talk) 04:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately or unfortunately, multiple reliable sources in the media disagree about its importance. They thought it important enough to dedicate multiple articles and radio time on its coverage. Where does that leave us? J Readings (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That leaves us where we've been all week, where the media has printed every single fact they could find on this person. Could someone offer a single reason we should have this other than that a newpaper printed it? Kelly ^hi! 06:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done. The consensus here is to remove the entry. Kevin (talk) 07:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

How about because we honestly believe in our policies and guidelines, Kelly? How about because even though we might be Republicans (and we will likely vote for Sarah Palin), we're not letting that get in the way of our own community-generated rules by creating a biased advertisement that embarrasses us and the project? How about because the original rationale for removing the material is now clearly irrelevant, and we are all operating within good faith? How about because Wikipedia is not a democracy, a battleground, a bureaucracy, or an anarchy? How about because Wikipedia is not censored? How about because these are all multiple reliable sources discussing the issue? How about because the information is the subject of multiple articles and not just a fact buried in one article? How about because no one here (your fine self included) has managed to raise one policy-oriented reason as to why it should be removed? *Sigh* Unbelievable. J Readings (talk) 07:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Kelly, for the present, unless major news media say why it matters in a larger sense. The facts that are easy to find online are not necessarily encyclopedic. Edison (talk) 07:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So be it.J Readings (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Beluga POV Plagiarism

Maybe she didn't like the beluga bill, and maybe something else, and maybe you should just read the source which is quoted directly. 79.74.252.173 (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point I think, repeating Blog opinions on a BLP is against wiki guidelines. Even for an Admin. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You were asked for specific instances of BLP violations. You singled out the sentence on beluga whales. That sentence is accurately referenced to an article in Time magazine. It is not "an opinion on a blog". Can you admit your mistake? 79.74.252.173 (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Allright.. Not only is the sentance "opposes strengthening protections for beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet" POV (she may not oppose thier protection, she apparantly just opposed that particular legal move) but it is also direct plagerism from the editorial piece in TIME (thanks for pointing that out brother). On both accounts, I think it needs to be removed. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sister, it's a direct quote from the source, which is a signed article not an editorial, and the sentence itself is in any case a summary of material in the "Political positions" page which provides a further reference to a State of Alaska document. (Not to be persnickety, but if you like editing can I suggest that you use a dictionary?) 79.74.252.173 (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So.. how is that "direct quote" not plagerism? And how is it that the POV wording doesn't matter? --98.243.129.181 (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I also see your POV point on this statement. If someone further researched, I suspect you'd find she did not oppose protecting beluga whales but rather opposed a bill that included protecting beluga whales (and possibly many other things). It makes it even greater POV not to show why she opposed that, e.g. impact on shipping, project costs or whatever, and thus leads the reader to conclude she just hates beluga whales! That's the insidious POV that you'll find in articles with a dog in that hunt. Fcreid (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, now find a WP:RS to back up what you suspect, and then there can be a basis for a discussion. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I promised myself I wouldn't. It's all the same crap in the end anyway. :) Fcreid (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin Urges Feds to not list as Endangered and the reasons are given within it. Governor Palin said. “Seven years ago, NMFS determined that these whales weren’t endangered, and since then, we’ve actually seen the beginnings of an increase in their population. We are all doing everything we can to help protect these important marine mammals.” And then later, "In addition, state scientists point out that, in 2000, NMFS ruled that listing the Cook Inlet belugas as endangered was not warranted because hunting was the only factor causing their decline, and hunting has since been effectively regulated through cooperative agreements with Alaska Native organizations." Seems like that halted the Alaskan Native from hunting them - you want to include that for context? By the way, that might fall under a foreign policy experience for Palin. Theosis4u (talk) 07:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Book Banning

It is noted in the Wikipedia article on Sarah Palin that she "gave up" on banning books at the library. This is not the full truth. Gov. Palin tried to get Librarian Mary Ellen Baker to ban or remove certain books due to "inappropriate language". Ms. Baker was eventually terminated, after refusing to remove 'said' books. She didn't give up, she met opposition that became very public! (Reference: Time Magazine)

Terminated? can you please be more specific, do you mean sacked? And can you give a fuller ref, eg the date this was published in Time Magazine. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Quote from a 9-2-08 Time article, with different person making allegation than the person cited in the article, Ann Kilkenny - “[Former Wasilla mayor John] Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor.” http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837918,00.html EricDiesel (talk) 05:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The incident is discussed in the article, but in a more neutral way. Kelly ^hi! 23:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Dude.. Terminated!? Like hit man from the future?? That IS notable. Full Truth Rules! --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah - what a coincidence! :) Kelly ^hi! 23:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sticking with Wikipedia:Verifiability, here are two sources related to this discussion. The Time (magazine) article from above:

• • Mayor Palin: A Rough Record

This article (Sept. 2) offers only a few details of the event. A more detailed article (from Sept. 4) is in the Boston Herald:

• • Palin asked Wasilla librarian about censoring books

The second article does offer more information that could be added to the article to clarify the sequence of events. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What is your proposed rewording? Kelly ^hi! 00:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions. Perhaps it's best to wait and hear from other editors who have read the Boston Herald article first (and any other useful ones) as the source currently being used on the main page does not offer many details. The information below is useful as well - I would suggest however, keeping WP:UNDUE in mind, that this topic only take a few sentences or less (to maintain balance with the rest of the article). On the other hand, since this issue is something that has been referenced in a number of places, the WP should probably offer a bit more detail than it currently does. -Classicfilms (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The article, Wasilla librarian letter of termination is currently separate from Palin's bio, but contains several facts relevant to the discussion:

On Thursday, January 30th, 1997, the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, now Governor Sarah Palin, served the city librarian with a letter informing her she intended to terminate her employment in two weeks. The following day, Palin reversed herself, announcing that the librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, could stay. Palin explained the attempted dismissal by saying that she did not feel she had the librarian's full support, and explained her reversal by saying that Emmons had assured Palin she was behind her.

Emmons, and the Wasilla police chief whom Palin dismissed at the same time, both supported her opponent, the incumbent John Stein, when she ran against him for office the previous year.

But Palin and the librarian also had other disagreements. Soon after Palin was elected mayor, in December 1996, Emmons was quoted by the Wasilla newspaper, The Frontiersman, as saying Palin had asked her multiple times about removing books from the library. Emmons added that she had refused to participate in any kind of censorship.

On at least one occasion, Palin brought up removing books from the library in public. In October 1996, at a meeting of the City Council, Anne Kilkenny, a Wasilla resident, said that Palin asked Emmons: "What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?" According to Kilkenny, Emmons responded: "The books in the Wasilla Library collection were selected on the basis of national selection criteria for libraries of this size, and I would absolutely resist all efforts to ban books." At the time, Palin called her inquiries about book removal "rhetorical."

Emmons resigned in 1999, shortly before Palin was re-elected mayor. Palin is now the vice-presidential nominee of the Republican Party.

ENDIT.

The Anchorage Daily News, published today, cites Emmons herself as saying that Palin approached her several times about removing books from the library. Those two facts, if no others, should be included in any discussion of Palin's interest in censorship.

The references are:

Komarnitsky, S.J. (1997-02-01). ""Wasilla keeps librarian, but police chief is out"", Anchorage Daily News, pp. 1B. Retrieved on 2008-08-31.

White, Rindi (2008-09-04). ""Palin pressured Wasilla librarian, TOWN MAYOR: She wanted to know if books would be pulled"", Anchorage Daily News, pp. 1B. Retrieved on 2008-09-04.

Like.liberation 01:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

By what's presented here, how do we know Palin wasn't simply "testing" her librarian's principles? There doesn't seem to be any verifiable data that she actually requested specific books be removed, and she herself has labeled the incident as rhetorical. Fcreid (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would a person imagine that Palin was testing her librarian's principles? There's no evidence for that in what anybody said or what she stated. If it were the case, then Palin was simply testing her librarian's principles repeatedly, over a period of months, before she even knew she would be mayor.

Palin called her own inquiries rhetorical after they earned her negative media attention -- does that mean she was just joking? The librarian took her seriously. I doubt that Sarah Palin viewed city council meetings, which are on the public record, as times to fool around.

She never named specific books, because the librarian repeatedly refused to cooperate; it would have been pointless. Like.liberation 02:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Apply Occam's Razor here Fcreid, what is more likely? Your invented theory, or that a proven strongly religious person really wanted to ban material that she found offensive? Erik Veland (talk) 02:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It would sure make for a fuller story if there were actual names of specific books. Given the scope of attention this is given, I can't imagine how that never came up between two humans who apparently knew each other pretty well. Really, can you? I also find the librarian's recollection of the incident coinciding with her notification about employment termination to be pretty telling. Think she actually like Palin? Probably not. So, why would we fully accredit her account but completely discredit Palin's? Just food for thought. Yes, Occam's Razor works nicely here. Fcreid (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I humbly propose that we change this sentence:

According to Ann Kilkenny, a Democrat who observed City Council, Palin also brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting, but did not follow through with the idea.

To this:

Soon after Palin was elected mayor, in December 1996, Emmons was quoted by the Wasilla newspaper The Frontiersman as saying Palin had asked her multiple times about removing books from the library, starting before she was elected. According to Ann Kilkenny, a Wasilla resident who sat in on city council meetings, Palin brought up the idea of removing library books at one meeting. Emmons refused repeatedly, and in January 1997, she received notice from Palin, later rescinded.

The sources are in the above Anchorage Daily News articles, one of them published today. Like.liberation 01:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to mention the part about it being rhetorical! Fcreid (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point - it should be put in somewhere. Otherwise, I'd say that this is a good start. We should probably indicate, however, as the Herald article states, that the firing was grouped in with a number of other people and that her notice was received prior to the City Council meetings. In addition, I wonder if the last sentence should read: "in January 1997, she received notice from Palin, which was later rescinded." (I also fixed your formatting a bit for readability). -Classicfilms (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this story is completely out-of-whack in chronology and POV. Personally, I'd write it off to a petty feud if there weren't the actual reported incident of the rhetorical question at the city council meeting. Regardless, it's important to get the chronology correct, because it appears Palin was responding to the city council issue with her "just a rhetorical question" response, and it needs to be clear that occurred after the librarian (and many others) had already been released under the discretionary assignments she enjoyed as mayor. The librarian late recounting that she had been asked directly lacks a whole lot of credibility in my mind, but that's just me. Fcreid (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly today's article in ADN is an important source. I think "three times" is more informative than "multiple times". Also, "Palin had asked... about removing books from the library" leaves open the possibility that Palin was asking for specific books to be removed which is not supported by either source. And the last sentence appears to connect Emmons' refusal with her notice of dismissal, which is also not supported by the sources. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 02:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Problems with the "book banning" issue.

1. John Stein (who later ran against her as mayor) says here that, '"She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them.'. This gives context to her inquiry - it's absence just makes the situation about a crazy mayor wanting to ban books. This references also gives a hint to it was certain books because of "inappropriate language". Problem is, we have no other source that goes beyond this detail.
2. Where's the direct source from this , "In December 1996, Emmons told her hometown newspaper, the Frontiersman, that Palin three times asked her -- starting before she was sworn in -- about possibly removing objectionable books from the library if the need arose. " Other articles mention trying to get a hold of Emmons but she was unreachable.
3. And about Anne Kilkenny, not that she's lying - but I think this gives weight to find another sources before we take her characterizations of the situation. About Sarah Palin: an e-mail from Wasilla By Anne Kilkenny

Theosis4u (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly why I never use people I've pissed off as references in my resume! :) Fcreid (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I move that if we allow any portions of the Kilkenny letter as factual that all portions may be cited as factual, e.g. "According to Ms. Kilkenny, Governor Palin is 'not really pro-life'" and the like. Of course I am being facetious. This source is anything but reliable and rings clearly of an axe grinding from an old adversary. It should be utterly discredited as WP:RS. Fcreid (talk) 03:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. I think practically any candidate, for anything from mayors to national elections, has been criticized as "pro censorship" in some way all the time by previous associates, and duly quoted by mainstream media. It's incredibly irrelevant, RS, and Undue Weight.Pianomikey0 (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I will admit it's a good read. You can tell a lot about a person by talking to his enemies. Fcreid (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed again. Although I shudder to think what some of my former co-workers would say say about me, should I run for office ;) Pianomikey0 (talk) 03:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll be responsible here, considering I share the link of the letter. The link - About Sarah Palin: an e-mail from Wasilla By Anne Kilkenny - does say this, "Editor's note: The writer is a homemaker and education advocate in Wasilla, Alaska. Late last week, Anne Kilkenny penned an e-mail for her friends about vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, whom she personally knows, that has since circulated across comment forums and blogs nationwide. Here is her e-mail in its entirety, posted with her permission." Is that good enough for us to judge it as representative of Anne Kilkenny? Theosis4u (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you advocating for inclusion of its contents as cited reference? If so, I would disagree. It's obviously an extemporaneous and anecdotal account of events without any context for establishing either her credibility or credentials. I believe the legal term is voir dire. If some other RS runs this to ground and provides greater foundation, then we should potentially look to that. Somehow, I find that unlikely. Fcreid (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that the newspaper said they confirmed the email was from her. I hate to find out tomorrow that the "email" turned out to be a hoax. Theosis4u (talk) 04:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Since Palin herself referred to the incident by calling it rhetorical and since it was covered in the press on December 18, 1996 and here [3] it is fair to say that something did happen and that it is notable and worthy of inclusion. The Anchorage Daily News is RS and the issue has been covered by a number of newspapers including the NY Times and others. The WP should include something on the topic. On the other hand, I do agree that it would be a good idea as well to find the original December 18, 1996 Frontiersman article before expanding the sentence. I checked a few online sources and cannot find it. If someone has access to a library which would have a copy of the article in microfiche and wants to do the research, it would be very helpful to this discussion. -Classicfilms (talk) 03:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Concur. The city council statement, while rhetorical (taking Palin at her word), still warrants a mention. It should not include anything unsubstantiated and, frankly, deserves no more than a single line, e.g. "As mayor, Palin was once quoted asking about "removing books from the library" at a city council meeting, later stating it was a rhetorical question." Fcreid (talk) 03:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's a good start - in following Wikipedia:Five pillars and importantly Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, all voices which are documented according to Wikipedia:Verifiability have a place in the article. Thus in addition to Palin arguing that she meant it rhetorically, quotes from the librarian are needed to balance the section. Since the Frontiersman has those quotes, it should be easy to find them (if someone can dig up the article). As for Anne Kilkenny, I'm not certain her email is RS but if she is interviewed by an RS news source and quoted, that would qualify as RS. In other words, a few sentences are worthy of inclusion but they should be well sourced and researched. -Classicfilms (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess in fairness we should also add the other known context, i.e. "As mayor, Palin was once quoted at a city council meeting asking about "removing books from the library" because some voters felt they contained inappropriate language. She later stated it was a rhetorical question." Fcreid (talk) 03:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion and closer to NPOV. Again, however, I'd like to see that 1996 article before making major changes - it will help us to construct an NPOV sentence that is well documented. Thanks for your suggestions. -Classicfilms (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The above seems most appropriate if it's to be included. That's why I include the quote from him - it gave context. Theosis4u (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It also leaves open the possibility that <gasp> she was actually performing her official duties by escalating an issue raised by constituents to the city council instead of unilaterally dismissing it. That lacks the punch of "Palin fires Wasilla librarian for not burning "Darwin's Theory of Evolution", but it could actually be closer to the truth. Fcreid (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That's sorta what I was thinking and thought it would be important to include the references that the inquiry was on behalf of others in regards to specific books about inappropriate language. As a parent, I would hope my mayor would look into something like that -- if I had no children, I would consider it a waste of his time. Theosis4u (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If I read the complaint correctly, there have been no books actually censored, even after the librarian was fired. That indicates the firing really had nothing to do with book-burning, but with personality issues. In short: a "cat fight". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Librarian was never fired. No books were banned. There was a source in this article yesterday that mentioned the librarian had signed some document stating she supported the mayor Palin had ran against. Believe it was the same thing with the police chief. I've been unable to locate it again. Theosis4u (talk) 07:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture change requested

I think the picture of her family under "Personal life" should be changed. Left, original; right, proposed new.

Palin family members at the announcement of Palin's vice presidential selection, August 29, 2008. From left: Todd, Piper, Willow, Bristol, and Trig.

File:Palin Family.jpg

The Palin family. From left: top: Track, Sarah, Todd; bottom: Willow, Piper, Bristol

-Zeus- 23:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Copyright and source of new suggested image are doubtful. Vey nice picture though.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose pending verification then Support Looks like its the official picture. It's credited to US gvt and has public domain status. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Edit.. I took description to be gospel. If it's ever verified as government or public domain, i vote yes. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - I've flagged the image for speedy deletion at Commons. No indication it's a work of the federal government. Kelly ^hi! 00:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment I believe that pic is on the Alaskan state gov't site. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The Alaskan state govt doesn't release its work into the public domain. Kelly ^hi! 00:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose http://gov.state.ak.us/photos/PalinFamily_Outside_Med.jpg is the source and there is no release on the image. patsw (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC) I marked it copyvio sd. patsw (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the page where the file is shown; http://gov.state.ak.us/bio.html

Release for the Alaska state photo

I just sent an email to the webmaster asking for permission. -Zeus- 00:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok people this should be good enough; Message 1/252 Mills, Andy J (GOV) <andy.mills@alaska.gov> Sep 4, 2008 04:46:56 pm -0800 Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:46:56 -0800 Subject: RE: Bio Image To: Matthew Momjian <matthew@momjian.us>

Matthew-

Please feel free to use the image for Wikipedia if it's a non-partisan and non-campaign related use (which is the requirement for this release).

Thank you for your permission request. Please note that newest member of the Palin family (Trig Paxson Van Palin) is not pictured in that photo.

Kind Regards- Andy Mills Office of the Governor Webmaster

---

Original Message-----

From: Matthew Momjian [4] Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 4:41 PM To: Mills, Andy J (GOV) Subject: Bio Image

Hello,

I am representing Wikipedia and requesting permission to use the file located at http://gov.state.ak.us/photos/PalinFamily_Outside_web.jpg on the Sarah Palin Wikipedia page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

I found the file on http://gov.state.ak.us/bio.html

Thank you, -Zeus- 00:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am not a Wiki-lawyer but I'm not sure that a release for the Wikipedia is valid. When I have done this myself, the grantor needs to reference one of GFDL, CC-SA, CC-BY-SA, or FAL explicitly for it to be a valid release. See commons:project:Email templates for the sort of release expected. patsw (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • So what do I need to do now? -Zeus- 01:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by -Zeus- (talk • contribs)

• • • Try again. Use the boilerplate we suggest be used, and ask that it be returned, verbatim, with their signature at the bottom. Explain why the current permission is insufficient. Hope that helps.++Lar: t/c 01:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Well according to that template he can't release that file because I doubt the webmaster is the copyright holder of the file :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by -Zeus- (talk • contribs) 01:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The form of release that is the easiest to explain is http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ But this release is explicit in granting usage that could be partisan or campaign-related. As far as I know, the Wikipedia can't use images that have such usage restrictions. My suggestion:

To permissions-commonswikimedia.org

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK http://gov.state.ak.us/photos/PalinFamily_Outside_web.jpg

I agree to publish that work under the free license LICENSE [choose at least one from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Choosing_a_license#Common_free_licenses ] (patsw suggests CC-SA http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

DATE, NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER

This is the form of release expected. patsw (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

See also Commons:Email_templates which gives (too?) detailed instructions, and has a link to further example emails you can use. If he is an "authorised agent" of the copyright holder, (the State of Alaska) he can release it. But you need to be clear that it's a release in accordance with our license. As incentive, remind him that if we can't get permission, we may have to use other freely licensed pictures which might not be as nice to look at, and also remind him that this page got 2.5M views a few days ago and is on track to get well over 20M during the month of September. Does he want a nice picture used, or one we scare up from someone??? ++Lar: t/c 01:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Ok I sent as you guys suggested let's hope he agrees. I think he will.— Preceding unsigned comment added by -Zeus- (talk • contribs)
    • You might want to forward that email response (if you get another) to at least one or two administrators for record as well. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
      • You can if you want, but the better thing to do is make sure it gets into OTRS so it can be tagged with the {{OTRS}} template and ticket number. forward it to permissions@wikimedia.org as the instructions I referenced explain and it will get processed. That's much more solid than a few admins having a copy, it's in a trackable system that way. ++Lar: t/c 04:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

All images on US Federal government sites are in the pubic domain, unless stated otherwise. Most=, if not all state sites have similar licenses. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, most states do not place their copyrightable material in the public domain. It is either explicitly copyrighted, or automatically copyrighted, since a copyright notice is not required to establish a copyright. patsw (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The non-posed picture should be retained, assuming it's a free photo, unless there is evidence that it's standard wikipedia practice to include P.R. family photos for politicians. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

College Career Needs Editing

Associated Press reports that SP attended five colleges in six years before being granted her degree in 1987: Hawaii Pacific University (fall 1982), North Idaho College (spring 1983 and fall 1983), University of Idaho (fall 1984 to spring 1985), Matanuska-Susitna College (fall 1985 to spring 1986), University of Idaho (spring 1986, fall 1986, and spring 1987). The article is locked but I thought I'd post the info here, if anyone would like to add this information when it is unlocked. The article can be found at: http://www.adn.com/palin/story/516085.html Kitchawan (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is what is in the article:

Palin attended Hawaii Pacific in Honolulu for a semester in 1982, majoring in Business Administration. She transferred in 1983 to North Idaho College.[10] In 1987,[11] Palin received a Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism from the University of Idaho, where she also minored in political science.[12][13]

. I think what we have now is fine. It doesn't need all of that detail.--Paul (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please post here your proposed rewording for the applicable section. Kelly ^hi! 00:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We can't leave incomplete info on there. We can either say them all, or say she went to several schools before settling on UIdaho. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be simply acceptable to state the school from which she recieved her degree - thoughts? Kelly ^hi! 00:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I went to 7 schools before getting my undergrad. I only put 2 in resumes. The one I started at and the one I graduated from. We don't need to be exhaustive. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's just one more, it should be added. (U Idaho stay was interrupted.) If it was seven, maybe not. Or it can stay the way it is, she might have just been saving a little money that one semester. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We need to put them all in if it's verified. What we do in our own resumes of course is irrelevant, as is our speculation on why she attended so many schools. The list of schools is notable because it is unusual. Including only some of the schools does not make sense, and putting only the one she graduated from would be misleading and therefore could appear to be biased. So we should include them all, assuming this is verified fact. Here you go - may be able to pare down the refs, but we need to include all of the info:

Palin attended Hawaii Pacific in Honolulu for her first freshman semester in 1982, transferring in 1983 to North Idaho College for two semesters. In 1987, She then transferred in Fall 1984 to the University of Idaho for two semesters, returning to Matanuska-Susitna College in Alaska for the Fall 1985 semester. She returned to Idaho for her last three semesters and in 1987 received a Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism from the University of Idaho, with a minor in political science.

<- Ugh. Awkward as hell and too much detail. Better to leave it as her degree-issuing school, I think. Kelly ^hi! 01:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• It would be misleading to mention only the school which granted the bachelors degree. Certainly there should be no speculation about why she changed schools so many times. If it said she received a bachelors degree from the University of Idaho after attending three other named schools starting in 1982, with the inline footnotes at the end of the sentence, that would be enough detail. The reader could check the refs if he wish to learn her entire academic history. For an example of how much detail about a Vice President's college studies is found in a mature and stable article, see Dick Cheney which says He attended Yale University, but, as he stated, "[he] flunked out."[7][8] Amongst the influential teachers from his days in New Haven was Professor H. Bradford Westerfield, whom Cheney repeatedly credited with having helped to shape his hard-line approach to foreign policy.[9] He later attended the University of Wyoming where he earned both a Bachelor of Arts and a Master of Arts in political science. He subsequently started, but did not finish, doctoral studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison." Al Gore has quite a detailed section on his college education as well. The schools are stated, but not in the semester-by-semester detail proposed. Edison (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Yeah, either leave it as is, or just add, "a one semester stint at Matanuska-Susitna College" somewhere. Which semesters were spent where isn't important. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree; there is no speculation about why she transferred, only fact that she did, which cannot be denied and is certainly not POV by any means. I agree with the suggested rewrite.Kitchawan (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

{outdent] No, Kelly, that won't do it, as has been said by several people. I was trying to keep to the structure that was already there, but how about this rewrite. Note that there is no confirmation in the sources that she minored in political science - and no indication of how much she studied it or where - that has to go unless we find more information, as including it smacks of POV. And there were way too many sources that add no additional information. So try this:

Palin spent her first college semester at Hawaii Pacific College, transferring in 1983 to North Idaho College and then to the University of Idaho. She attended Matanuska-Susitna College in Alaska for one term, returning to the University of Idaho to complete her Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism, graduating in 1987.

Tvoz/talk 04:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's concise and readable. Me likey. :) Kelly ^hi! 05:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

An improvement, to be sure. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

YAY - will a kindly admin please replace the entire 4th paragraph about her education in "Early life" with this paragraph (refs and wikilinks as in the edit screen):

Palin spent her first college semester at Hawaii Pacific College, transferring in 1983 to North Idaho College and then to the University of Idaho. She attended Matanuska-Susitna College in Alaska for one term, returning to the University of Idaho to complete her Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism, graduating in 1987.

Thanks. Tvoz/talk 07:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Need breakout page for "Speeches and Public Appearances of Sarah Palin"

I added Palin's Aug. 29 debut speech, but it is a bit long for this main article, and since then she has made her acceptance speech at the Republican Convention, and can be expected to make more. There are also several past appearances that are significant that should be included. On the other hand, her interview in which she asked what a vice-president does now seems somewhat insignificant. Therefore, I would like consensus from other editors about creating a new page, "Speeches and Public Appearances of Sarah Palin", to include the following, among others as they occur (in chronological order, which the list below is not):

• Her interview asking what a vice-president does, removed there from main article.
• Her debut speech of Aug. 29, 2008.
• Her acceptance speech at the Republican Convention.
• Interview, favorite SCOTUS justice, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOU8GIRUd_g
• 2006 Debate among Palin and her opponents, Tony Knowles and Andrew Halcro, in campaign for election as governor, http://gregransom.com/prestopundit/2008/09/sarah-palin-debates-tony-knowl.html
• (Future) Transcript of debate with Joseph Biden.

The page might also have discussion and cites to commentary, such as analysis of language (e.g., the biblical origin of the phrase "servant's heart"), rhetorical technique (e.g., use or non-use of teleprompters), political significance, and cites to origins of phrases (e.g., the unattributed quote of Adm. Grace Hopper, who is reported to have been one of Palin's role models). Bracton (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: The phrase "servant's heart" is from Mark 10:44, "whosoever would be first among you, shall be servant of all." See http://www.bible-researcher.com/erv/mark.html#10 .Bracton (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

ZOMG BIBLE! ;) - Kelly ^hi! 01:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Bracton, perhaps you could transribe Palin's speeches into WikiQuotes so we can link to them from here. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A breakout page would be appropriate here, to avoid the "listing" that wiki frowns upon.Pianomikey0 (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless she comes up with an iconic phrase like Truman's "the buck stops here", quotes should be sent to wikiquotes. And before anyone gets too gushy about the acceptance speech, keep in mind it was written by someone else (though presumably with her input). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Which reminds me: With her funny about eBay, I could imagine the internet-challenged McCain turning to one of his advisers and asking, "Where's eBay? Is that in Alaska?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Convention speech

It's almost a day later and the reaction to her speech has been covered by a number of sources. I think it's time to begin working out a paragraph or so to cover it here.

BTW, if you do a Google search on "speech", one of the suggested searches is "Palin speech", so people are interested. A.J.A. (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree. Maybe we can start with this Associated Press article as a base.[5] zredsox (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What a partisan hack job!--Paul (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, not surprising that would be his pick. A.J.A. (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I assume that was a slight? Thanks. I appreciate your civility.zredsox (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That speech was the partisan hack job. The AP article separates fact from fiction. I figured I'd help work toward balance by jumping out in front with a link to a solid WP:RS so it would be clear what type of affronts to a fluff section on the speech would be brought to bear. zredsox (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

For comparison, here's what is in the Obama article

On August 28, Obama accepted the nomination in a speech that received praise from many media commentators and political analysts.[104] The speech, delivered in front of 84,000 supporters in Invesco Field, contained pointed criticism of McCain and President Bush and added details to his stances that were not mentioned in previous campaign speeches.[105][106] The speech set a record as the most-watched convention speech in history, seen by more U.S. viewers than was the Beijing Olympics opening ceremony.[107]

Sarah is in 2nd place in the Nielsen speech sweepstakes:

CHICAGO (MarketWatch) -- Wednesday night's acceptance speech by Republican Vice-Presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin drew more than 37.2 million combined viewers on six networks, just short of Barack Obama's 38.3 million viewers last week at the Democratic National Convention, according to Nielsen Media Research.

However, I'm not sure we need a paragraph about the speech.--Paul (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Like Obama, a reaction should say more than just how many people saw it, of course. Dragons flight (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the Obama article has anything about his speechwriter. A.J.A. (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

See above -- Need breakout page for "Speeches and Public Appearances of Sarah Palin".Bracton (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with your proposed structure. It seems more natural to cover her speeches and debates under the campaigns they happened in. A.J.A. (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning them, perhaps, but quotes of entire speeches overload a main article, and it is marginally POV to summarize things like speeches, when we have the speeches themselves.Bracton (talk) 02:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey everyone, Wikipedia says Associated Press is a reliable source, so its a reliable source on anything. Yes most journalists in United States like almost all support Obama and you can't help having a slant when it is like that. But Wikipedia is not about being fair or right it is about being reliable, verifiable. On a topic like Obama or Palin where the media has a big slant it is going to have that slant to, deal with it. Don't like it? become a journalist. RetroS1mone talk 02:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Except Wikipedia has a policy called NPOV that doesn't allow "slanting" you seem to advocate here. Hobartimus (talk) 03:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really want to see very much on this in the article, it's too newsy. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Better would be a list of some sort of recent noteworthy appearances, with footnoted links to objective news coverage, for those who are interested. Each appearance can have a single sentence description.Pianomikey0 (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Make sure to include the name of the guy who actually wrote the speech. According to this [6] it was a GOP writer named Matt Scully. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Passive voice in "Political Positions" category

I'm new to this, so please bear with me :) The sentence "Palin has been described as supportive of contraception" is passive voice, and should be changed to something more like "Palin is supportive of contraception"[citation]. Or maybe "ADN describes Palin as supportive of contraception." Pianomikey0 (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Except Anchorage Daily News is clearer than ADN, if that option is taken. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

How about just Palin supports contraception? Fcreid (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Even though it's almost certainly true, I don't think that rephrase is quite supported by the reference.Pianomikey0 (talk) 03:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I take it back. The referenced article says: "Palin said last month that no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child. She is pro-contraception and said she's a member of a pro-woman but anti-abortion group called Feminists for Life." "She is supportive of contraception" would be almost directly quoted from the article.Pianomikey0 (talk) 03:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Okeydoke. Nice and simple non-urgent request: remove the passive voice per pianomikey0. "She is supportive of supports contraception" 86.44.27.255 (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, make it "She supports contraception." Pithy that way. Now I'll shut up.Pianomikey0 (talk) 04:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Aye. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Except that contraception is not a notable political issue in 2008 in the United States. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 04:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That was good, Steve. Sometimes we get so caught up in nuances that we miss the obvious. :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's already in the article, in the passive voice. This is about removing the passive voice. Seperate issues, separate sections? You're against removing the passive voice? Sheesh. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 04:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If the article must say something about this how about: "She is in favor of contraception." The source says, "She is pro-contraception." Steve Dufour (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Contraception is less of an issue than abortion, but the Catholic Church, last I heard, still opposes contraception. It's also obvious that Palin's family doesn't use it, even if they favor it. Keep the quote on the matter to one sentence. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Add information on Monegan firing

At the time Palin fired him, the governor said she wanted the department to move in a new direction. Later, after Monegan said he felt pressured to fire Wooten, Palin at a news conference said Monegan wasn't a team player, didn't do enough to fill trooper vacancies and battle alcohol abuse issues in rural Alaska.

Saki2 (talk) 02:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This section needs to be rewritten, or reverted to an earlier version, so that facts crucial to any summary of this issue are present. There were numerous sourced references included previously that described the investigative stage of this topic as occuring in the following order: 1. Governor Palin denied any pressure had been applied to fire Wooten. 2. The state legislature announced it was conducting an investigation. 3. Gov. Palin directs her Attornet General to conduct an internal investigation. 4. Gov. Palin admits that around two dozen contacts had been made regarding Wooten.

As modified, the article implies no initial denial, and that the Gov. admitted to the contacts prior to the announcement of the legislative investigation, rather than as a result of that announcement [7]. Removing key facts, and only those that imply the possibility of wrongdoing, in the name of maintaining this sections "summary" status has imparted a bias upon this section that is in opposition to the established facts. Placing the occurance of events into an accurate timeline, and including the fact that there was an initial denial, then, after the State announced an investigation was planned, an admission to over 20 contacts regarding Wooten would require the addition of only a few words, and result in a concise overview of the isuue, rather than a whitewashed version. 75.88.83.220 (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Paul

The site floppingaces.com has done [full encyclopedic and scholarly writeup on "Troopergate"] complete with links to the relevant court documents. I think it would be appropriate to simply refer the reader to that writeup. I would propose the sentence be added that refers the reader to that site or that wikipedia obtain permission to reprint the article in its entirety here. -- Robert 76.120.109.174 (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Archives

Many threads, 109 to be precise, have been archived by Miszabot due to a 2 hours setting, [8]. I've reset to 12 hours, maybe it should be more. Some threads may still be under discussion and needing to be unarchived. So far, #Dispute_.231:_Alaskan_Independence_Party has been unarchived. Cenarium ^Talk 03:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarity About early "firings" in Wasilla

It seems like some sources are leaving out the details of this situation, I'll admit it's confusing to track down. In Wasilla keeps librarian, but police chief is out it says this, 'The mayor told them she appreciated their service but felt it was time for a change. I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern the city of Wasilla. Therefore I intend to terminate your employment ... the letter said.'. Notice the word "intend" with this letter she sent out. There was meetings Palin and the others had about "working out their issues"... in the end, only one person was fired, Police Chief Irl Stambaugh. I think another person resigned. The current wiki article states, "She rescinded the firing of the librarian...". To rescind, she would of had fired her (librarian) in the first place. Theosis4u (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Posted today, the Anchorage Daily News has a much fuller story about the librarian episode at http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/515512.html Kitchawan (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection Template, again

Did we decide to reduce the protection message? [9]

The first discussion clearly favored a larger message. The second feels like no consensus to me.

Personally, I continue to feel that a larger template is useful (despite being ugly). It identifies an unusual condition on a high profile page, and directs interested parties to comment on the discussion page. It also identifies the underlying policies that got us here (e.g. BLP and protection). I wouldn't put it back myself, but I am a bit disturbed that it would be changed again without a comment, and would like to raise issue for discussion (again). [As an aside, whoever decided to archive all sections older than 2 hours seems to have been rather over-eager.] Dragons flight (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I dropped a note at jossi's page pointing to the recent discussion in which the older discussion is also linked. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Given the traffic we are seeing on this page, I think the reduced profile is beneficiary. -Zeus- 04:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• What does the tag adds? Not needed given the high visibility of the article, and the too obvious lack of consensus for having it protected in the first place. Time would be better spent in researching material for the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Stop being pointy and commit to consensus before making edits, especially when the edit you wish to make has already been discussed. You need an IP user to tell you this? 86.44.27.255 (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

An IP? Seems more like an editor that knows the ropes ...pls stop pretending. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I do indeed know the ropes; i've been editing daily or near daily since january or before, and from time to time for a considerable period going back further. no registered account ever though, so no pretense whatsoever. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 04:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • It is needed especially given the high visibility of the article. Many visitors who are unfamiliar with our policies may be surprised that the page is protected and need help finding this discussion page, where they can contribute to further improving the article. Dragons flight (talk) 04:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with the small tag. Remember that most people come here to read, not edit and most new people couldn't edit anyway even with a semi. The difference between full prot and semi only affects regular editors who are expected to be able to find the talk page. Hobartimus (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Total Viewers Of Palin Speech - Beats Obama?

Palin Ratings [http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/09/04/mccain-speech.html Towards the end. I'm having a hard time finding a apples to apples comparison. Would it be notable if she did beat Obama's total viewers numbers? Theosis4u (talk) 04:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What I heard, she was like 37 million to his 38 million, but she was on four fewer networks, making her number more impressive. Still worth noting.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 04:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Worth noting, but I'd prefer it be part of a somewhat meater "response to her speech" paragraph. There is a thread proposing that somewhere around here. Dragons flight (talk) 04:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The article says PBS reported an extra 4 million which would take Palin to 41.2 million total viewers. Hobartimus (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This should be noted in the article on the campaign, if at all, I think. I really also must say that curiosity about a new person could have helped her TV ratings, Obama has been in the public eye for years. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The other side of the "curiosity" coin is that it could of been larger if people did know her for 18 months? Either way, it's cool to watch these two historical situations happen before our eyes within a week of each other. Theosis4u (talk) 04:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Politics has been kind of boring lately, before this year that is.  :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness Palin shouldn't be compared to Obama who had the main slot at the convention, she should be compared to Biden the other VP pick, who had 24 million viewers. Hobartimus (talk) 04:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to compare Palin to Obama, star to star. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 04:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

All that proves is that no one wants to listen to old, white guys. ;-) Of course if that really is the case, maybe her ratings will beat McCain's. It will be interesting where he falls in comparison to Obama and Palin. Dragons flight (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I certainly find her more interesting McCain... hell I've already fought with my wife about that issue. I'd call it noteworthy =D

Somebody else has to make this Obama (or McCain) comparison for us to use it in any article, we can't really do it as editors. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what your asking for here? Theosis4u (talk) 05:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, were we to find reliable figures for both, and put them side by side in an article, that would probably be what people around here call "Synthesis of published material which advances a position". Whereas if we find a reliable source doing the same thing, it's good to go if editors think it important enough. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 05:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Her ratings also could have been helped by the large number of WP editors doing research for this article. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 05:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And by the curious, to see how well she could read someone else's speech. Obama is a known quantity. She was unknown to the general public. And with that over with, she'll probably disappear again. This is about Obama and McCain, lest y'all forget. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox for article improvements

The Sarah Palin sandbox can be found here at the link provided for article improvements. Talk:Sarah Palin/sandbox. After consensus is reached an admin can edit it in the real article.

Regards, QuackGuru 04:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not see much need for this... {{editprotect}} is working quite well. In any case, if editors want to attempt a massive re-write, a sandbox may be handy. But I doubt this would be the case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

An editor by mistake edited the sandbox in mainspace instead of the talk page. It needs to be deleted and salted. Sarah Palin/sandbox‎ QuackGuru 05:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with jossi. There is no need to further splinter out focus from the article to a third page. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A sandbox will just be a target for more libel, slander, filth, and POV-pushing. That stuff isn't allowed there, either. Kelly ^hi! 05:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with jossi. There's no need to add to the confusion by adding more pages out there. J Readings (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The sandbox is a great idea. The mainspace version can continued to be protected for a week or even a month and we can improve the article by working towards consensus in the draft version. QuackGuru 05:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course you would think it's a great idea, isn't it your idea? I don't. Have you been here dealing with the horrific crap on this article? There's no need to propagate this stuff to pages that are not well-watched. Kelly ^hi! 06:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Better yet, let's have a whole bunch of sandboxes. We'll call it "content forks R us". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Eldest son's middle name

According to the Anchorage Daily News's 2007 high-school graduation announcements, her eldest son is Track CJ Palin (no periods between C and J). See http://dwb.adn.com/life/hometown/graduations_07/story/8931787p-8831967c.html and look under Wasilla High School students. Kitchawan (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

CJ? What kind of a name is that? Track, I could see. But CJ??? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A middle one (badum boom). Its a middle name, who cares? :P Unless it was like Hussein or something! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, as in King Hussein, an ally of ours, in case you've forgotten. Or Nasser Hussein, a world-class cricket player. At least it's not "Danforth". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Danforth is a mighty name, like Davron or Spencer. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Support for Obama

On August 4, 2008 Palin issued a press release indicating her support for Barack Obama's energy policy, but it has since been deleted from her website. However an archived version can be found at http://versionista.com/diff/JJ2w@!EyRIzwBhWF7@qt6Q/?showscript 71.95.17.217 (talk) 05:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What's your point? Kelly ^hi! 06:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Did any news orgs notice? If so, please provide links to them. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Travels abroad, part of her governor job

After becoming governor, Palin obtained her passport and traveled to Kuwait and Germany in 2007 to visit with members of the Alaska National Guard; she has also made multiple trips to Canada.

This is included in the #personal_life section. I think this should be shifted to the #Governor section, as these travels seem to be part of her job rather than part of her family life. Teofilo talk 06:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's also notable that she's *only* visited four foreign countries (Canada, Germany, Iraq, Kuwait), and never traveled out of the US until 2007. 24.16.145.189 (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the last? It does not seem plausible that she moved from Idaho to Alaska and never stepped foot into Canada prior to 2007. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe her airplane from Idaho to Alaska flew over Canadian ground, but that doesn't require a passport. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever moved? You don't move furniture with aeroplanes. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've moved. The furniture (and the car) went by truck, and I flew an airplane to the destination. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Having lived in a border state (not Alaska or Idaho, Wisconsin in my case) I find it unlikely that she'd never travelled into Canada for a fishing or hunting trip. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't think its really notable for an article about her... it is great for giving the whole thing a subtle slant though o.O Why isn't it noatable? I don't see many articles about people that list where a person has travelled in the world. It doesn't have any bearing on her international capacity, it doesn't mean she isolates herself. Really... its trivia :)

It's part of the "hick" meme that her opposition is pushing, I think. Kelly ^hi! 07:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they don't seem to get that it only reminds Palin's crowd that Obama has it in for small town types who are "clinging to their guns and bibles." Reinforcing gaffes for fun! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor change requested

{{editprotected}} "Palin served two terms on the Wasilla, Alaska, city council from 1992 to 1996, then won two terms as mayor of Wasilla from 1996 to 2002." The comma after Wasilla, Alaska does not belong. Thanks, Enigma ^message 07:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Kevin (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Units

{{tl:editprotected}} "5K and 10K" should be in lowercase, or even better read "5 km and 10 km". --Slashme (talk) 07:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Done, though I think "5K" and '10K" are standard terms for those races. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • 5K and 10K are common usage. I've never heard anyone say "5 km" race. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wolf hunting

I'd like to wikilink wolf hunting. I could edit through protection, but given the, ahem, high-profile stuff about recent admin actions here, I thought I should double-check that typos, minor copyediting and grammer fixes and wikilinking and markup corrections can be done without talk page consensus? Am I right to say that? Carcharoth (talk) 07:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be a nonissue. You have my seal o approval! :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. Kelly ^hi! 07:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be for those readers who don't know what a wolf is nor what hunting is? Well, it seems harmless enough. Go ahead. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit made here. I wikilinked Alaska Department of Fish and Game (a short stub), wolf hunting [Bugs, you might want to read that article to see the history and the controversy surrounding wolf hunting - or maybe see Elmer Fudd? :-)], and Cook Inlet (rather a nice article, actually). We don't seem to have articles on the Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority or the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act, though we probably should. If anyone notices these turning blue, or writes a stub, please link from this article as well. Carcharoth (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Full Protection for Two Weeks?

This is absurd. This page is locked from editing for "two weeks." Among other travesties, it is unclear when the two week period started and when it ends. It also keeps the page locked in with incorrect information, poor formatting, incorrect grammar and outdated facts. This is no way to run a site that touts itself as an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" and that should reflect reality. This instead results in the freezing of an incorrect article that will be sourced by individuals and organizations around the world (such is the power of Wikipedia) as "truth." If violations of policy occur, deal with the individual editors that are violating the policy. Whoever has put the page lock in place is throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water. I am very disappointed in this action. --Crunch (talk) 07:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong place to complain about this. Here [10] is the right place to make your feelings known. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposals on the talk page are being discussed, and when consensus is reached, they are posted to the article. This is actually a much better way to run wikipedia than through the flurry of edit warring that was going on. If you think some fact is "incorrect", then bring it here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)