Talk:Sarah Palin

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

abstinence only education?

"Abstinence only" failed in her own case & in that of her daughter. Really? Did either she or her daughter have "abstinence only" education? Maybe if they had had it, it would have stuck. The debate over the effectiveness of such education will go on, but the fact that it didn't have its touted effect on someone who didn't have it is hardly an argument against it! -- Zsero (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the issue is not Palin but the child. There is no reason why you should need to know the exact birthdate / birthday. Hobartimus (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to respond to BenAveling. No, we are not all in agreement that almost certainly conceived prior to marriage. Did you miss the part about 1/3 of the births being premature. Unless you or others have specific knowledge about when these two were having sex or about the birth details, drop it. --Tom 20:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Even the McCain campaign has acknowledged the discrepancy 1. There can be no real doubt. 140.139.35.250 (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Should Palin announce that her first son was conceived prior to marriage, it will then become biographical. At this point, considering it's not certain, it's sole intent here is to embarrass the subject of the article potentially very unfairly. I strongly vote it has no place in the article (beyond the obvious privacy concerns of identifying birthdates). Fcreid (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to think that Track was just prem. But I gotta admit, the 1/3 prem claim probably doesn't apply here. According to Premature_Babies, 1 baby in 8 is >3 weeks prem. Track, as I understand it, arrived 33½ weeks after the wedding. So that would be 6½ weeks. There's a chance of a baby being that prem, but it's small. And it's certainly enough time to miss a period and arrange a quick wedding. But, arguing about whether she walks the walk isn't important. She made a mistake. Ideally, nobody would care what she does in her private life. It's what she would do as VP or as President that matters. She knows that abstinence only education leads to pregnancy, statistics show it - her own experience is just one datapoint. And she still supports it. She believes that abstinence only education has benefits that outweigh the costs. And that's what we should be saying. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

She knows that abstinence only education leads to pregnancy, statistics show it - her own experience is just one datapoint. How is her experience a data point? Did she have abstinence only education? -- Zsero (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ben, your figure is incorrect for firstborn children who has a much higher incidence of prematurity. Fcreid (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

She made a mistake? I love holier than thou people. geesh --Tom 23:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Leave it out! If any reader is interested, they will do their own math. Wikipedia is not the only source for information, but it can be the most reliable.--Buster7 (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

@Fcreid: We work with what we have. I'm sure there are actuarial tables around, but here's a simple rule of thumb. If 3 weeks early means 1 in 8, then 2 * 3 weeks is probably going to be something like 1 in 64. It's possible, but it's low. Throw in an elopment as well. At 6 weeks prem, Track would probably have been fine, but he wouldn't have left the hospital quickly. And as pointed out above, at less than 4 weeks prem, it would have been unlikely for them to realise, but at 6+ weeks, quite possible. Sadly, nothing else really adds up. But don't make too much out of it: Does this fact alone suddenly make her a bad person? No. Happens to lots of people, and plenty of them respond in worse ways than getting married and staying married. Does it make her a hypocrite? Not in my opinon. See my response to Tom below. Other people might feel differently, at least if they are trying to make her look bad.

@Tom: Yes, she made a mistake. And are you accusing me or her of being holier than thou? Either way, yes, she made a mistake, and it led to her getting pregnant and married. Probably two things she wanted to do sometime, but I suspect not quite as quickly as she did. Not that any of us know for sure, but the evidence is that she made a mistake, and I don't see it as hypocritical of anyone to say "don't do what I did". "Don't do what I do" is hypocrticial. Yes, "Don't make the mistake I made" would be better, more honest, braver, etc, but I'm not sure how many of the rest of us would be tough enough to carry that line through what she has to go through.

@Buster7: I'm not suggesting that we say anything more than what we know. We know they got married, 7 1/2 months ahead of the birth of their first child. And that's all we can say, and that's what we should say. It's not OR. To say anything more than that would be OR, so we don't have to say more than that. But I can't see any reason to say less than that either, and I've been trying, and I can't see any reason to leave the matter out entirely. About the only reason I can see to leave it out is censorship. Nobody forced her to bring her kids on stage; she herself has made them part of the narative, and so - I'm open to suggestions here - but I can't find any decent excuse for us not to tell the whole story.

Regards, Ben Aveling 11:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i am saying you are being holier than thou because you keep on insisting she made a mistake without any proof of such. Unless you know on what dates she was having sex, then you are being judgemental. Do you know when she first had sex with Todd? Yes or no question, no blathering. --Tom 13:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC) ps, you wrote but the evidence is that she made a mistake do you have 5 x 8 color glossies of her having sex that are time stamped? What is this "evidence" that allows you to be so judgemental? --Tom 13:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Posting the dates serves only one purpose, and that is to insinuate (in the absence of any absolute proof) that she was pregnant at marriage, and some of the ones pushing for it have made it clear that that's precisely why they want it. She recently gave birth to a preemie, so it's possible the first one was also a preemie. Likely? Maybe not. But posting the dates is inappropriate. Now, IF she owns up to it, or IF some solid proof emerges, that would be different. But 7 1/2 months is insufficient "proof", it's only inference and doesn't belong. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Tom, it's possible that Track was prem, but it's not plausible. 7 1/2 months. Quickie wedding. And every opportunity in the world to just say that he was prem. As for the holier than thou, no, I'm no holier than any one else on this one. By Palin's mistake, I mean becoming pregnant. I don't know what information she had at age 24, but as a potential VP/P her own views and experience on sex education matter. Sex before marriage is an individual choice for each person and couple to make on their own. In my opinion, it should be an informed choice. Whether it is an informed choice isn't up to me or you, or even the VP/P alone. But they have a lot more input into it than most. This is verifiable, it's important, it's relevant. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, her "mistake" was becoming pregnant? Again, that is your opinion and judgement.--Tom 14:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)ps, again, you keep talking about sex before marriage. Do you have ANY evidence of this? Color glossies with time stamp work the best. --Tom 14:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Concur, Bugs. Ben, I'm certainly not questioning your motivation, but rather the encyclopedic value of this fact unless it's presented in an awkward and "clinical" fashion. In other words, if you listed every child's birth date (and, possibly, the gestation period for each), that would seem encyclopedic (albeit quite invasive). In contrast, a comment like "they eloped... and Trig was born 8 months later" is clearly an insinuation. Yes, facts are stubborn. In addition to those discussed above, we are also ignoring the fact that Palin was 24-years old when she married (and not 17!) That simple fact, and others we do not know such as whether she was living with her parents, would lead to even stranger conclusions. Again, I see no value for the detail in the article except for salacious and possible incorrect conclusion. Fcreid (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur that insinuations without precise facts should be excluded. However I feel trying to turn this into an abstinance only issue is totally missing the point of that campaign. Abstinance only is presented as the best way to control the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Personally I feel that people should not have sex unless married. However, For the arguments against abstinance only to have any meaning here you would have to demonstrate either that one of these people had had sex with another person creating a potential spread of zexually transmitted diseases, or that the father of an unborn child had abandoned the mother instead of going through with standing as the father. Lastly your attacks on abstinance education ignore the psychological costs of free roaming sex and ignore the fact that condoms and not impermiable. It also ignores the fact that any genital contact will spread the HPV.Johnpacklambert (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Not at 99% certain. Not even at 100% certain.

Seems like we had this debate several weeks ago, and you indicate the important point yet again - that you can't necessarily draw conclusions from 7 1/2 months. If it were 4 or 5 months, there would be no question. But this is just ambiguous enough that it's a POV push to use it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would you include it at 4 or 5 months, but not at 7 1/2 months? Regards, Ben Aveling 13:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't, necessarily. All I'm saying is that 4 or 5 months would be sufficient to demonstrate that the child was conceived out of wedlock. 7 1/2 months isn't, but the POV-pushers want to suggest to the reader that it is. But it isn't. 4 or 5 months would be. That doesn't mean it belongs in the article. But at least it would be solid proof. 7 1/2 months isn't. Did I say that already? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

And maybe I'm not being clear enough on the larger point. Posting the dates amounts to analysis or drawing (or trying to get the reader to draw) conclusions. That is a violation of the wikipedia philosophy. Now, if you can find a reliable source (and the Enquirer emphatically does not count) that discusses this issue, then you might have something, or at least something worth talking about here. But it is not wikipedia's place to draw that inference unilaterally. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the editors said the dates were available in connection with the Hannity & Colmes TV show. So the question is, did they debate the matter? What conclusions did they reach, if any? Because now you're looking at verifiable citations, instead of wikipedians trying to decide what significance 7 1/2 months has, if any. What did they have to say about it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Dunno. I don't watch the news. It clouds my judgment. :) Fcreid (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I hear ya. But don't confuse H&C with "the news". :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, you were saying that you don't want it included if it was 99% likely, now you don't even want it included if it were 100% certain. Mind if I ask why not? Which specific WP policy are concerned about? Regards, Ben Aveling 20:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ben, I think it's simply a matter of decorum, particularly given that there is a fair possibility that it's an erroneous assumption on anyone's part. I just don't see how it could be included here in an encyclopedic manner without insinuation. More importantly, and as this relates to the talk topic you chose about abstinence, is it really your contention that Palin didn't understand where babies come from at 24? Fcreid (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I just read the article, and it indicates she supports pro-abstinence sex education but also the discussion of contraception (in deference to the blinding reality that kids screw around!) I may be showing my age, but what's missing from that curriculum, e.g. are there alternatives missing from that program that you feel should be included? Furthermore, I an much more incredulous that a woman of her obvious attraction "abstained" for 24 years, or I truly want to shake Todd's hand for being the most patient man I'll ever meet! Whatever the case, it's none of our business. Fcreid (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Palin has apparently voiced support for sex ed which includes discussion of contraception (interestingly, this puts her at odds with both John McCain and the official Republican Party platform, which support abstinence-only education). If you want a policy basis for leaving out the date of birth, WP:BLP suggests that we use only the year (if that) for non-public individuals, which would include all of Palin's children. If you want a common-sense basis... come on, people. There's a multilayered economic disaster unfolding, a few wars, a resurgent Russia, climate change, dependence on foreign oil, a critical number of people without health insurance. It's 2008. Who cares whether her first child was born less than exactly 9 months after her wedding day? Can't we all go back to fighting about the Bridge to Nowhere, at least? MastCell ^Talk 18:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well stated! That was much easier just to ignore!  :) Fcreid (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

We're not creating the speculation. It already exists. We're just choosing whether or not we self-censor information that is relevant to it. I'm not aware any policy citing decorum as a reason not to include information. As per BLP this alegation is "notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources". Regards, Ben Aveling 07:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't 1910, Ben. If their oldest child was conceived prior to Nuptuals, he is no different than millions of 21st Century Americans. Plus, let's have some regard for his , how should I say it, "legitimacy". IMHO--His parents sexual activities (and when they took place)(and what resulted from them) are private.--Buster7 (talk) 08:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't censor itself because a public figure might be embarrassed. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

However:

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

Have you no shame?--Paul (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Have I read that bit? I wrote it: [1]. You're right that we need to be balanced. Would this fact, and it is a fact, be appropriate for an article about a random person? No, of course not. Not even for a random politician. But this isn't a random politician, this is a vice-presidential candidate who is running on a values platform. That makes her own adherence to those values relevant. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Point me to that platform again, Ben? Oh, and by your tone, you did find evidence she engaged in premarital intercourse? Do you have anything to present for peer review? 23:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcreid (talk • contribs)

1. We have no clear evidence that the Palins did have sex before they were married. 2. Even if they did, standard good-old-fashioned small-town American Family Values ™ are that marriage before a baby is born retroactively legitimates all the sex that preceded it, and nothing more is said about it. That's the way it's been for at least 150 years, and probably centuries longer. Note, for instance, the six months between Obama's parents' marriage and his birth; had they remained together this discrepancy would have been regarded as unremarkable. 3. Conclusion: there's nothing at all to see here. -- Zsero (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Paliban.org (fansite)

Sarah Palin's views have inspired a Conservative Christian fan site called www.paliban.org. This group aspires to the creation of a Christian theocracy, and looks to Christian Reconstruction/Dominionism as their foundation. They also promote "Operation Rapture", a speculative theory based on Palin's views of Alaska's future as a "refuge state" combined with what they call the "God's Will Natural Gas Pipeline".

I'm not sure if it's satire or not; all the views of Palin are referenced to hard news sources.

Jnnydnti (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a political attack site and has no place in a BLP.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It's got 19 diggs. Definitely satire (funny though). Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Come on, the name doesn't give it away?--Loodog (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

it's only scary because its true. 63.164.145.85 (talk) 08:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Rape Kit Controversy?

Mary Pemberton of the Associated Press reports in a story headlined "Palin's town billed rape victims to get evidence"[2]

(cut-and-paste of article redacted)

According to Alaska officials, Palin did not inherit the policy and the previous police chief allocated funds for rape kits in his budget.

Her new chief, Charley Fannon reduced and then eliminated the fund in 1999, putting the burden on the victims. It was this action that inspired the state legislature to step in and require municipalities to pay for the kits. The fund reduction, reflecting the change in policy, is detailed in the 1999 budget which was signed by Palon.

So, yes, it was her policy, implemented by her staff in 1999 with her knowledge. The documents are available on line from the wasilla mayors office.

Okay. What do you want us to do about it? Include it? This was talked about before here, here, and here. Overall people seemed to think it was adequately covered in another article and was not significant/relevant enough about her to be worth describing here.Wikidemon (talk) 08:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Some people thought that. Some people thought the opposite. Some people thought that more information would probably emerge that would make the dispute easier to resolve. My personal opinion is that the information now available merits inclusion, notably because Palin's spokesperson expressly declined to answer some key questions from USA Today. The suppression of this information is another instance of pro-Palin bias, but I'm willing to wait a bit longer and see if the MSM do some actual digging and come up with answers to the questions that editors raised in the talk-page threads you cite. JamesMLane t c 09:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

According to Alaska officials, Palin did not inherit the policy and the previous police chief allocated funds for rape kits in his budget.

Waitagoddamminnit. Where are you getting this from? It's not in the article that you linked as a reference. I call shenanigans. -- Zsero (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

And I assume good faith.--Buster7 (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The rape kit controversy should be included in the article. It is significant enough that it is the subject of an article in the NY Times today - [3] - --Zeamays (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not an article. It's an opinion piece.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, I agree: The NY Times article is an opinion piece, but I didn't propose the article as a reference, rather to show that the issue is significant enough to be discussed in such a prominent forum. Therefore, your point is irrelevant. --Zeamays (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The NYT parroting the latest desperate Democratic talking points doesn't make them significant. -- Zsero (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Pic

Image by IP75

enhanced version by User:Jossi

I just want to mention that IP75 has used the current top picture to produce the following cropped version, that has very impressive quality improvements. If, however, the current wider crop remains, then IP75 may work on it to upgrade the quality. I think the image to the right would be perfectly fine as the top image in this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I prefer IP75's version out of the Carson City pics. 2¢. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

What about this version? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

What about it? Do you really think it's better than IP75's version? I don't. The Jossi version is much fuzzier and has much less detail, plus it's squeezed, and has a distracting letter "N" in the background.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Please refresh your browser. I kept the detail on the face, and reduced noise on the blouse, as well as cropping it tighter. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you're right. I refreshed my browser, and the "N" went away. That's slightly better, but I still think that the image of IP75 is much better, because it's less fuzzy and has more detail. You really think yours is better?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a matter of taste... I will let others decide. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the version by IP75 the shirt is too dark on my screen on the other one. And also seems a bit less sharp though I'm no expert. The crop is definitely an improvement on both pictures to the previous ones. Hobartimus (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Both are also an improvement to the one currently in the article with a big arm in the background. I say change to any of them now, for immediate improvement. Hobartimus (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Both are an improvement over the current picture, but I slightly prefer the version by IP75.--Paul (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

All the versions of this photo look unsharp, and when you click on them, all look even worse. There's nothing to choose among here. I'd go back to the parka picture; I value image quality much higher than the dreaded "image on the right looking right". But if it makes you all feel any better, there's a big argument in Talk:Joe Biden over whether the current top photo, Image:JoeBidenOfficialCroppedv3.jpg, should be replaced because he isn't wearing a tie and is therefore "undignified". Wasted Time R (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait! Palin isn't wearing a tie in any of the several pictures we've considered. Can we find one of her wearing a tie? We might have to photoshop one. This just won't do. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

WTR, I'm not sure that it matters much what people see when they click on the image. And considering the wonders that IP75 has worked here, I'm sure that if he directed his skills to upgrading the wide-crop currently at the top of this article, the result would surely satisfy you. But I'm satisfied with the narrow-crop that IP75 has done.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Given these two blurred and manky treatments of a very poor-quality photograph which has been railroaded with total disregard for WP guidelines (fine by me!), my professional though somewhat jaundiced eye sees the version by IPfrequently as very slightly less manky than the other. Therefore, given also the prevailing ascendancy here of personal prejudice over responsible service to WP's npov core value, I vote for the other (on the well-proven principle that in photographs of grinning idiots the more blurred the image the better it is for the viewer). Perhaps ≈ jossi ≈ could turn his or her skilled hand to the portraits in the Dubya, McCain and Obama articles? — Writegeist (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think maybe someone here likes frowning types.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah such blissful, not to say Palinesque, ignorance about foreign heads of state, as befits the captain of WP's Palin cheerleaders! That Thatcher photo, dear Johnny Foreigner, is of the old trout laughing her tail off at Arthur Scargill wanting her to fail in her mission to destroy Britain's mining industry, to put millions out of work and to send the police to beat them up. I too would like to refresh my browser. I bought lavender scent. Should I spray it in the keyboard or in the hard drive? Writegeist (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's Thatcher visiting D.C.[4] And there's a not-so-subtle difference between cheerleading and seeking NPOV.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was joking. But not about the cheerleading. :~) Writegeist (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I slightly prefer the version by IP 75. I tried refreshing my browser, as was suggested to Ferrylodge above, and the jossi image did not change. I comend both for their versions, however. Happyme22 (talk) 22:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the IP75 version, too. Good job sharpening it up with the right tools. Fcreid (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Pile-on support for IP75's version here. Now, can we add it to the article and collapse this section before I act on my urge to remove Evb-wiki and Writegeist's lovely comments? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It has already been added, even without her wearing a necktie. --Evb-wiki (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Support the IP75 version. It's a little more in focus.--JayJasper (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Guns in schools

LLLL has just edited this article,[5] to say that Stambaugh said "he had opposed a bill in the state legislature that would lift restrictions on carrying concealed weapons in school and bars, a bill supported by Palin." I do not support the inserted material, for several reasons. First, Stambaugh is the one who said the bill would have allowed concealed weapons in schools, whereas this inserted language sounds like Wikipedia agrees that the bill wuold have done so. Second, this is a summary article and should not go into detail; if we go into detail then we should also mention that the bill passed in the state-legislature, and that it allegedly affected the concealed weapons rules in other locations as well (e.g. banks), et cetera. Additionally, the bit about schools is not in the sub-article, per WP:SS. Furthermore, the language that LLLL inserted is vague, and seems to suggest that the legislature was prohibiting schools to ban guns on school grounds, which I very much doubt is true.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

First, this is not what stambaugh said, this is what the bill said (a 2003 bill did not "change prohibitions against carrying firearms into courthouses, school yards, bars and domestic violence shelters," while this one did.) What Stambaugh said was that he opposed the bill, which he called "craziness" - which we did not quote here. Second, drop the "this is a summary article" rationalizations - I inserted 3 words.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to use the only-three-words-defense then you shouldn't mind that I removed only three words. The cited source says: "One big issue, Stambaugh said, was that he and other police chiefs had opposed a state-legislature bill to permit concealed weapons in schools and bars, which Stambaugh called 'craziness.'" It's not clear here that the reliable source is confirming the bill would have done what Stambaugh said it would do.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's clear that your only real argument here is that you do not like this particular 3-word detail which makes Palin and the NRA look particularly bad, not that it's not relevant to our understanding of Palin, not that it's too long, etc. Really your argument has no substance, and now you've attempted to spin your own argument from -- this is a summary article and so should not go on and on -- to, -- yes it's only three words so they must not be very important. Obviously those three words are very important, otherwise you wouldn't keep removing them. Please attempt consistency, it's hard to take your arguments seriously otherwise.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that it would be very important for this article to mention that Palin supported a bill to force schools to let teachers and/or students carry concealed weapons. However, I see no evidence from a reliable source that this ever happened.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

What she did was this: she signed a bill lifting all restrictions on carrying concealed weapons for adults in Alaska. Prior to signing this bill, there were restrictions on where you could carry a concealed weapon (in particular bars, schools, courthouses), and in order to carry a concealed weapon, adults had to apply for a permit. Now adults do not have to apply for a permit and one can carry a gun anywhere, opening up bars, school, courts, to entry of concealed weapons. Students are still restricted from carrying concealed weapons without a permit but can now apply for permits to carry guns in schools. If you want, I can add to the wording so that this is explained: "lifting all restrictions on carrying concealed weapons, eliminating the necessity of a permit fro adults, and particularly allowing students to carry concealed weapons into schools with a permit". LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the wording: A municipality may not restrict the carrying of a concealed handgun by permit under AS 18.65.700 - 18.65.790. Meanwhile Minors are now allowed to carry guns with a permit: "Students are also prohibited from knowingly possessing a firearm within the buildings of, on the grounds of, or on the school parking lot of a public or private preschool, elementary, junior high, or secondary school, on a school bus while being transported to or from school or a school-sponsored event, or while participating in a school-sponsored event, unless the student has obtained the prior permission of the chief administrative officer or his or her designee of the school or district. Section 11.61.210(a)(8)." LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

LLLL, was the statute that you linked to enacted before Stambaugh was fired, or after?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Big deal, anyway - under our system of government the State government is entitled to make gun laws, provided they are consistent with the 2nd Amendment. I don't see why we need to single out every location and circumstance in which Alaskans voted to permit law abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon. Why not say she signed a bill that "allows people to bring guns into nursery schools!! or "she supports bringing secret guns into orphanages". The state legislature passed a law, she supported it, Stambaugh was against, she denies it was the reason she fired him. To me it looks like you have to twist the language to turn it into some kind of insinuation against her. Kaisershatner (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a big deal, I'm glad you agree. Yes, states are allowed to make gun laws, however there is a nationwide ban on selling guns to minors. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It does seem more appropriate for a section on political positions. Otherwise, why not summarize all the other reasons why Stambaugh said he was fired (e.g. because he was over 6 feet tall and over 200 pounds)? See WP:Coatrack.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, I am not asking us to go into great detail here - yes, I will be putting this under political positions once I've got all the materials together. I am talking about 3 words which allow the reader to understand what kind of concealed weapon restrictions Palin wanted to see lifted, without going into great detail about the legislation itself.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 02:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Those 3 words do not accurately describe the legislation. The legislation said: "A permitee may not carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun within...or on school grounds."[6]Ferrylodge (talk) 03:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, ....unless the student has obtained the prior permission of the chief administrative officer or his or her designee of the school or district. Section 11.61.210(a)(8)." LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

LLLL, you're quoting from a statute enacted in 2003 (signed by Frank Murkowski). That's different from the statute that Palin supported and Knowles vetoed in 1996.

You're also overlooking the part of the 2003 statute that allows schools to ban both concealed and unconcealed guns: "The knowing possession of a firearm, carried openly or concealed, at any preschool, elementary, junior high or secondary school, including the buildings, grounds, parking lots or school buses, without the permission of the chief administrative officer of the school or district, is generally prohibited."[7]

I did not state that he opposed a bill which banned prohibition of guns in schools, bars, etc. I stated that he opposed a bill which lifted restrictions on possession of guns in schools, bars, etc. These are not the same legal concepts although in layman's terms they appear the same.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, how is the 2003 statute relevant? It's not the bill that Stambaugh was talking about. The bill Stambaugh was talking about is here.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)FYI, this is from one of LLLL's links:[8]

Alaska does not require a permit to carry a concealed weapon. On June 11, 2003, the Governor of Alaska [Frank Murkowski] signed legislation amending section 11.61.220 to allow anyone 21 years of age or older (who may legally possess a firearm) to carry a concealed firearm without having to obtain a permit. Under section 11.61.220(a)(1), (g), it is a class B misdemeanor if: The person is knowingly carrying a concealed firearm and, when contacted by a peace officer, he or she fails to immediately inform the peace officer about the concealed firearm, fails to allow the peace officer to secure the weapon, or fails to secure the weapon at the direction of the peace officer; or The person is knowingly carrying a concealed firearm within the residence of another person without first obtaining the express permission of an adult residing there to bring a concealed firearm within the residence.

So, it looks like Murkowski and the state legislature agreed with Palin about this. Apparently, people were already allowed to carry guns into schools when Palin fired Stambaugh, and the only issue was whether the guns could be concealed or not. Is that correct?

Please explain your interpretation. That's not how I read it. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

LLLL missed this part: "The knowing possession of a firearm, carried openly or concealed, at any preschool, elementary, junior high or secondary school, including the buildings, grounds, parking lots or school buses, without the permission of the chief administrative officer of the school or district, is generally prohibited." Did Palin support or oppose this?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Governor Knowles vetoed a concealed handgun bill on October 16, 1996. His veto message specifically mentioned the police chief of Wasilla. Further info about the bill is here. The May 3, 1996 version of the bill said: "A permitee may not carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun within...or on school grounds."Ferrylodge (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That's par for the course on Stambaugh's recollection of the events leading to him getting canned and the media's presentation of those events. Perhaps it could have had something to do with things like, "Little lady. If you think you have our respect, you don't." Fcreid (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, interesting assumptions on your part. My understanding, after reading that, is simply that the chief of wasilla was against allowing guns in bars or schools for a decade at least, and that when palin came in, he wasn't suddenly going to change his position to please her. As the Gov Knowles said: "guns and alcohol don't mix". If you want to imply that this indicates a lack of respect for her, rather than indicating his consistency of principles, that's your business. Me on the other hand, I think if the new mayor thinks respect for her authority means changing one's position, that mayor does not deserve respect. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that is exactly what respect for her authority means. When there's a new administration, public servants have the duty to support its policies or quit. In private they can hold any views they like, but in public they must support government policy. If Obama is elected, and announces a policy against any expansion of gun rights, or for an expansion of gay rights, do you suppose he would tolerate any public servant who went to Congress to testify against that policy? -- Zsero (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

4L, I wasn't implying anything with my words above. I extracted an exact quote from a reliable source on Stambaugh's trial as provided by a bystander who directly overheard him say those words to Palin. I'd have fired him that day. Fcreid (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)LLLL, the 2003 statute that you have been citing is not relevant. It's not the bill that Stambaugh was talking about. The bill Stambaugh was talking about is here. This is not complicated. The bill Stambaugh was talking about says: "A permitee may not carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun within...or on school grounds."Ferrylodge (talk) 05:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe I read somewhere that Palin used "Handguns in Every Grammar School" as her campaign slogan during her bid for a second term. Everyone was sporting the bumper stickers, and it won her resounding local support. Why don't you give it a rest? The guy savaged her while actively campaigning against her, refused to cooperate on matters of governance once elected, publicly disparaged her as mayor and finally failed to heed multiple warnings to shape up or be canned. He's lucky he survived as long as he did! For the record, Stambaugh is *precisely* the reason women continue to face "glass ceilings" today. That you would now take up his cause and attempt to rewrite history is a pathetic statement on your allegiance to reform. Fcreid (talk) 09:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I know everyone's heard the phrase "all politics is local." We're talking about Wasilla, Alaska here (pop. 5,000 or thereabouts in the mid-90s). There was no "right-wing" or "left-wing". Hell, at the time, there wasn't even a Best Buy! I'll admit the concept of killing furry things for food and fun is both foreign and barbaric to me, but it was apparently the norm for people there of any political bent. We "big city folk" can second-guess cultural differences from our armchairs all we want today, but it's silly to suggest that gun laws were a paramount concern to people who routinely had to shoot moose threatening their right to have a backyard! You can't contrive history. Fcreid (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why this is even an issue (and I disagree with Ferrylodge who thinks it would be an issue if it were better documented). Let's suppose that we were talking about a Democratic mayor of some town, and suppose there were a law proposed that would expand the right of people to demonstrate on public property. Suppose that this town had a policy of not allowing demonstrations in front of the police station, and the proposed law would override that policy, and suppose the police chief campaigned against it, claiming that it would interfere with his people's work to have noisy demonstrations going on outside. Now suppose the ACLU, which had supported the mayor's election campaign, called for him to be fired, and the mayor fired him. Would that be an issue at all? Would we be having this discussion? Would anyone be claiming there was something wrong with firing a police chief who opposed a civil rights measure? Now how is that different from our case? Palin says this wasn't the reason she fired Stambaugh, and I see no reason to doubt her, but let's suppose it had been — wouldn't it have been a good reason? -- Zsero (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It's significant because people want to portray Stambaugh as an innocent victim of a tyrant rather than the insubordinate (and chauvinistic) a-hole that he was. Fcreid (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Manipulation of the Sarah Palin Article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Why is this "archived"? And Why is Daily Koss cited? Something smells funny here.

NPR Daily Koss, washington post [Wikipedia Edits Forecast Vice Presidential Picks] " NY Times Don’t Like Palin’s Wikipedia Story? Change It", Times Online headline "Sarah Palin Wikipedia entry gets glowing make-over from mysterious user Young Trigg all makes comment about this user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Young_Trigg

Here are the changes he made (a few, more biased commeters were being lessened by another user who was editing at the same time) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=234778085&oldid=234741793

And here is my opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Young_Trigg#I_can.27t_assume_good_faith_anymore The user admits using SPA (that much is obvious, considering that most of the edits were made expertly, like substituting templates expertly or creating redirects. I've been en wikipedia for a long time and still don't know some of the things he made) So, do I have to assume that he created a SPA just for editing an article, that wouldn't really matter if Palin wasn't elected as candidate for vice-presidency? And all that only 24 hours before she was elected? Did other users do so many edits on the other candidates using a SPA just 24 hours before? The least well-known candidate had such a good user making so fantastic editions, more than all the other candidates?

All the edits were favorable. A few even too biased. That much is not exactly bad per se, but suspicious because of the timing. Also, strange that such an experienced editor (SPA?) used a such a POV in an article, guess what, just hours before

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=234778085&oldid=234741793

"When another Wikipedia contributor asked gently if YoungTrigg could include page numbers to his footnotes from “Sarah,” YoungTrigg wrote back excitedly: “Thank you! I’m afraid I didn’t use the page numbers when I did the edits, so I don’t have them now. The book has a pretty good index, though, and I can look something up if anything I added was controversial. I apologize if I misunderstood the format" Misunderstood the format? Why did he have to lie? It's obvious that he was an expert. Why did he have to lie as if it was the first time it was editing?

"YoungTrigg did contact other Wikipedians, who were initially impressed by the rapid improvements to the article" Again, all that BEFORE Palin was chosen? And using a SPA?

Also, the edits were correctly made, but were made using a lot of different sources. The user didn't just use one book. That was a complete five-hour work. He even "linked to government documents on a government Web site related to the trooper case" So, how did he find that? Using google?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/technology/01link.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=politics

This user is obviously a campaign operative. If would be OK if he was just a republican volunteer for the McCain campaign, but it's obvious this is an attemp to manipulate wikipedia from inside the McCain campaign. --Jaimevelasco (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel that this should be added to the Sarah Palin article. However since I have contributed already in the discusion in the talk page of the user, I feel I may not be impartial. So I leave this here so somebody else can decide if it should be added to the Sarah Palin article or not. Salute. --Jaimevelasco (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, the New York Times article is already linked at the top of this talk page. I don't think it needs to be mentioned in our article text.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There are many aspects on wiki that are more notable than that, like a full arbitration for this article. Hobartimus (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Just as added information for anyone that is interested. One of the first things that I noticed only days after Gov. Palin was added to the Republican ticket---Both Kelly and Ferrylodge were freguent visitors to the Sarah Palin article 5 weeks BEFORE August 30th. I had no problem since it was common sense that both parties would orchestrate to their different points of view and operatives would be present.--Buster7 (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an operative, but thanks for the compliment. I had no idea Palin would be the pic. I can't speak for Kelly though. I also edited the Jindal article quite a bit.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw the Palin pick coming a mile away. It did not suprise me. She had been predicted by several people in the right-wing blogosphere. Heck, even Fark.com had a "MILF Vice President?" thing on it during the veepstakes! I could link the links but they're easy to find. The Squicks (talk) 02:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious that the content of this article is controlled and manipulated--so far as they're able--by McCain-Palin grunts, some of whom, at least, are presumably self-appointed to the task. It's equally obvious that they would deny it. Nevertheless the tireless efforts by F'lodge and others to suppress and/or stall the inclusion of heresies that run counter to Palin-worship speak volumes. Come on chaps, be grateful for the distraction this puerile entertainment offers in our troubled times! — Writegeist (talk) 06:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

From where I sit, I'd say there are far more "operatives" (self-appointed or otherwise) working to introduce negative content in this article than the opposite. Unfortunately, there are too few willing to argue against the lies and smears people try to put forth as truth. Compare this talk page with the other candidates to look for common personalities but very different perspectives, and you'll easily identify several guilty parties. Fcreid (talk) 09:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Closed. WP:NOT#FORUM. Also WP:NPA. Kaisershatner (talk) 13:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unsourced POV edit

This edit inserts the following into this article:

In her 578 days as Governor of Alaska, she was in Juneau, Alaska for 85 of them, meaning that she had a 15% attendance record as Governor of Alaska. One of Alaska's main papers, the Juneau Empire, reported, "At a time when [Palin’s] leadership was truly needed, we didn’t know where she was....Someone at the Capitol even printed up buttons asking, ‘Where’s Sarah?’”[1]

[1]Pat Forgey."State leaders question Palin's qualifications: Governor's two years of experience raise concerns about vice presidential candidacy"; Juneau Empire, Aug. 31, 2008.

The cited source apparently says nothing about "578 days" or the like. Moreover, the quote is misattributed to a newspaper, when actually the quote is from Rep. Andrea Doll, D-Juneau.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that - my bad. I meant to add the other citation for the 15%, but i have lost it. You caught it before I could revert. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. I have removed it. It is a contrived, politically motivated smear by a political opponent. As I explained in my edit summary, without any showing that the governor has failed to fulfill her duties, this is worthless trivia. As the article says in the very next paragraph, "Palin lives in Juneau during the legislative session and lives in Wasilla and works out of offices in Anchorage the rest of the year." Juneau is like Albany, New York; Sacramento, California; Springfield, Illinois; Austin, Texas; and several other state capitals. It's a small town, far from the state's main metropolitan areas. But even moreso because this is Alaska. By being there when the legislature is in session, Palin fulfills the greater part of her duties. By being within reach of the vast majority of Alaska's residents for the rest of the year, it is arguable that she fulfills the rest of her duties. Kossack4Truth (talk) 04:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK the governor isn't expected to be in Juneau full time; she was working out of her office in Anchorage. Nor do legislators spend that much time there. Nobody in Alaska outside Juneau wants the capital to be there, but they can't agree on where to move it to, so it remains where it is. But I can see how a legislator from Juneau would resent that and paint it in a negative light, and the same applies to the local rag. I'd also like to see a RS for the claim that The Juneau Empire is "one of Alaska's main papers". -- Zsero (talk) 04:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The capital is in Juneau for the same reason so many other states have their capitals in little one-horse towns in the middle of nowhere. It made a little sense at the time. Most people traveled by steamship, and Juneau was on the steamship route to Anchorage from the Vancouver/Seattle area. Kossack4Truth (talk) 04:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Beldar gave this piece a savaging. -- Zsero (talk) 05:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As an irrelevant side note, the "small town" of Austin, Texas has more people than the entire state of Alaska (at least according to one well-known online encyclopedia). More to the point, that a particular statement is "a contrived, politically motivated smear by a political opponent" doesn't preclude its inclusion in the article. Generally our bio articles about politicians give some indication of the subject's praise and criticism. This article is heavy on the gushy recounting of the improvements Palin supporters claim she made, so it should properly be balanced by a better idea of the criticisms. We can identify a particular critic as a Democrat and leave it to the reader to decide whether to dismiss the comment on that score. The problem is that we have to summarize, so we can't include all the praise or all the criticism. I'm inclined to think that the "Where's Sarah?" point doesn't qualify on that score. JamesMLane t c 16:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is about Austin; oh, that's right, you said it was irrelevant. And so it is. As for criticism, it should certainly be included if it's significant and attributed. In this case I don't think the relevant information is that Doll is a Democrat, but that she's a representative from Juneau. I don't think she was attacking Palin in her capacity as a Republican but as an up-stater who refused to spend more time in Juneau than she had to. This is geographic rivalry, rather than partisan politics. (The last two Australian Prime Ministers, Paul Keating and John Howard, from opposite parties, suffered similar criticism for making their primary residence in Sydney rather than Canberra.) -- Zsero (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If you really want this in wikipedia, create an article on the Democrat representing Juneau in question and write the whole story of Juneau, a city that has no raod connection to the rest of the state and being disconnected, trying to hold the governor hostage in that place. There is no analogy. Tallahasee comes a little close, being totally out of sync both geographically and population wise with the rest of the state, but it does not have the utter issolation or the competition from a true mega city like Anchorage and a logical geographical capital like Fairbanks. Kentucky comes the closest in having a truly third rate capital, but Frankfort is at least geographically between the two main cities. Wyoming may come the closest in having its capital not at the center of the state, but at least Cheyanne is the biggest city in Wyoming.Johnpacklambert (talk) 02:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Going to war

The newspaper articles given as sources for Palin's willingness to go to war over Georgia seriously mischaracterise what she actually said. She was actually very careful not to say this. She said if Georgia or the Ukraine were invaded after they're admitted to NATO, the USA should come to their aid, but quickly qualified that by talking about sanctions and diplomatic measures rather than war. The fact is that the NATO treaty does not require members to go to war for each other; it says that an attack on any member is an attack on all, but it leaves it up to each member how to respond to that attack. War is only one possible response; and while Palin would be foolish and irresponsible to rule it out, she hasn't said anything to suggest that it's her preferred option. -- Zsero (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the article didn't say war. But it does need to describe what those "obligations" are. Grsz^talk 05:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Weren't you the one who introduced this edit? The obligations are not specific. A NATO member could choose to react to an attack on another member by recalling its ambassador from Moscow, or by sending Putin a sternly worded protest letter; other NATO members who reacted more vigorously might have words for such a member, but there's nothing in the treaty that rules it out. -- Zsero (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

And when it was corrected I didn't push it because I realized my mistake. Obligations could include standing on top of Wasilla town hall and yelling "Screw you Putin." I drop my point. Grsz^talk 06:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Attorney General

In this edit, Grsz11 edited the phrasing, "the validity of which were disputed by Alaska's Attorney General, who was appointed by Palin", to remove "who was appoined by Palin" with an edit summary of "yes, thats usually what a governor does: appoint people". I undid the edit, with an edit summary of "Not all attorneys general are appointed - for example Attorney General of Pennsylvania." Paul.h then reverted my edit with a summary of "entirely non-notable all executive branch officials are appointed by the executive".

My rationale for including the edit is that is not self-evident to a reader not familiar with Alaska politics that the Attorney General is a governor-appointed position. In Pennsylvania, for example, the attorney general is an elected position, and has been since 1980. The current Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Tom Corbett, is not even from the same party as Pennsylvania's governor. Further, the Pennsylvania Attorney General is elected to 4-year terms in the same years as presidential elections (2008, 2012, 2016, ...), while gubernatorial elections take place on the "mid-term" cycle (2010, 2014, 2018). It is therefore common in Pennsylvania for a governor to serve at the same time as an AG elected during a previous administration.

Until seeing Grsz11's edit, the idea that state Attorneys General would be appointed rather then elected honestly never occurred to me. For this reason, I believe the "appointed by Palin" language should be included. In the interest of WP:BRD I therefore invite discussion of this proposed edit. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 05:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

When you pointed that out to be I went to State Attorney General and discovered only 6 of the 50 are appointed by the governor, so yes, it's important to clarify that distinction to readers. Grsz^talk 06:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This is poisoning the well. Should we also include that the subpoenas are a nakedly partisan move by state Democrats to undermine Palin?: "Palin attorney Thomas Van Flein told reporters after the vote that the Democratic lawmaker managing the investigation, state Sen. Hollis French, "has partisan motives for doing this." And Palin's lieutenant governor, Sean Parnell, repeated claims that the investigation was "a political circus."" Or maybe we should try to stick to the facts on both sides. Subpoenas issued, validity disputed. Ok? Kaisershatner (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

To cite the typical right-wing mantra, "if they're innocent, they've got nothing to worry about." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Kaisershatner, you're oversimplifying. "Validity disputed" by whom? A dispute by someone independently chosen by the people as the State's top legal officer is significantly different from a dispute by someone who serves at Palin's pleasure. Consider the comment by the State Senator overseeing the Troopergate investigation, that the outcome could be politically damaging to Palin. The quotation itself has now been relegated to a footnote, but even there, the legislator involved is specifically identified as a Democrat. Presumably the reason is to show that his statement might reflect a bias. The same rationale applies here, only more strongly, where the AG isn't merely of Palin's party, but is her personal appointee. JamesMLane t c 17:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see why one would object to the insinuation that the AG is politically allied with Palin and, thus, could not be objective. I'm sure the AG would disagree, but if it is included, it would be equally fair to include French's comment that this would be an "October Surprise" to derail Palin. I feel strongly neither way, but we need to balance things to make it clear there may be partisan interests on both sides. Fcreid (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I know you know it's a pretty serious character assassination to level against an AG that he/she would not represent the truth in an investigation. Now I'm sure you're going to respond that you're not "charging" him/her with anything, but if you weren't then you wouldn't be trying to include that fact. Fcreid (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Witch hunting Pastor Thomas Muthee who blessed her

I have seen this reported in many reliable sources. This should be included in her article as Rev Wright is in Obamas. Thank you. 63.164.145.85 (talk) 08:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources

SOURCES that have looked at this amazingly disturbing story. AFP, The Nation, Yahoo News 63.164.145.85 (talk) 08:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

real video of her being blessed by a witch hunter WTF ! 63.164.145.85 (talk) 08:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

more sources Washington Monthly, Huffington Post, Brave New Films. wikipedia owes it to all Americans to warn them about this and quickly. 63.164.145.85 (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Raw Story: 'Palin credits electoral success to witchhunter', 'Drudge Report: Palin Linked Electoral Success to Witch Hunter's Prayer' 63.164.145.85 (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the kind of material that might quickly disappear down the memory hole. So I put it on the web-citation site:

• the AFP article.
• The Nation article
• the yahoo article

Unfortunately the raw you-tube link doesn't seem to work through the web-citation service. Geo Swan (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

ABC NEWS now weighing in. Seriously why is this being censored here on wikipedia. the people have a right to know ! 63.164.145.85 (talk) 09:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

MSNBC Countdown transcript with unrelated stories redacted is here[9]. Tautologist (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Arguments to include/not include

NOTNEWS RECENT

WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT are the two main reasons. As we did with the Barack Obama article, we'll proceed slowly with this. We first need to see if it becomes a major issue for Palin, as it did for Obama. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 11:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a tabloid or a"breaking news" site, and we are not "on deadline," fearing being scooped by other media. If Palin's relationship with or counseling by Muthee is seen by reliable mainstream media as an important part of her biography it should be included, but not in any sensational or disproportionate way. Arguiing for some mention is TimesOnline article "Palin linked electoral success to prayer of Kenyan witchhunter," 16 September 2008. On June 8, 2008, long before she gained the media spotlight, Palin said at Wasilla Assembly of God [10]'“As I was mayor and Pastor Muthee was here and he was praying over me, and you know how he speaks and he’s so bold. And he was praying “Lord make a way, Lord make a way.”“And I’m thinking, this guy’s really bold, he doesn’t even know what I’m going to do, he doesn’t know what my plans are. And he’s praying not “oh Lord if it be your will may she become governor,” no, he just prayed for it. He said “Lord make a way and let her do this next step. And that’s exactly what happened.”“So, again, very very powerful, coming from this church.” ' That is her words in a reliable source, which also says Palin was anointed by Muthee during a series of 10 sermons, in which he spoke about his witch hunting, and that she said his intercession was "awesome." It sounds like more than her happening to attend a church service where he happened to preach once, or some such trivial association. See Palin on video referred to by TimesOnline, June 2008 at Wasilla Assembly of God, speaking aboutMuthee and her commissioning as a Master by that church: [11]. Edison (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure whether you are arguing in favor of inclusion. But it seems to me that this comment would apply as fully to the three articles cited above:

If Palin's relationship with or counseling by Muthee is seen by reliable mainstream media as an important part of her biography it should be included, but not in any sensational or disproportionate way.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The TimesOnline article seems appropriate for inclusion at this time. [TheNation also discusses and links to a video of the "witchcraft protection" blessing in 2005 that she discussed in June 2008 . Edison (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Just think of all the time people have wasted on other religions when there's one here with proven results! (I'm going to try to have him bless my Mega-Millions ticket for tonight! :) You might also want to weave in other perspectives in reliable sources, such as The Boston Herald[12], in particular “He was giving an African prayer to an American Christian,” said Jacob K. Olupona, a Harvard African studies professor. “His prayer reflects his own background and his own training and his own world view. America may not believe in witchcraft, but witcraft is a reality (in Africa).” Fcreid (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the comparison between this and Wright. Wright was Obama's mentor for 20+ years. Obama sat through years of the man's anti-American sermons, and paid enough attention that he named a book from one of them. This was no casual relationship. Muthee, on the other hand, gave a series of sermons at Palin's church, and she was impressed; they had no close personal relationship, and she certainly had no reason to run an FBI background check on him. What he got up to back in Africa has no connection to Palin. I mean, I've been impressed by Obama's oratorical skills; does that mean I'm tainted by his views? -- Zsero (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(He's Kenyan. Maybe he knows Obama's brother?) All religion is a bit strange to me, but I'll defend anyone's right to practice it, or not practice one at all, as long as I'm not forced to do either against my will. If I recall, that had something to do with founding this nation, didn't it? Fcreid (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't include this in the article. It's an embarrasment to Wikipedia. I'm fairly certain the press is watching this article and once they see this, the POV pushing is going to attract more attention than this witch hunting stuff. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course this should be added. It is notable, covered in the "mainstream" media, and may affect the way voters view her. If Obama was on tape getting an exorcism from an African witch hunter in a church of tongues speakers - this election would be over. Stop whitewashing religious fanaticism and display it for what it is. 72.91.113.17 (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

A short mention on the personal section/religion would be acceptable. It is notable, and pertinent to understand Palin's worldview. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Editors may want to watch the video. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

And yet I note you adamantly opposed inclusion of Obama's relationship with Wright consistently during the course of many months. I find that remarkable, Jossi, don't you? Fcreid (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Source Associated Press: "The Associated Press: Palin once blessed to be free from 'witchcraft'". Retrieved 2009-09-26.

Maybe if Miss South Carolina ever does an interview, they can ask her if she supports burning witches at the stake. Viva Leviticus. No wonder Plato wanted weighted voting. 72.91.113.17 (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I was once blessed by a rabbi. OMG! Does that mean I'm now Jewish? :-) All kidding aside, small one time encounters do not make some one a pagan.Zaereth (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

And I can tell you my lotto ticket didn't pay off tonight, so I'm not convinced there's anything behind this stuff anyway! :) Fcreid (talk) 02:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Muthee what content is proposed to be included

• 1. When leave church? Wasilla Assembly of God article says Palin left church in 2002. But Muthee prayer was in 2005. Clarification needed.
• 2. If made a special trip from W Bible Church to W Assembly of God for ten weeks of Muthee, then should be in article.
• 3. Olberman at MSNBC says WAoG boasted guest pastor Muthee hunted down a witch. Palin denies pre knowledge of guest pastor David Brickner when he made comments re Jews, and would not go back, so should not he in her article. But here, she actually praised Muthee in 2008. So different from Brickner situation.
• 4. Hands on prayer with Kalnins, over Palin, included specific prayer for protection from 'witchcraft with no flinch from Palin. Goes to her beliefs.
• 5. Muthee prayer about protection from witches was credited by Palin for her victory in step up to governor. So it directly goes to her belief system and belongs here.

Tautologist (talk) 02:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You'll need many, many citations to support these assertions, and none of them will be credited to Olberman. Fcreid (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Muthee related content was already discussed and promptly rejected. Not suitable for this article. Hobartimus (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Rejected by who and why? "Promptly" means that no one stepped back and deliberated on things. My first article here was on Palin's churches, and they were promptly deleted, then restored, then a large number chimed in to delete, but after consideration there is consensus to keep. Certainly if a public figure intentionally goes before a person who actually hunted and persectued humnan beings as witches, or if a public figure praised a person with knowledge that they actually hunted down a woman and persecuted her, that would be a very notable thing abuot the public figure. Omitting it would be rather odd. Tautologist (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, why should she flinch when she was blessed with protection from witchcraft? Wouldn't anyone want such a blessing? And having received a blessing at a particular church, it's only good manners to recount it with gratitude on a subsequent visit. I don't see anything to indicate that anyone in Alaska knew that Muthee had "hunted and persectued humnan beings". At most there might have been some general description of him as having exposed witches in Africa; if so, why should that have rung any alarm bells? -- Zsero (talk) 03:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Most people would speak out against a person who hunted human beings, accused them of cuasing accidents through witchcraft, and persecuted them. According to the MSNBC transcript[13], Palin knew he did this and went to have him lay hands on her, and praised him, rather than denouncing them. That says more about a person than almost anything, and certainly goes to her beliefs and values, and transmission of the values by praising him before graduates of a masters commission at a church. Tautologist (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What exactly, in that reference, suggests that Palin knew he had "hunted human beings...and persecuted them"? Nothing that I can see. You seem to be just making that up out of whole cloth. Oh, and please don't edit my comments for no purpose. -- Zsero (talk) 05:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Specific proposals of content for inclusion,... if verifiable

According to the MSNBC transcript[14], ""Times of London" reporting today that Pastor Thomas Muthee (ph) not only began his career by literally persecuting a woman in a Kenyan village as literally a witch, but that he boasted about it, and Governor Palin‘s church in Alaska boasted about it, too”, "this church, in particular, they embraced him. "They" knew what this pastor‘s record was", and "he was praying over Sarah Palin, and in her presence, still talking about witchcraft", and "very powerful coming from this church. So that was awesome about Pastor Muthee". Tautologist (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Does "they" include Palin? If any of these are ture, it is notable and should be in the article. Tautologist (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

More to the point, what is the evidence that they knew this record? Olberman? Bzzzt. -- Zsero (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin knew Muthee's history?

• 1. "Palin knew Muthee's history."

This should be included if it is reliably sourced that Palin knew of Muthee's history. Tautologist (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

All of it. Go find a source for this. -- Zsero (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin went to see Muthee knowing of his history?

• 2. "Palin went to see Muthee knowing of his history."

This should be included if it is reliably sourced that Palin went to see Muthee knowing of his history. Tautologist (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

As above; go prove this, without relying on Olberman's psychic abilities. -- Zsero (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin believes in witchcraft and the existence of witchcraft and the need to expose it an be protected from it?

• 3. Palin believes in witchcraft, the existence of witchcraft, the need to expose withes, or the need to be protected from witchcraft.

This should be included if it is reliably sourced that Palin believes in witchcraft and the existence of witchcraft and the need to expose it an be protected from it. Tautologist (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, why? Most Americans, and most people in general, believe in the existence of evil, and would like to be protected from it. Why is this at all notable. That's the part I really don't get. You seem to think that merely being blessed with protection from witchcraft ought to have run alarm bells in Palin's head, and I don't see why. It wouldn't raise my eyebrow, nor, I suspect, those of most normal people. -- Zsero (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin praised Muthee, despite knowing of his history of publicly accusing women of being witches and thereby causing traffic fatalities?

• 4. "Palin praised Muthee, despite knowing of his history of publicly accusing women of being witches and thereby causing traffic fatalities."

This should be included if it is reliably sourced that Palin praised Muthee, despite knowing of his history of publicly accusing women of being witches and thereby causing traffic fatalities. Tautologist (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Watch the ambiguity. This sounds as if it was Muthee who caused the traffic fatalities by accusing women of being witches! As for what you actually meant by this, if it can be reliably sourced that she knew this, I'd still want to know how she was to know that the woman (or was there more than one) was innocent; until then, it would be OK to mention the mere fact that he'd made the accusation, but not beyond that. As for "hunting" and "persecuting", separate evidence would be needed for that. -- Zsero (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Tautologist don't you think you might be going about this the wrong way? Normally, we find a reliable source, summarize the points and put it in the article. You are listing hypotheses that may or may not be true and suggesting folks go out and find sources to verify them. That's not biographical scholarship.--Paul (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Bachelor of Science ????

How does someone get a Bachelor of Science in Communication-Journalism? I think this might be wrong and may need to be corrected to reflect Bachelor of Arts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.195.245 (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The University of Idaho offers both degrees, I assume depending on the stream the student follows. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually lots of unis grant BS degrees in journalism. -- Zsero (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably much the same way Caltech offers a Bachelor of Science in English, and UC Berkeley only offers BAs and MAs in physics despite being one of the top physics schools in the country. Sometimes the labeling doesn't really mean much. Dragons flight (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

"The B.S. is also frequently used for professional areas of study such as engineering, journalism, accounting, and advertising."--Loodog (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridges Chapter 45

Kossack4Truth made this edit, that goes into incredible detail about Ketchikan. I reverted for the sake of summary style, only for it to be reverted again. Grsz^talk 16:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It could be shorter, but if you want a reference to Gravina's population of 50, then it must be offset by Ketchikan's population and the airport's throughput; there must be enough for the reader to discern that the bridge was not intended to serve 50 people, and that the "nowhere" label was always unfair. If you want to omit that then you must also omit the irrelevant reference to those 50 islanders. -- Zsero (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at what I changed and let me know. Grsz^talk 17:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding 50, the article says that's why it was called nowhere, nothing else. Grsz^talk 17:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hell i'll just put it here. My proposal is such: "The Gravina Island Bridge proposal became nicknamed the "Bridge to Nowhere" because of the island's population of fifty.[101] Less often, "bridges to nowhere" has been used to refer to both proposals.[104] The goal of the Gravina project, according to the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, was to "provide better service to the airport and allow for development of large tracts of land on the island."[105]"

This leaves the 50, as that's the reason for the nickname. It also leaves the DOT explanation of the project, but cuts out unneeded mention of the regions population. Grsz^talk 17:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Not good enough, because the reader is still left with no clue as to why the nickname was so utterly unfair. As soon as you mention the 50 people, the reader thinks the bridge was to be built for their benefit, so you must balance that with the 200K passengers a year who go through the airport and need to get to/from Ketchikan, or the 350K passengers a year carried by the ferry which the bridge would have replaced. -- Zsero (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I moved the ferry info so that it flows better and isn't just stuck in. Grsz^talk 20:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Zsero gets it. I think mentioning the populations of Ketchikan and the island it's on, as well as the location of Ketchikan International Airport, is sufficient to neutralize the rather anti-Palin, smear-like mention of Gravina Island's mere 50 inhabitants (as though they were the only consideration). In the alternative, I suggest that we could simply eliminate the mention of Gravina Island's population. I would like to know which option Grsz11 would prefer. Careful, Grsz11: insisting on keeping the "50," but tossing out all the other population numbers, will confirm for all observers that your edits are guided by a political agenda. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

What isn't a smear to you Kossack? It's not a smear, it's the reason why it was called a bridge to nowhere. How dare you question my intentions. I atleast had the decency to bring it to the talk page. Grsz^talk 02:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Grsz11, if you're going to include the number "50," or any other indication that Gravina Island is sparsely populated (thereby citing an argument against the bridge), then to balance the paragraph, some description of the argument for the bridge is required by WP:NPOV. Very simple. Either mention talking points from both POVs, or none at all. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Ya, to hell with the fact that it stood for weeks until someone with such an incredible bias as yourself came along. Grsz^talk 02:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I could mention a fellow whose Wikipedia bio falsely accused him of being involved in the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy for about six months without anyone noticing ... My point is that sometimes obvious policy violations exist around here for some time without being corrected. You don't have consensus. There's a reason for that. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Whenever I want to include the slightest additional information that could be construed as negative toward Palin, I hear all about WP:SS and how "that's in the daughter article." Now, when it comes to pro-Palin information, we have agitation for larding her bio with all the pro-Bridge to Nowhere information. On this view, we have to go out of our way to make sure that the reader understands that criticism of Palin's prior position is "utterly unfair". To which I reply, quoting numerous Palinistas in other contexts: That's in the daughter article! If we include how many passengers the ferry carries, then, to be complete, don't we have to include how long and how expensive the ferry ride is (not very long and not very expensive)? Don't we have to include a precis of other transportation projects that could arguably make better use of the money? This particular project has a famous nickname that must be briefly explained. It doesn't matter whether the nickname is unfair; what matters is that the nickname is famous. JamesMLane t c 17:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay... So what's wrong with saying the reason why the Gravina Island Bridge was nicknamed the Bridge to Nowhere because of Gravina Island's low population... That is why the bridge was called that. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with saying that, so long as you also say why it was utterly unfair to do so. Otherwise you're left with an implicit endorsement of the nickname. -- Zsero (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead, either the population of Ketchikan and the island it's on stays, or the population of Gravinas Island goes. Take your pick. If you're going to include the argument for the anti-bridge POV, no matter what Trojan horse the argument is presented as, WP:NPOV requires that the argument for the pro-bridge POV must also be included. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin Support Aerial Wolf Hunting

Will someone please update her profile to include her controversial support of aerial wolf hunting? This is crucial information people should be informed.

http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?swf=http%3A//s.ytimg.com/yt/swf/cps-vfl56573.swf&video_id=6T85cOGc8L0&rel=1&eurl=&iurl=http%3A//i3.ytimg.com/vi/6T85cOGc8L0/default.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskIU2_KDZvmzsIDYgx9ANikl&use_get_video_info=1&load_modules=1&fs=1&hl=en

http://newsblaze.com/story/20080925105458tsop.nb/topstory.html

The Chalange (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

To the extent that it's an issue, it's already mentioned in her political positions. I don't see why this is crucial information. Why on earth shouldn't vermin be eradicated from the air, if that's more efficient? -- Zsero (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It is in the biography. Maybe The Chalange would like it mentioned twice? Personally, I don't think it belongs in her biography. It's another political food fight.--Paul (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You have to watch out for those aerial wolves. They be dangerous. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

ROFL ... that was awesome! Theosis4u (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Vaguely related to the question once asked of Pat Paulsen in a mock press conference in his mock campaign for President: "Do you believe in the right to bear arms?" "No, I believe in the right to arm bears!" A joke probably much older than that, even. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It's explained pretty well here [15]. Fcreid (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

SemiProtection

Do you think y'all can handle protection being downgraded? I (or another admin) can throw it right back up if need be, but if people think they can handle in influx of newbies and the occasional vandal, I think we should downgrade protection.--Tznkai (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The Biden, Obama, and McCain articles are all semi-protected. Why on earth would we downgrade the protection here, an article that is much more controversial and subject to disruptive edits????--Paul (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think unprotection would be a bad idea. "Occasional" vandal? --barneca (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As much as I think wikipedia should really stay true to its "anyone can edit" essence, there's just too much contention about Palin. This article has been mulled over so much that seemingly every sentence represents the consensus of some involved talk page discussion.--Loodog (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

So "Thanks but no thanks"? :-) -- Zsero (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Bad idea, Tznkai. All other candidate's articles are semi'd and for good reason. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep it semi-protected until after the election, maybe. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think the WorldNetDaily dittoheads on here are going to unprotect Caribou Barbie you are naive. The woman speaks in tongues, is a beauty pageant model, and ran a town smaller than my left nut --- so yeah give her the nuke codes, what a great idea. You can DEPENDS on McCain. 72.91.113.17 (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

And here we have exactly why the protection needs to remain.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Cube lurker. Give 'em an inch and they'll take 20 miles.Zaereth (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Religion

I notice that in the info box it states that Palin is a non-constitutional Christian. Surely, although not technically unconstitutional, this does go against the principle of the 1st ammendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". If the constitution does not allow government to pass laws based on religion, then surely, by implication, no candidate or affiliate should be allowed to advertise their religious views? Pm504 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC).

OK, well, the word is "non-denominational", not "non-constitutional". Follow the link to Non-denominational Christianity to find out what it means. Tvoz/talk 00:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

But the constitution does guarantee freedom of speech, so I believe a candidate can advertise whatever they like. Zaereth (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Stance on preconditions - Kissinger reference

75.172.102.241 (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I believe the statement "Palin has criticized Barack Obama for saying he would meet with leaders of Syria and Iran without preconditions, notwithstanding that Henry Kissinger has a different opinion.[196]" should be edited. The wording "notwithstanding that Henry Kissinger has a different opinion" fails to capture the context of the comment and the underlying faux-paux in her commentary. A quote from the cited NY Times article:

"...Barack Obama for saying he would meet with leaders of Syria and Iran without preconditions, Ms. Couric reminded the governor that she recently met with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who supports direct diplomacy with both countries. 'Are you saying Henry Kissinger is naïve?' Ms. Couric asked. Ms. Palin replied, 'I’ve never heard Henry Kissinger say, ‘Yeah, I’ll meet with these leaders without preconditions being met.’'

After the interview, Ms. Couric faced the camera and added a postscript. 'Incidentally, we confirmed Henry Kissinger’s position following our interview,' she said, explaining that Mr. Kissinger supports talks 'without preconditions.'"

Maybe I'm thick, but I don't get it. Are we equating Henry Kissinger to Syria and Iran and saying Palin met with him and, thus, would meet with the others by proxy? What the heck does what Heny Kissinger think have to do with Palin? Fcreid (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is that Palin acused Obama of being naive for supporting negotiations without preconditions and yet meets with and apperently respects Kissinger who hold the same "naive" posistion. --Leivick (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

She said she respected his position on meeting with Syria and Iran without precondition? :-\ Fcreid (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems like we're saying that she either knows him (does she?) or respects him, and that automatically means she accepts every position he holds? This doesn't make sense. Fcreid (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

She met with him a couple of days ago to discuss foreign policy imply at the very least that she does not consider him naive. However she has called Obama naive for holding an identical position to Kissinger. --Leivick (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That's ludicrous! Whatever. That's utter nonsense. I'm sure there are a lot of things she and he differ on. Fcreid (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with the price of rice in China? He said, she said. Is it that she called one person naive and not the other. Shall we list everyone she hasn't called names? I think the last half of that sentence, the part about Kissinger, is irrelevent and should be removed. The fact that others disagree with Palin should be part of the campaign articles, but have no place in a bio.Zaereth (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually watched the debate tonight. I fault WP for me caring about such things! Anyway, I heard McCain say to Obama that, as his friend for 35 years, he can guarantee that he wouldn't recommend a president sit down unconditionally with Iran, Syria or North Korea. Anyway, as stated above, the inclusion here of Henry Kissinger in any context is silly and contrived. It needs to be removed, if it hasn't been already. Fcreid (talk) 03:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)The present article says: "Palin has criticized Barack Obama for saying he would meet with leaders of Syria and Iran without preconditions, notwithstanding that Henry Kissinger has a different opinion." Turns out that Kissinger actually supports Palin on this one:

Henry Kissinger believes Barack Obama misstated his views on diplomacy with US adversaries and is not happy about being mischaracterized. He says: "Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality."[16][17]

I'll adjust the article accordingly.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Best to just remove it. Watch out for positions that are really the McCain/Palin campaign positions. (Being that this is a summary.) Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 06:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, exactly. If she states a position we're supposed to be skeptical it's really her position?Ferrylodge (talk) 06:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it is really a campaign statement against Obama, and whoever put it in there made it NPOV and did some OR by saying Henry KissEnger agreed with Obama. In the summary, we should be careful about he-said-she-said material. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine leaving it out of the article, I guess, and would also be fine with mentioning it in the article. But saying that Kissinger agreed with Obama sounds to me like a statement for Obama rather than a statement against him. And there was no OR seeing as how the whole thing was in the cited source. Whatever.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That what I was saying, that the statement was used to support Obama in a way that most sources don't. Henry was thinking as a Secretary of State when he said would meet with enemy leaders, but he thinks Presidents shouldn't. Adding all these nuances will invoke undue weight in the summary. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with just saying, "Palin has criticized Barack Obama for saying he would meet with leaders of Syria and Iran without preconditions." (that's a "full stop" there) -- Rlparker (talk) 07:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Over detailed interview paragraph is not part of *reception*

So, when did this article morph into a Henry Kissinger bio? Why the hell do we care what Katie Couric *thinks* Kissinger said, and why does that relate to this article? The entire paragraph needs to be axed as irrelevant to this article, unless it's our intention to list every person of national prominence with whom some reporter contends has a differing policy on whatever topic (regardless of the obvious disparity that Kissinger himself has subsequently stated he agrees with Palin on the issue). It doesn't belong in here. Fcreid (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is not biographical material. It is appropriate for a newscast or a blog posting, but it has nothing to do with an encyclopedia biographical article. The material should be discussed in an article on the campaign.--Paul (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I agreethat it is out of place. I trimmed details from the interviews paragraph. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph is quite inaccurate - lieutenant Governor is not a campaign that is run

This sentence 'After an unsuccessful campaign for lieutenant governor of Alaska in 2002...' paints a picture that she was the sole candidate in a campaign which she lost. According to the Constitution of Alaska "...the votes cast for a candidate for governor shall be considered as cast also for the candidate for lieutenant governor running jointly with him."

With this information, it should be that sentence be changed to include her running mate as well.

For an article that instantiates a political analysis in this way should be generally regarded as foolish.

One should want other instances where the lesser running mate (i.e. Vice Presidential Candidate) would be described as losing their campaign for that position. For example, it would not be said that Loyd Benson lost his campaign for President of the United States. Such a campaign in most general, common, and esoteric writings would still be described as the top positions campaign.

No, in 2002 Palin ran in the Republican primary for Lt. Governor. That election is a campaign. See Lieutenant Governor of Alaska. Grsz^talk 03:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

accent

I'm surprised that it's not mentioned here nor in the article but I think there should be mention of her accent. It seems out of place, although I can't place it exactly. NorthernThunder (talk) 05:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Saint Sarah's pitbull-in-lipstick accent was last addressed here I think. Writegeist (talk) 05:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is trivial and shouldn't be addressed in the article. Not that trivia isn't interesting, though. Using the genealogy reference (from the article) and the linguistic analysis in this blog, it kind of makes sense. Her accent has both Northwestern US and Upper Midwestern elements to it. Maybe the Upper Midwestern influence is from her maternal grandmother, born in Wisconsin. *shrug* Switzpaw (talk) 06:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it gets brought up again every time it's archived.--Loodog (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Corn Maze

'If you build it, they will come' : [[18]] IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Content of Palin's Convention Speech

From http://dailysource.org/special/palin/175#in_her_convention_speech%2C_palin_quoted_a_racist_author_who_advocated_killing_rfk

In her convention speech, Palin quoted Westbrook Pegler:

“We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty and sincerity and dignity.”

The quote was also used in a book by Pat Buchanan, “Right From the Beginning.”

In 1965, when Senator Robert F. Kennedy considered running for president, Pegler said he hoped that “some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter his spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow flies.”

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., RFKs son, expressed outrage about Palin’s quoting of Pegler, calling Pegler a “Fascist writer” and an “avowed racist.”

Pegler was kicked out of the infamous John Birch Society for being too anti-semitic. He worked near the end of his career for a group of neo-Nazis and professional racists from the White Citizens Council and the Rev. Billy James Hargis’ Christian Crusade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.202.139.195 (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

And this makes the quote less valid? Talk about ad hominem! -- Zsero (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's condemnation through the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon! Fcreid (talk) 01:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Biography by Kaylene Johnson -- is this really a reliable source?

While I'm no expert on all the guidelines, I am having a lot of trouble understanding how the Palin biography by Kaylene Johnson can be referenced as a reliable source? It seems like a uniformly promotional text (perhaps even ghostwritten) and it's hard to see how it could have any reliability at all. Could anybody help me understand this?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems to make sense that one might want to derive some biographical fact to include in the biography of the subject of this biographical article from someone who has actually written her biography, doesn't it? Fcreid (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If it were a reliable source, I would definitely say "yes". However it looks to me as if it is not. What I am looking for is some explanation to the contrary.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how it could not be a reliable source. It isn't self-published, it has been published by two publishing companies. It is written by a real journalist who has written two other books and a lot of magazine articles. It contains nine pages of notes and sources backing up all of the material in the book. How could it not be reliable? Are you implying that the author made stuff up and got two publishers to go along? What do you mean by "ghost written"? Do you have any specific concerns about anything in the Sarah Palin wiki article that uses Johnson's book as a cite?--Paul (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It just looks like a tiny, unknown, vanity publisher to me. Intuitively, I equate vanity publishing with self-publication. Perhaps I am wrong on one of these two points. My only objection relates to the possibility of a conflict of interest whenever this source is used as a reference for statements about political events, especially when a mainstream source ought to be available for substantiating such events.

"Ghostwriting" is not the term I should have used. Ghostwriting refers to hiring a professional writer to write a book which is then published under your name.

What I meant, though, was that it appears the author was hired for the express purpose of writing a promotional book about Palin. Interview material with the author confirms that she was approached by the publisher and given 10 weeks to write the book. If Palin or any surrogates initiated this arrangement with the publisher, for example, as a lead-in to the Presidential campaign, then I would call that "self-publication" in substance, though perhaps not in technical detail.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

She lives in Wasilla and has been writing for 15 years[19]. She lives in Wasilla and wasn't just approached off-the-street by some suit to concoct a story. She undoubtedly admires Palin, but I'm not sure why that should discredit her account. Is there some specific reference you believe contrived? Fcreid (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "approached off the street by some suit", but it's clear she was approached by the publisher to write the book rather than the other way around. Again, the publisher looks like a vanity press to me, although I could be wrong. While I'm not immediately suspicious of any fabrications, my objections remain as stated above. It sounds like self-publication to me. For fluff ("She was a beauty queen") I don't find this wildly objectionable, but when it's used as a reference for statements about political events it seems there ought to be plenty of sources that are not remotely questionable which would substantiate the statement just as well.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what those "things" are, though. What, specifically, is referenced to this source that you feel may be inaccurate? Fcreid (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You don't think it credible that a publisher would be interested in a charismatic state governor who was being talked about as a potential Vice Presidential candidate? And that the publisher might commission a biography from some suitable writer who knew the subject, without the subject herself being somehow involved? Publishers do pitch writers, you know. (And that's the exact opposite of a vanity press, which is the writer not just pitching the publisher but outright paying to be published.) What is it about the publisher that makes you think vanity press, anyway? -- Zsero (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

After reading up a bit on the typical characteristics of a vanity press, and looking more carefully at the Epicenter website, I've realized the term does not apply to Epicenter. Apologies for arguing a non-issue. For the record, I didn't dispute anything cited from the book; I just felt in a few instances that a newspaper article would have been a better ref and would probably have more inherently neutral tone. In a couple of those cases, it looked like a newspaper had already been cited for the same fact and it was unclear why the additional ref was needed, e.g. notes 48/59/66. This would have been somewhat marginal, I admit, but improper sourcing is just a pet peeve of mine on Wiki.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

New Sarah Palin joke info?

Media and political ops went on, what has been called by media critics, a witch hunt, looking for something, anything, to dig up re Palin’s former church (per this article and others at Wiki), and what did they find... Muthee... and Palin? The preceding sentence is pretty accurate as to what is going on in content, not style. Olberman reports (in MSNBC online transcripts here[20], also more on 9-24-08 transcript) that WAoG church "boasted" Muthee was a witch hunter (literally, not BLP vio figuratively), as did Muthee. This article and WAoG article has Palin leaving the church before the Muthee arrival. But vids show her at the church being prayed over to protect her from witches after leaving, then returning in 2008 to remind congregants of this "speaking" laying of hands, and praying over (and billing taxpayers for the trip per Anchorage Daily). This is an unusual speaker to make a special trip to a former church for. Olberman further reports that the Muthee prayer was at least partially responsible for her next step to the governorsip. More research is needed as to possible relevance for this article, but at a minimum fact check is needed re date of leaving church and possible very unusual and notable belief system w POV neutralized. Tautologist (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is being discussed here. Perhaps you should join it there.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! Olberman says Muthee prayer was responsible for getting her the governorship? Didn't realize he was such a believer! Fcreid (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Olberman is not a reliable source for anything. He's an established liar, whose bias in reporting was so obvious that even MSNBC was embarrassed. -- Zsero (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Olberman says Palin credits Muthee prayer for governor race victory. Olberman is highly biased in selection and presentation, but reliable in facts. So (almost) is Hannity. (That otta get me from both ends at once.) Both usually do (barely) retraction when going overboard in partisanship and facts totally off. Olberman is nore self deprecating as an excuse, so easier to do mea culpa. Just best to reword Olberman words into NPOV. Tautologist (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Olberman's not reliable on facts either. Just one example: his claim that the president has no power to remove the chairman of the SEC. -- Zsero (talk) 03:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I failed to see section above and will move this thread up there unless objection, then move back here. Tautologist (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Calls to withdraw

Should we include mention of the increasing calls by conservative commentators for Palin to withdraw from the campaign. I'm a little on the fence as this has only started in the last few days, so I'm not sure if it is real, or just the media echo chamber in action. I'm also concerned at the complete lack of mentioning of Palin's poor performance in her interviews with Gibson and Couricd. I'm not sure if there has been criticism/praise of her interview with Hannity, (most seem to pretend that one doesn't exist) but there should at least be a mention that she didn't exactly have a good performance with Gibson and Couric... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

First point to some such calls. I haven't heard any yet. The withdrawal rumours — and that's all they are — are all about Biden. Oh, and the poverty of her performance is your opinion, not a fact. Lots of people think she handled herself well, and look forward to seeing her demolish Biden. -- Zsero (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Zsero. Also, detailed characterizations of the Gibson and Couric interviews would be difficult for us to agree about. For instance, I would favor discussing Gibson's BS gotcha question about the "Bush Doctrine", as if that term has an unambiguous meaning. Plus we could mention Couric's BS about Kissinger's positions on negotiations with rogue states; Couric got it completely wrong, and slimed Palin in the process.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a lot more about Biden than Palin. Biden himself said that "Hillary might have been a better pick than me" which is quite an extraordinary statement in itself and could very well fuel some withdrawal rumors. Hobartimus (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen a single one about anyone asking for Biden to withdraw, at least, not since before the convention. I'm also thinking that the press I've been seeing about her needing to withdraw are based on this opinion piece by Kathleen Parker saying she should drop out as even the articles I've found so far that say there are rising concerns about her are by and large quoting her as saying Palin should withdraw, or mentioning the nebulous "conservative columnists" so that very well could be Parker's op-ed piece as well. As far as the Couric interview, I've been going through google news and I haven't found a positive review of her performance yet. Here's a[LA Times blog that links to a number of opinions that her interview with Couric was problematic. And some more negative opinion of her performance.[21][22][23][24] Seriously.. I'm going through google news and I'm not finding a positive review of her performance on Couric. As far as her performance in Gibson's interview, it seems most of the criticisms were related to her not being able to answer the "Bush Doctrine" question. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"I haven't seen a single one about anyone asking for Biden to withdraw" - really, I mean really? I find that odd considering the incredible amount of Gaffes Biden produces daily. How about Biden saying "Obama will have a problem" if he tries to take away Biden's beretta, saying president Roosevelt went on television in 1929, only he wasn't president and nobody had television at the time. Asking wheelchaired person to "stand up Chuck, let them see ya!" and "Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America," and "Quite frankly it might have been a better pick than me." In Fort Myers, Florida he referred to the "Biden administration," before quickly correcting himself to say the "Obama-Biden administration." I mean the list goes on and on and on, its just endless... Clearly there must be calls to withdraw if nowhere else then himself saying it was a bad pick and it should've been Hillary... I think you missed the direction of these withdrawal rumors it's clearly about Biden. Hobartimus (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference, or it never happened. At least one established conservative (Parker) is on record calling for Palin to withdraw. Others have either questioned her ability to lead or said outright that she is not an appropriate choice. See Krauthammer ("...the choice of Palin remains deeply problematic... Palin is not ready") and Will ("The world is a sweeter place because Sarah Palin has increased the quantity of love, but this is not a reliable foundation for John McCain's campaign.")

I figure it ought to be mentioned, at least in passing. Anything on record like that for Biden, from his own camp? If so, that ought to go in a Biden article. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus, I never said that Biden hasn't "gaffed". But as noted above. Unless you can provide a reliable source saying that Biden should withdraw as the VP candidate, your original research isn't convincing. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. Just read your own comment Bobblehead. It's a jumbled together newsfeed of negative opinions about one recent interview. Biden's comments are all sourced to Biden and they are real and they do not come from political adversiaries. Hobartimus (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Provide a source that isn't a blog of someone that is not associated with the McCain campaign that said Palin did a good job in the Couric campaign. I haven't been able to find one yet. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Biden himself gave a good reason for his own withdrawal, namely that Hillary would be a better pick, which is a direct reason as to why Biden should withdraw. Palin made no such statement, critical of the pick of herself, gave no such reason as to why she should withdraw. There is no comparsion here, if anyone's withdrawing it's Biden. Hobartimus (talk) 04:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

← I'm sure you're going to provide a valid point at some point. Can you stop bringing up your unrelated original research and get around to providing a source that says Palin did a good job in the Couric interview? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Care to elaborate on your insistence towards talking about an interview in a section titled "Calls to withdraw". It was already pointed out that "withdrawal" is a topic associated with Biden in light of his comment about him being a bad pick compared to Hillary, a direct reason for withdrawal. An interview is not comparable to a direct reason from the candidate's mouth. Hobartimus (talk) 06:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevance

The purpose of this page is discussion of how to improve Palin's article. A certain small amount of discussion of Palin is probably necessary. The occasional sentence or two about Biden may be as well. However, I'm puzzled to see soapboxing about Biden here. If one or two Palin's diligent defenders here want to beat up on Biden, then blogs and the like hosted elsewhere will welcome their contributions. -- Hoary (talk) 04:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

When one user comes up about "rumors of withdrawal" about Palin it is correct to point out that such rumors exist about Biden and not Palin. Remember that from a position of being far out on the side a neutral position in the center and adherence to established wiki policies like BLP, will seem like "diligent defense". Hobartimus (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Your second sentence is incoherent; your first makes a point that's flat wrong. If somebody here wants to edit the article to reflect what you think are vacuous claims about rumors that Palin will withdraw (or similar), go ahead and demand precision or sourcing or both. If you want to make some claim here about Biden, don't. Simple as that. If you want to improve the article on Biden, discuss your proposed improvement on that article's talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"If you want to make some claim here about Biden, don't." So claims about Biden a fellow VP candidate and opponent in the upcoming VP debate in a few days, shouldn't be made even on the talk page right? But Palin's daughter's unborn child's father should be covered extensively in the article itself, including several quotes originating from myspace.com [25]. Your edit summary there "a futher word of wisdom from the young gent, properly sourced" inserting the qoute "Ya fuck with me I'll kick [your] ass." was certainly an intresting one. I'm trying to understand your position here, tangential issues, or anything similar shouldn't be covered and talked about even on talk or is Biden a special case somehow? Hobartimus (talk) 06:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Too bad FoxNews is not a reliable source. [26] --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

A few *MAJOR* changes

needs to be done.

How she is beeing cacooned from the media has been widely ridiculed by a variety of highly notable people in the press - same goes for people on both sides of the political spectrum. Also, when she does gives interviews (Charlie Gibson, Katie couric) she gets criticized by a significant amount of people, again, from the media and both sides of the politcs. Why the hell isn't this included?

She gave a speech (maybe even mor than one) at an alaskan separatist movement, along with the words 'god bless you' to them.

As mayor, employed a lobbyist who also worked for Jack Abramoff to secure $27 million in pork spending for Wasilla — more than $4,000 per resident. In her two years as governor, requested $453 million in earmarks. Alaska ranks first in the nation for pork, raking in seven times the national average. This is after she said "We ... championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress"

Look, I could go on and on but the bottom line is she is laced with a significant amount of controversy and you guys are not including this in. You guys have three days to include this, or that's it, I will. Fourtyearswhat (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh-oh. The gauntlet has been thrown by Joe Single-Purpose-Account who figures he can come in after three weeks of discussions and negotiations and lay down the law here, else he'll fix things around here himself. He's a maverick! Fcreid (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Fcreid: total contributions to date: 315; all of them pushing a Saint Sarah agenda. And Fourtyearswhat is "Joe SPA"? Oy, such a sense of humor! - Writegeist (talk) 00:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You and I differ on what constitutes "Saint Sarah", Writegeist. I'm only waiting for the hot oil wrestling. What you will notice is that I provide contributions here on the talk page (and not in the article), and that I don't "polish" things here immediately after leaving another candidate's page where I "tarnish" there. Take a hike. Fcreid (talk) 01:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There's hot-oil wrestling? Sweet! --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Its omission from the Women's Extreme Wrestling article is an inexcusable oversight. Or at least the omission of pictures is.

"Fcreid" please see your talk page. - Writegeist (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. My wife says I'm obsessing, too. Fcreid (talk) 04:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You say: She gave a speech (maybe even mor than one) at an alaskan separatist movement, along with the words 'god bless you' to them. I believe that you're referring to a speech to the Alaskan Independence Party. This article in the NYT discusses it. Well, Palin does seem to mention god rather a lot. Maybe -- as incumbent, if not as candidate -- she'd even invite the Big Man Upstairs to look after a group of Democrats: offhand I don't know, but I'm willing to be persuaded either (a) that Palin was attempting to invoke divine help for the AIP (in what would thereby become a jihad?) or (b) that she just thought it was the polite thing to say. I've read a fair amount of chuckling and denial about this (non?) issue, but never any dispassionate analysis of the role of "god bless you" within the Palin idiolect. Have you?

And that's just one of your points. If you want to add material such as this, you're going to have to (i) be very precise and (ii) provide impeccable sources. Otherwise your attempted additions will be ripped to shreds by a certain, extraordinarily energetic faction of Wikipedia editors, whose efforts may not be entirely unwelcome in the McCain/Palin campaign organization. -- Hoary (talk) 04:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope my edit was ok

I am building the year of marriage categories. My last edit merely involved putting Palin in the 1988 marriages category. This is stated as the year of her marriage in the article. I felt I should say this here because there are so many edits on this page. Also, people should remember that this is meant to be an informative article, not a vehicle to advance a particular political position.Johnpacklambert (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Gravina road

This Wikipedia article says, "Congress instead gave unrestricted transportation money to Alaska." Okay, so there were no strings. Then the article says Palin "spent $25 million in federal funds on a Gravina Island access road to where the bridge would have gone so that, as state officials said, none of this sum would have to be returned to the federal government."

Either there were strings or there were not strings. I see nothing in the cited source that says there were strings, so I'm removing it.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"Meanwhile, Weinstein noted, the state is continuing to build a road on Gravina Island to an empty beach where the bridge would have gone -- because federal money for the access road, unlike the bridge money, would have otherwise been returned to the federal government."

Anchorage Daily News -- http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/511471.html

Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that money was earmarked for that specific project, and would have had to be returned had Palin canceled the contract. The un-earmarked money was later. A more important point is that by the time Palin took over the contract had already been let; presumably the state would have had to pay some sort of penalty had she canceled it. Also, the road is still somewhat useful even without the bridge - it opens up the land around it for development; a second ferry service may serve the other end of the road; and one day the bridge probably will be built, at state rather than federal expense, at which time they'll be glad to have the road already there. -- Zsero (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, this leaves untouched the pork-related question as to whether this was an efficient use of large amounts of Federal money to serve such a small segment of the population. This was the concern that originally sparked the bridge controversy.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that's hardly the governor of Alaska's problem. Congress had given her the money, the project was doable, what governor in her right mind would have sent it back? That would have been a breach of her duty to the people of Alaska — and unlike a Congressman she had no duty to the people of the USA as a whole. -- Zsero (talk) 03:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin is being held out to the nation as a "reformer" who "opposed pork". The conceivably biased view of her as a reformer is handily balanced by the massive amount of Federal pork funding she sought for such a tiny town and tiny number of people. I think the Federal-dollars-per-person tally comes to about $17,000. If such an extravagant level of spending were insisted upon for all US citizens, we'd have $5 trillion worth of Bridges to Nowhere each year. To put that in perspective, the Federal budget submitted by Pres. Bush for 2009 totals just over $3 trillion and includes all expenditures by the government, including paying down interest on the national debt.

Another way to put it in perspective? Obama has pursued similar amounts of Federal pork funding ... but his state contains 18 times as many people as Alaska does.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Couric interview

In response to Ferrylodge, who wrote,

"Please see WP:Summary style. This is a summary article. Details about Mr. Koppelman's investigation are not in the sub-articles. Please let's try to keep thing here concise. Thanks."

While I will not be reverting this (in order to avoid 3RR? I think I'm at the limit) I am puzzled as to the rationale for removing this specific passage. There is a positive mountain of detail in this article, including much that appears to be relevant primarily to the political controversies surrounding her candidacy. Material on the Couric interview seems relevant to me, and did not seem to mark a substantial increase in the amount of material covering these recent political debates/fistfights.

What sets this passage aside from other material in the article?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is from Salon.com, an unreliable source. The paragraph went into incredible detail about an interview with other people. If even relevant enough, it belongs at Public image of Sarah Palin. Grsz^talk 02:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Salon.com does not appear to be a uniformly reliable source. The consensus that I see is that it may be used with caution. I think that's exactly what I did, as I specifically and repeatedly attributed all the claims directly to the author.

Perhaps it should go in the subarticle you mention. But, not relevant enough? I simply cannot imagine where you would get that idea.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Abortion

The current entry states:

"Palin supports a constitutional amendment to make abortion illegal in all cases, including rape and incest,[187][188] except if the life of the mother is endangered.[189]"

I do not find support for attributing to her such a radical position, neither in the pages cited nor anywhere else. (Many people believe Roe is questionable, and that the matter should be left to the states, but a constitutional amendment to ban abortion is quite another thing.)

By reputation, and according to one of these and others articles, she has actually said that she would not seek to impose her personal choices about abortion onto the public, nor use a litmus test when appointing judges. This comports much more with her record as well as the answer she herself gave to the question here:

Question: If Roe v. Wade were overturned and states could once again prohibit abortion, in your view, to what extent should abortion be prohibited in Alaska?

Palin's answer: Under this hypothetical scenario, it would not be up to the governor to unilaterally ban anything. It would be up to the people of Alaska to discuss and decide how we would like our society to reflect our values.

http://community.adn.com/adn/node/130090

Therefore, I believe the entry as it currently stands is an unsupported misrepresentation of her position, and something more reflective of her own answer to the above question would be more appropriate. 76.184.219.98 (talk) 07:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- Zsero (talk) 08:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Warming

Palin's statements on the theory of anthropogenic global warming before and after her nomination have been the topic of commentary. A lot of people seem to think that her post-nomination statements contradict her previous position. Just now User:Quota made this edit, reflecting that view. But no matter how many people think this is a reversal, it just ain't so. Her previous position was that we couldn't be sure the warming Alaska has experienced recently was man-made. Now she says we can't be sure it wasn't. Where's the contradiction? -- Zsero (talk) 09:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

We do know that she now thinks it is a cause for action, as she said here: "Regardless, though, of the reason for climate change, whether it's entirely, wholly caused by man's activities or is part of the cyclical nature of our planet — the warming and the cooling trends — regardless of that, John McCain and I agree that we gotta do something about it." Switzpaw (talk) 11:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

During her governorship, did she not take action to prevent global warming because she didn't believe man's activities contributed to it? That part is unclear. As it stands, I don't see any reason to doubt the conclusion presented by the AP article that what she is saying now is "at odds" with what she was saying then. Maybe "reversal" isn't the appropriate word to use, but it seems to fit more appropriately than "clarify". Switzpaw (talk) 11:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There's some politicianly parsing going on there. She agrees that we should do something about it, if we can; but what? I haven't heard her say that she agrees with McCain that we ought to cut down on CO₂ emissions. Has she said that? I mean, I wish she'd just come right out and say he's wrong about it, just as she does about ANWR, but the reality is that as his running mate she owes it to him not to allow more space between them than she absolutely has to, and maybe they agreed on this formula, which can be understood as supporting CO₂ cuts without actually saying so. At any rate, until you find a statement of hers on the subject that flatly contradicts her earlier position, I don't think the article can call it a reversal. -- Zsero (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)