Talk:Sarah Palin

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

Bristol is pregnant

The following discussion 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.

---

Resolved

 – Story is now confirmed.--mboverload@ 01:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

[[1]]

I am having trouble including this.

1) At this point it is an unsubstantiated rumor, and 2) It's not relevant to a biography of Sarah Palin. Wikipedia is not the National Enquirer.--Paul (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Associated Press [2] is pretty good substantiation. As to whether it is relevant, that's more ambiguous, though I'm sure it will be trumpetted by some people during this campaign. Dragons flight (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The AP is as good as it gets for reliable sources and being the girl is a minor and under the guardianship of Governor Palin, it is wholly relevant. Zredsox (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that Paul was thinking that the initial post was referring to the Internet rumor posted on Daily Kos - and not the announcement today by the Palins about their daughter's pregnancy--Jdrushton (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

AP is highly reliable as a source for something straightforward like this, put it in the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes put it in the article about Bristol, not this article. It's the same type of newspaper chatter like George Hussein Onyango Obama who lives in a hut in Africa on 12 dollars and is the half brother of Obama it's sourced and all but it's not in the main Obama article, the BLP about Obama. Similarly any rumors or such about family members should go into side articles not the main article. Hobartimus (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The pregnancy of Bristol holds weight in this circumstance, specifically because she is a minor and affects Palin politically from a family values standpoint, which is why it is relevant in the context of her biography.Zredsox (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin's disclosure of the pregnancy of her underage child is notable and relevent to the article topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Another user below stated that she is not underage, the age of consent in Alaska being 16 and Bristol being 17, however I have no way to verify this info. Hobartimus (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"Minor" = under the age of 18. She is in her parents guardianship. That is what is being referred to, not the age of consent. Zredsox (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Several news sources have states that Bristol Palin is in fact 17; however, this is irrelevant, as KCinDC points out below. Since the age of consent in Alaska is 16, Bristol is technically able to conceive a child. The concern, which is unreported and thus far speculation, is the age of Levi. If he is 18+ then he is in a position of authority and this becomes a legal matter.

Huh? How would being over 18 put him in a position of authority over her? A 16-year-old can have sex with whomever she likes, even a 76-year-old. -- Zsero (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, it's pretty wild to say that being over 18 is a "position of authority". Hobartimus (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

According to AS 11.41.436 a(3), this is an offense only if the "offender is the victim's natural parent, stepparent, adopted parent, or legal guardian." See: http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title11/Chapter41/Section436.htm JCP (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a solid source on the father, 18-year-old Levi Johnston, Bristol Palin's pregnancy was an open secret back home, with great pictures and tons of details. Digitalmandolin (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is another one, Father of Bristol Palin’s Baby Identified. Digitalmandolin (talk) 04:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel it should be included because she supports abstinence only education...24.92.220.10 (talk) 09:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Having children at 44 and 17 suggests the only thing they know how to "just say no" to in that family is contraception. Notice in the family photo, how the 17 year old is not smiling so much as the others. Being 17 and pregnant will do that to you. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not a blog. Please keep remarks relevant to article improvement. Thanks. Edison2 (talk) 15:38, 3 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.

Big sections of this talk page itself have been deleted today -- is this appropriate?

Resolved

 – Evil robots did it.--mboverload@ 01:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I just went back to see if there were any additional comments on something I had posted here, and I couldn't find the section. I then noticed that a whole lot of stuff has been removed, but I can't even find when or by whom because there are so many edits -- and I can't see anyone noting it in their edit summaries. Here is a way to see some of what I mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Palin&offset=20080901235144&limit=1000&action=history

Is this appropriate? If not, what can be done?

Thanks, User:BTR (User talk:BTR) 14:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No, not deleted but archived - and that's very appropriate. You'll find what you're searching for in the archive, but improvements of the article should be discussed here. --Hapsala (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The archives are linked at the top of this page in the first box, for your convenience. Keeper ǀ 76 15:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you -- I didn't even think of that! Sorry to sound like Chicken Little! Thanks, User:BTR (User talk:BTR) 15:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No problemo. And, of course, the sky is falling. Depending on your politics, it is perhaps caused by different reasons. But it is falling.  :-) Keeper ǀ 76 15:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin sought many earmarks

Despite the McCain campaign's claims, Sarah Palin is no opponent of earmarks. --JHP (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

More info on her earmark requests is here. --JHP (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is the cited Marijuana usage continually deleted?

Resolved

 – It's in the article about her more specific views--mboverload@ 01:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have read about Sarah Palin's admitted marijuana usage several times on Wikipedia.

The author of the thread correctly cited the incidence.

The news paper where the information was contained actually quoted this info from her own lips.

Sarah Palin admitted to using federally illegal drugs in Alaska. 

So why is this information being blocked? This is supposed to be a free and honest encyclopedia.

The American people have a right to know if their prospective Vice Presidential candidate is a drug user.

If McCain dies from old age in office (which he is likely to do) Sarah Palin would be president and a drug user.

Federally, not state. Plus it was like 20 years ago? --mboverload@ 03:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Has it been reported by a significant number of reliable sources?Geni

Someone moved that info to Political positions of Sarah Palin.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The top of the other ticket used cocaine and you're hollering about marijuana? Political campaigns are apparently brains-free zones. A.J.A. (talk) 04:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

And for the record, I don't care that Obama used to snort coke. A.J.A. (talk) 04:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well put AJA. Cocaine >>> Marijuana. --mboverload@ 04:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama's drug use in high school is mentioned in at least one WP article. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a fundamental flaw in the comment "a right to know if so-and-so is a drug user". Is there any evidence that Palin is a current or recent user of illegal substances? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The question of whether to include this information in Sarah Palin's biography seems to be answered by the Associated Press noting the importance to her political campaign. Digitalmandolin (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't belong in the SUMMARY of her political positions, when it isn't even a political position to begin with. I removed all specific positions when I wrote the summary, as per Wikipedia policy. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Approval ratings

Resolved

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

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

VECO

Resolved

 – --mboverload@ 01:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The article currently states:

In that campaign, Palin received $4500 in legal campaign contributions from VECO Corporation. Four years later, the company was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service in the Alaska political corruption probe.[35]

Is there anything here more than guilt by association? A.J.A. (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove it. That is utter partisan nonsense. --mboverload@ 04:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

See WP:COATRACK. Coemgenus 11:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Article says, "In that campaign, Palin received $4500 in legal campaign contributions from VECO Corporation. Four years later, the company was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service in the Alaska political corruption probe." But the wiki article for VECO_Corporation#Alaska_Legislature_corruption_scandal gives nothing to support that she's was accused within the investigation and that the $4500 donation was the legal campaign contribution. Seems like this reference should be removed until she is accused within the investigation. She was not in the search warrants either. Theosis4u (talk) 04:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove it. That is utter partisan nonsense. --mboverload@ 04:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've avoided doing any edits so far. Hopefully, others will do it - showing consent to the issue. Dealing with the Talk section alone tries my patience enough already. Theosis4u (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh it is irrelivant to wikipedia if something is "partisan" or even "nonsense". Is it widely reported upon in relibable sources?Geni 08:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The material is currently gone & should stay that way. Only details ("good" or "bad") which are shown to have impacted her career should be included. That is how biographies work. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Alaskan Independence Party Involvement Controversy

The article currenly says: "Palin registered as a member of the Republican Party in May of 1982, and has remained a Republican ever since.[16][17]"

However, it has been suggested that Sarah Palin attended the AIP's 1994 Another AIP Official Says Palin Was at 1994 Convention Members of 'Fringe' Alaskan Independence Party Say Palin Was a Member in 90s; McCain Camp and Alaska Division of Elections Deny Charge and 2000 conventions. The seperatist AIP has a plank that challenges the legality of the Alaskan statehood.

According to Lynette Clark, the chairman of the AIP, Palin and her husband Todd were members in 1994, even attending the 1994 statewide convention in Wasilla. John McCain's running mate Sarah Palin was in Alaskan independence party

She made this video in 2008: Sarah Palin and the Alaska Independence Party. Palin addresses AIP convention

I feel this controversy should be out in the open in the article since it gives additional political background on the presumptive vice presidential candidate.Kgrr (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like McCarthyism. Do you honestly think McCain's people don't already know about this? Do you think he would pick a VP who would include fracturing the Union on her agenda? Has the AIP ever been accused of doing anything illegal? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not McCarthyism by any stretch--there is an NPOV way to state it. Especially the fact she taped a greeting to their convention. Blueboy96 12:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure they know it. And, it's hard to escape the fact of her recorded video. However, the controversy is alive and should be brought up in the Wikipedia article. The AIP is involved with the separation of Alaska from the Union.Kgrr (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It already does state it NPOV. It says she was a member. The question is, who considers this to be controversial? Not McCain's people, apparently. There's a lot of stuff in the Robert Byrd article about the Senator being in the KKK when he was relatively young, and justifiably so - the KKK is or at least was officially regarded as a subversive organization. Is the AIP so regarded? Are they accused of breaking any laws? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

More to the point, is there any record of her saying, "I believe Alaska should secede from the Union"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Has she been in the national public eye to have every minute of everything she's said in public or on the phone on the Internet? I don't think so. However, it's well known what the AIP is all about. In fact, the Wikipedia article on the AIP does mention her being a member. Here is a NY Times article about her disclosures: Palin Disclosures Raise Questions on Vetting "that she was a member for two years in the 1990s of the Alaska Independence Party, which has at times sought a vote on whether the state should secede" Kgrr (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's perfectly clear what its founder thought, and what at least some of its members think. Is there a law against advocating secession? I thought we had freedom of speech in this country. Have they been accused of threatening civil war? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I also fail to see the controversy here. As far as I know, the Republican party does not have an exclusivity clause, and members are free to simultaneously be members of other parties. Also, addressing a group does not demonstrate any endorsement, either explicit or implied, in either direction. AIP didn't endorse her by simply hearing her positions in a video message, nor did she endorse the AIP by accepting their invitation to address them. There is an awful lot trying to be implied here with no basis in any reliable sources, and such unsourced implications do not meet WP:NPOV. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 13:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What's trying to be implied is that we could have a VP who would favor Alaskan secession. There is no evidence of that whatsoever, and unless McCain's an idiot, he wouldn't select someone who had such beliefs. So it amounts to McCarthyism. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No one is implying that. What is being stated factually is that she has an association with a group that holds those views.zredsox (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

And her connection is mentioned in the article. The AIP article goes into depth about with the AIP is supposedly about. I don't recall seeing anything in there that sounded seditious. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"Is there a law against advocating secession?" Yes. It's called sedition.Kgrr (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No, sedition is the advocating of violent overthrow or revolution. Advocating secession, by itself, would not necessarily be sedition, but merely a political viewpoint, which could be pursued perfectly legally. For example, you could go to Congress and ask for repeal of statehood. Or you could go to court and challenge the statehood status. That's not sedition. If you advocate rebellion, a la the U.S. Confederacy, that could be sedition. Does the AIP officially advocate violent rebellion? If so, maybe you should clue McCain in on it directly rather than hoping he'll read about it here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sedition is generally not violent. It's is more about encouraging the people to rebel, where Treason is actually betraying the country. Read AIP's website so you can learn what they're all about. [3] Kgrr (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the NYT source, Palin was at the 1994 and 2006 conventions. According to McCain spokesperson Rogers, she also attended the 2000 convention. And she gave the address to the 2008 convention. So now we know Sarah Palin attended the 1994, 2000, 2006, and, via video address, the 2008 convention. I think there is enough here to warrant inclusion in the article (a clear political association with the Alaska Independence Party). Digitalmandolin (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I have given plenty of references above. Kgrr (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The party says that she was not part of the party: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/alaska-party-official-says-palin-was-not-a-member/?scp=2&sq=alaska%20independence&st=cse . Argo117 (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Argo117

Very interesting. So Lynette Clark, the Chair of AIP, retracted her statement. Nevertheless, she participated at the conventions according to a second source (above). Then in all fairness the retraction should be included in this section as well. Kgrr (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Please explain why we need to put something that is untrue into the article so we can also include the retraction of the untruth?--Paul (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

None of the sources are conclusive. She has not actively supported the party, ever said she advocated secession, or offered them any sort of financial or legal aid. The varying pieces of evidence have to be pulled together to imply that she is a secessionist, which is original research. Until a news article says that she is an unpatriotic American for supporting secession, this is not a controversy, only gossip. I read a few things that said that, but most seem to merely give some evidence that she's linked in some way, then speak on the evils of the party. Take this one.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/johnmccain/2667214/John-McCains-running-mate-Sarah-Palin-was-in-Alaskan-independence-party.html There's a summary of what the party is, mention of what Palin said, then a mention that the AIP wants to infiltrate the government and hates that Palin is with McCain now, and then they say Palin wasn't chosen properly, and move onto other issues. No direct talk of what this means. Or this. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-aip3-2008sep03,0,6399468.story It repeats her praise for the group, and says that an official sidestepped a question, but again didn't answer whether she was a secessionist, merely said she cheered them on. We don't really have anything solid. A lot of blogs make the link- she has these links, so she must be unpatriotic, and will therefore not support America as a vice president, but favour Alaska. But news articles don't directly touch the issue. And rightly so, since at any time she could support or contradict what they say. Until there's some direct evidence that she likes or dislikes secession, it doesn't warrant a major section. Certainly not a spam of links that support various statements about vague links between her and the party that I saw before. --Ytaker (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The article need not and should not attribute to her any sort of endorsement of secessionism, but the allegations of her past attendance at AIP meetings, her husband's membership, and her recorded greeting to them as governor clearly demonstrate some degree of association and warrant mention together on this page . --Saforrest (talk) 05:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

One sentence would suffice. The AIP website minimalizes the involvement of Palin and her husband, and there is nothing seditious in their views. This is a non-story. One sentence is enough. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Typing Mistake Bristol's DOB is not 1980

Resolved

 – Error corrected.--mboverload@ 01:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ref. 114 links to court document that shows her birthyear is 1990 where as the article here states 1980. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.11 (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Since corrected. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Jews for Jesus stuff, terrorism, and “judgment of unbelief”

Heads up, something to keep an eye out for. People will likely start adding this and related information before/if it gets proper sourcing. rootology (C)(T) 13:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There is an edit war going on with regard to the Jews for Jesus guest speaker. As there is no consensus on the relevancy of this, it needs to stay out. If this doesn't settle out by tomorrow, I will request a full administrative lock-down. Freedom Fan (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"then it needs to stay out" -- Since when are the rules of notability, "If we can't agree, then we do whatever I want"? Wikipedia is about consensus building. Feel free to join in the conversation (below) and work towards that. -- Rei (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Being present during a one-hour sermon is not the same as being present every Sunday for 20 years, as Obama was with Jeremiah Wright. The JfJ reference needs to be removed. --CliffC (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the historical list of speakers for her church. You can see David Brickner spoke only one time. http://wasillabible.org/sermons.htm So please remove this obvious political attack. MAL

Hear hear, and we cant even get one freakin word in that article about it! CENSEI (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Marijuana use?

Resolved

 – --mboverload@ 01:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It was mentioned on the 9aug version, but no longer on the current one. Dont get me on whether or not it is relevant; i just noticed it. I started reading the old version to get some unbiased 'data' in the first place, and this is the first difference i noticed. --82.170.27.104 (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's now under Political positions of Sarah Palin. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Content of a speech given by guest speaker when Palin was in attendance

I am not a Palin supporter, but it seems to me that trying to smear her by including some controversial content of a speech given by someone else while Palin was in attendance violates the spirit of BLP guidelines. If the speaker had a long-term relationship with Palin, it's possible a case could be made, but this was a guest speaker! The editor keeps re-adding the inappropriate sentence. -Exucmember (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I'd remove it, but it would just be edit-warred by someone else. This is a meme the left-wing press is pushing today, that's she's some kind of crazy Christianist. It'll fade. Trust me, the Obama campaign will not want to have a discussion about what preachers say. Kelly ^hi! 18:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It took months for the controversy surrounding remarks by Michael Pfleger to fade from the Obama BLP (even though Obama wasn't in attendance), and the Jeremiah Wright-related stuff is still around. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but it will all flare up again if this issue is flogged, so I'm pretty sure the Obama campaign will put the kibosh on the press. That way the pressure will come off this article and we can decide what version of this, if any, remains here. Kelly ^hi! 19:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with that bit of crystal ball gazing. Better language than "more recently" should be found though. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to note some differences. Obama, described Wright as a mentor. The Wright controversy was all over the news. This "guest speaker" isn't even named. Second of all, the citation doesn't have any info. I think it might be considered original research.Rds865 (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

<- (to Scjessey) Agreed, just trying to be realistic. You remember what hell it was around here when everyone was claiming that she wasn't really the mother of her kids. Agree on the specificity. Also, need to rephrase the "God's will" quotes from the church speech and frame it in context. Looks like the reporter took a couple of words from a much longer prayer to fit whatever he/she was trying to say. Kelly ^hi! 19:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
<- I agree with Kelly. Need to fix "God's Will" quote. Does not accurately reflect what Palin was saying. Check the source. 75.11.191.123 (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)John

I have no time for blog gossip. BLPs demand the highest standard of reliable sources - something "babygate" lacked. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"In attendance"??? Talk about guilt by association. Hey, I was in attendance at a ball game when a fight broke out. I guess that makes me a hooligan. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this is why I have a big problem with the Jeremiah Wright stuff, too. I happen to be a member of an established religious group, and the doctrine of the group contains a bunch of stuff I don't necessarily believe in. But I still consider myself a member of that religion and attend its meetings. Guilt by association is right. Kelly ^hi! 19:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree that just because someone listens too someone, doesn't mean they take every word they say as gospel truth, but that's not the point. the Wright controversy was all over the news, Obama made a famous speech in response to it. Therefore it belongs in wikipedia. Rds865 (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic. Are you saying that if a political candidate on one side gets unfairly tarred, we have to help tar someone from the opposing side? That's not the purpose of Wikipedia. Kelly ^hi! 19:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This material is currently out and should stay that way. The event is completely non-notable and non-sourced at this time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not what I am saying. I am arguing against that. I am saying that the Wright Controversy is not comparable to this Jews for Jesus thing. In that the Wright controversy deserves mention in Obama's article, but this Jews for Jesus statement doesn't. It looks like we are all in agreement Rds865 (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's back in. "On August 17, Palin was in attendence when David Brickner, the leader of Jews for Jesus, gave a sermon claiming that terrorism against Israel is due to the disbelief in Jesus by its Jewish population.[124][125]; according to a McCain campaign spokesman, Palin has rejected his views.[126]" The argument made by the person who added it is that it is notable because McCain released a PR on it. I strongly disagree with that logic though. Where is the evidence that it impacted Palin's LIFE and/or CAREER? If there is none, it is not notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It is really no different from the controversial words by Michael Pfleger that caused Obama to quit his church. As I said before, that was a big enough deal to remain in his BLP for months, so it is not unreasonable for us to include this. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If the McCain campaign is commenting on it, *they* perceive it as a big deal. Campaigns don't comment on just everything. I can't imagine how you'd deign to substitute your judgement on what's a big deal over what what the campaign thinks. Furthermore, it's carried by a number of news outlets, including at least one in Israel. How can you possibly think that a story that even Israeli news sources are picking up isn't impacting her career (i.e., her attempt to become VP)? And lastly, it's an exact mirror of the Wright controversy -- only Palin was *actually there* for this speech. I can't see how one can remotely argue that it's not relevant. -- Rei (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to have become recently more relevant, as all the Jewish media, has covered it. The McCain campaign comments on any thing they are asked,(such as the number of houses the McCain's own). It is hard to edit a developing story. However, a better source that the Jewish media would be nice. Rds865 (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying it is not relevant to today's news cycle. I am saying the event is not relevant to SP's life. This is biographical article, not a news source. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Wikipedia is not a news paper. It is an encyclopedia, though looking through the section headers of this talk page, I wouldn't blame anyone who mistook it for the National Enquirer. This is a trivial attempt to slur Palin with guilt by being in the same room. It's absurd.--Paul (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There's only one job that she could run for in her life that's higher than the Vice Presidency, what she's running for right now and this is a story with the potential to derail her candidacy. And you think it's not relevant, despite a similar story nearly derailing Obama's campaign, the McCain campaign's efforts to stamp out the fire, and the continuing growth of newspapers covering the story. I cannot understand how you arrive at this viewpoint. -- Rei (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, "story" "potential [to derail...]" what's wrong here? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the editorial room of the National Enquirer.--Paul (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, you're right! We shouldn't be reporting pesky "facts" covered by "newspapers" of repute that are of "significance" to such trivial things as a "presidential election", like whether she belongs to a church with antisemitic leanings. Only the national inquirer would do something like that. We should be discussing important things, like whether she made a critical free throw back in high school while she had an ankle injury. -- Rei (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a significant media story, reliably sourced, that has drawn a response from the McCain camp - thus warranting a mention. Presumably, this falls under the auspices of WP:WELLKNOWN (a policy referred to frequently by anti-Obama editors) -- Scjessey (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah Scjessey, you're making the rounds I see. Lose this goofy story. It has NO. ZERO. consensus for relevancy. This is a lame political smear. The "warmly received by her pastor" BS is a transparent give away.

What a guest speaker might have said when she was sitting in the audience is totally irrelevant. I suspect an administrative lock-down and probation will become necessary. BTW I notice that the Barack Obama article does not even include a heading for "Religion". Care to share your position on that? Freedom Fan (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

So, you're saying that when a political figure's pastor supports something majorly controversial, something with the potential to derail their candidacy, something so significant that the campaign issues official statements and dozens of WP:V sources cover it, that it's "totally irrelevant"? Wow -- you better hurry up and strip Wikipedia of references to Wright. -- Rei (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wright relationship with Obama is different than Palin's with Jews for Jesus, which is not as controversial. Anyway, it shouldn't go in the religion section, but the 2008 campaign section, if in the article at all. After all it was McCain's people who responded. The story is that some Jews are concerned she might be anti-Semitic. I am sorry, but that doesn't sound noteworthy, not yet. Rds865 (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Jews for Jesus, not as controversial? Are you kidding me? They're like the third rail of politics concerning Jewish-American votes. Have you even read the Jews for Jesus Wikipedia article? There's half a dozen *groups* formed explicitly to counter them, including the largest anti-missionary organization in existence (Jews for Judaism, which has six international offices). Here's an article from New York Magazine talking about how Palin's perceived hostility to Jewish interests may well cost the McCain ticket the election. -- Rei (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

<- This is a blatant guilt-by-association attempt. However, if the article makes clear that Palin rejects the speaker's views, it's not as bad as it could be. Kelly ^hi! 23:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Rei wrote (4 entries above): "So, you're saying that when a political figure's pastor supports something majorly controversial..."

Obviously there's an immense difference between the contents of Rev. Wright's sermons and those of a one-time guest speaker. The idea was that Rev. Wright being Obama's pastor for a couple decades was somehow a window into Obama's religious beliefs (Liberation Theology) or secret radical political beliefs. If it had not become a major media event there is no way anyone could justify putting anything about it in an encyclopedia.

Now it seems Rei is making a new argument: that Palin's pastor knew the Jews for Jesus speaker would say something anti-semitic (or at least that he knew the guest speaker was anti-semitic), and had him speak anyway, which shows that Palin's pastor is anti-semitic. Sorry, but there are several steps of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH here. The giant unreferenced assumption among these is this: How do we know Palin's pastor is anti-semitic?

This has no place in an encyclopedia biography at present. If it becomes a big media circus like the Wright church controversy, then it could go in a campaign section or article. For now, it should be removed immediately as a BLP violation. -Exucmember (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You have already used this argument above, and ignored responses. The fact remains that this is a notable, well-covered matter that is receiving national media attention. It is similar to the Michael Pfleger issue that eventually caused Obama to leave his church, and in this case the subject was actually present for the remarks by the guest speaker. There's a hint of a double standard here. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The argument in my new comments has not been addressed at all, and, no, I did not ignore responses above; I simply didn't comment on those which were irrelevant. Michael Pfleger was the straw that broke the camel's back. A single guest speaker would not have gotten much (if any) media attention if Wright hadn't already been a major issue. Some people perceived it as showing a pattern characterizing that church. Michael Pfleger was part of the Wright controversy. Where is the Wright controversy here? The unnamed guest speaker at Palin's church is also not a major media issue yet. Until it is, it should not be in Wikipedia. Even then, it does not belong in a "Religion" section in a person's biography. -Exucmember (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I will repeat what I have said before: this is a notable, well-covered matter that is receiving national media attention. You have not managed to answer for this fact satisfactorily. There are multiple reliable sources available that discuss this, and it is most certainly having an effect on the important Jewish voting bloc (in the swing state of Florida, for example). I agree that this shouldn't be a big deal, but the media coverage has made it so. WP:WELLKNOWN indicates that this should be mentioned, although I still feel this will fade into the background in time (as I said previously). -- Scjessey (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I would argue against the unfortunate editor's desire to include this. We can look to any of his talk page comments on any Obama related article over the last month to counter any proposal he might make for the inclusion of almost anything that he might propose.--Die4Dixie (talk) 07:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"warm welcome"

I've removed a statement a couple of times that the Jews for Jesus guy was "warmly welcomed by her pastor". Not sure why that would be relevant to her biography, unless it's a guilt-by-secondhand-association attempt. Kelly ^hi! 22:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

And I removed it again. Please discuss. Kelly ^hi! 23:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It isn't relevant. The pastor's welcoming of the highly is hardly noteworthy (why would he be there is not welcomed) and has zero to do with Palin. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

We are discussing it. Above ("Content of a speech given by guest speaker when Palin was in attendance"). Please post in the proper section. -- Rei (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm placing a neutrality tag on the article as a first step. If we have certain editors who seriously believe that it is relevant that Palin once listened to someone whom she probably doesn't even know and that somehow reflects on her deeply-held religious beliefs, then we have an egregious neutrality problem.

This is an example what some of these same editors call a wp:coatrack when it happens to their candidate. This is a transparent attempt to scare Jews from voting; whether she once listened to someone is obviously irrelevant to her religious beliefs. Also irrelevant is whether people in her campaign once responded to some bogus concern. These same editors would recoil at using the same standard for relevancy when it comes to say, Barack Obama's bio, from which the entire religion section was erased.

Simply put: This text tells us absolutely nothing about Sarah Palin's religious beliefs.

This text violates WP:Relevant and fails to meet the high bar of neutrality necessary for inclusion of material about living persons in a Wikipedia article [WP:BLP]]. Accordingly, I believe it qualifies for speedy deletion as required under Wikipedia policy. Freedom Fan (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am requesting deletion of the irrelevant, POV inclusion of the statement about Palin's having listened to someone and then implying that it has something to do with her religious beliefs. This text has no consensus for relevancy and appears to be a textbook candidate for speedy deletion as required by WP:BLP.

Specifically, under the religion section this part needs to go:

On August 17, Palin was in attendence when David Brickner, the leader of Jews for Jesus, gave a guest sermon claiming that terrorism against Israel is due to the disbelief in Jesus by its Jewish population;[113][114][115][116] according to a McCain campaign spokesman, Palin rejected his views.[117]

Thank you. Freedom Fan (talk) 23:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Jews for Jesus

This sentence seems fairly inflammatory. Can someone provide a good reason why sitting in a pew and listening to someone rattle on is worth mentioning on a bio page? Seems like WP:UNDUE to me.

On August 17, Palin was in attendence when David Brickner, the leader of Jews for Jesus, gave a guest sermon claiming that terrorism against Israel is due to the disbelief in Jesus by its Jewish population;[113][114][115][116] according to a McCain campaign spokesman, Palin rejected his views.

Palin's pastor greeted Brickner warmly, so she must agree with Brickner's idiotic views. More guilt by association. Except this is guilt by association with association. Oy! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

In this case, we had a rare opportunity to have the American people decide whether this is notable -- in this case, the preacher's name was Wright, what he said wasn't nearly as inflammatory, and the candidate in question wasn't even in attendance that day. New York Magazine is reporting that this one thing could determine the fate of the election[4]. And you think this isn't notable why?

Also, people, please read the above sections before you start a new one. -- Rei (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Rei, notability is a term of art in the Wikipedia. It means that the subject is meets some objective criteria or satisfies subjective criteria which can be agreed to by a consensus of editors, so the subject is included in the Wikipedia. patsw (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

“what he said wasn't nearly as inflammatory” - That’s certainly debatable. “God damn America,” if I remember correctly.

“the candidate in question wasn't even in attendance that day” - True, but Wright was the pastor of the candidate’s church. Brickner was merely a guest speaker.

I completely agree with your last point, though. :)

—Travis^talk 23:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Jews for Jesus is, as mentioned earlier on this page, practically a third rail of politics for Jewish-American voters. There are half a dozen groups founded *explicitly* to counter them, including Jews for Judaism, the largest anti-missionary group in the world. Palin's pastor has repeatedly spoken fondly of him (not just on that one day), took out a donation for Jews for Jesus, and so on.

All of that said, that's irrelevant. The fact is that the mainstream press, Jewish-issues press, and even some Israeli press have been running with this story in a big way, and it could cost her the election. That makes it notable in a big way. -- Rei (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to including the David Brickner relationship in the article, it has to pass through several tests. If Brickner's relationship with Palin were as longstanding and as deep as Wrights's relationship with Obama and verifiable by reliable secondary sources, the the relationship might be included in the article. Brickner was not Palin's pastor, but an incidental guest of the pastor so the connection is weak. patsw (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As it stands, the sentence seems like a non sequitur. There is no context that would make it even remotely notable. If there is more to the story, like Palin has secret ties to Jew-hating Aryan organizations, then maybe. But just sitting in a pew while a guest speaker rattles on fails per WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH, WP:BLP and a bunch of others. Ronnotel (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree it should be removed. Does anyone even imply that Sarah spoke to the Jews for Jesus pastor? Or sought him out? Or heard him more than one time as a Guest speaker? This seems to be unnecessary partisan drivel. Skits2 (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor typo

{{editsemiprotected}} "in teh theory of evolution" needs to be fixed in the first paragraph of the Personal Life:Religion section.

Images are busted

Resolved

 – --mboverload@ 00:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone have any idea why all the images seem to be busted? None of them are loading for me.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh never mind, they seem to be working again now.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

FAQ

I just added a FAQ section (see the top of this talk page), based on the section in the Barack Obama article. It's meant to guide editors new to the page, and also be a stable place to note perennial proposals that have firmly been rejected and that are no longer under active discussion. That way, instead of re-starting a finished discussion every time someone new comes to the page and doesn't find it (because it's been archived or the talk page is too long) you can just point them to the FAQ. It's best to only include completely uncontroversial things there. For now I just populated it with a few process points, not any actual issues. Hope this helps. Wikidemon (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure it'll help, but it's worth a try. I'm not sure it should be encouraging BRD at the moment, though. There's more than enough editing and reverting happening as it is, and starting off with discussion seems like a good idea until things calm down. Then perhaps be bold if your discussion gets ignored. —KCinDC (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the FAQ to downplay the "B" part of "BRD". For the moment there is article protection. When editing resumes at least people should be following the D part of BRD instead of revert warring.Wikidemon (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

'Governor' Palin

Resolved

 – Error corrected.--mboverload@ 01:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Throughout the article it refers to SP as either Sarah or Palin (except in the opening section) Why then, when we get to the section 'Family' and the potentially damaging revelations about her daughter's pregnancy is she suddenly refered to as "Governor Palin announced on September 1, 2008, that her daughter Bristol was five months pregnant and intended to keep the baby and marry the father of her child, 17-year-old Levi Johnston."? Surely, Palin OR Sarah (if you wanted to distinguish her from her daughter) would suffice. It seems to me that the introduction of "Governor" in this sentence is contrived.

Or more likely a result of the many hands in this article. It be gone. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin links to AIP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palin also has tenuous links to the Democratic Party. Shall we create a section about that too? Her mother-in-law is a Democrat, so obviously Sarah Palin's Republican schtick is a complete charade, right?[5]Ferrylodge (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page protected

An admin has protected the article page. Probably a good idea. We have other things we could be doing! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, any updates can be handled through edit requests for the next few days. Hopefully the feeding frenzy will have died down by then. Kelly ^hi! 23:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

For five days? Yeah, that's a good way to deal with an article on a politician whose politics and background we know nothing about. Hey, if there's any interest left about her after five days you can just extend it for another five. I think you've captured exactly what the spirit of Wikipedia is all about! Congrats, pat each other on the backs, you deserve it. Lampman (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The article can still be easily updated with consensus material developed here at the talk page. Hobartimus (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'll have to go back to doing my job when I'm at work ;) Good call on protection, though, regretable as it is. I'll be glad to give up my editing privileges here until the feeding frenzy dies down. Coemgenus 00:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

See below for that. Lampman (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a sad event. Unfortunately, Wikipedia probably had little choice since many "established users" kept trying to insert libelous material. Also, it was getting too edit-war-ish. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone else notice the page was protected in a state were all the McCain campaign talking points were included and anything controversial yet well documented and sourced (such as AIP which was being discussed above with a consensus to include) was completely wiped? How convenient since she is speaking tonight and this page will see heavy traffic. It is quite apparent what is going on here. zredsox (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If there is any consensus about the AIP matter it is to exclude, as anyone can see by reviewing the numerous and voluminous talk sections on the subject.--Paul (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have read them all and it is quite obvious that the consensus is that at least something should be included. Don't let partisanship blind you.zredsox (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors generally lean left, somebody even started a conservative version because of it. There is no cabal. BJ^Talk 00:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, BJ, Wikipedia editors generally lean right (some from conviction and some from an interpretation of "reliable sources" that in practice makes them subject to the biases of the corporate media). That's why somebody even started a progressive version. JamesMLane t c 08:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Zredsox that something highly nefarious is going on here. I was just about to insert a new section documenting Palin's close ties to the Democratic Party, but now the page has been frozen. Her extensive family and professional ties to Democrats, plus her well-publicized efforts at bipartisanship and "crossing the aisle" will now have to wait until September 8. But, mark my words, they will be extensively documented in this article, if there is a ridiculous section in the article doing the same thing regarding the AIP.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying Wikipedia as an organization is a cabal. What I am saying is that if you view the statistics for edits on the Palin article and associate the primary editors with the talk page discussions that they partake in, it becomes clear there is a biased minority that has taken ownership of the article and moved it into questionable "neutrality." We have reached this point, with the page now locked in the middle of the Republican National Convention and the subject of the page is about to make the biggest speech of her life, and we have a front facing offering that does not adhere at all to the pages upon pages of discussions that have been had over the last few days. So no, I am not going to invest in a tin foil hat and polarized shades to protect from the further infiltration of mind control emanating from wikipedia.com via the manipulation of screen refresh rates and high frequency audio cues, but I wanted to take a moment to offer my disappointment in the process thus far and the product put forth. 01:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The crypto-fascist right-wing cabal even deleted John Edwards's mistress' article four times before allowing it to stay when sourced by a real news outlet. Is there no end to their perfidy? O tempora! O mores! Coemgenus 00:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection squad on extramarital affair

I find it admirable that Wikipedia editors try to uphold their own concepts of journalistic decency. However, that is not how Wikipedia works; if reliable (WP:RS) sources exist, then it doesn't matter what exulted admins think.

As it is, The Washington Post deal with the issue, so there is no reason why we shouldn't. Here's a suggested text that is NPOV and sourced:

Rumours that Governor Palin had an extramarital affair with a business associate of her husband were forcefully denied by the McCain campaign.<ref name="Kurtz">{{cite news|url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/03/mccain_aide_rips_tabloid_repor.html|title=McCain Aide Rips Tabloid Report|last=Kurtz|first=Howard|date=2008-09-03|publisher=[[Washington Post]]|accessdate=2008-09-03}}</ref>

I can understand the concern to protect privacy, but once reliable sources are established (the Washington Post for God's sake!) it's hard to see what other than partisan politics that's keeping the admins from editing the article. Lampman (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You are correct in that this meets WP:V. The reliability of the Enquirer is irrelevant; nobody is sourcing the enquirer or reporting what it said as fact. However, that's not the only standard in play here. There's also the issue of "notability". While I think this has the *potential* to be huge, I agree with some critics that I don't think there's been a big, election-affecting explosion from it yet. If it gets to the point where there's, say, more than 10 WP:V sources weighing in, then I'll back you up on it. -- Rei (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, let's see how this plays out in the national press. Lampman (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sweet mother of pearl.. Aren't Angelina and Brad getting a divorce or something like that according to the NE. While they do get one right from time to time, tabloids have a horrific batting average and are simply not reliable sources. Seriously, the number 4 story on their home page right now is that Nicholas Cage refuses to sleep in his house because it is haunted... Just because the McCain campaign has taken it upon themselves to lay into a tabloid reporter does not give the report itself credence and certainly does not vault over WP:BLP. All it means that in a political season when every little thing that pops up about a candidate must be responded to immediately or have the gullible American public believe that it is accurate. The only time the affair, or the rumor of an affair, can be mentioned on this article is when a reliable source is actually willing to stand by a source and say that Palin had an affair. Until then it is just another layer of excrement piled upon the already heaping pile that is American politics. Seriously.. Barack Obama has an entire website dedicated to refuting internet and tabloid rumors, should we post on Obama's page that Michelle was heard ranting on about "whitey" just because the Obama campaign put it up on the anti-smear website? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This specific example is cited in WP:WELLKNOWN, and may provide useful guidance. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The admins are right and you are wrong. This is just a back door attempt to get the allegations into the article. Trying to sneak unfounded allegations into the article by the means you are suggesting is inappropriate. I hope the allegations turn out to be true and Palin is given a one way ticket back to Alaska, but it does not belong in the article unless the allegations are actually true. --JHP (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please read the FAQ, quite a few policies are at play here. For example the controversial relationship between Obama and Bill Ayers gets a few hundred thousand google hits to above a million easily with a "little" more sources that you bring here, the Obama campaign reacted to it in statements, ads countless times and yet it doesn't necesserily mean that you can build consensus to inculde it into the biography of Obama. Hobartimus (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

We've had a drive-by admin action on the article page: protecting it by User:Keeper76. What's the admin's rationale for the page protection? patsw (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually the opposite of your accusation is true, the protection enjoys a broad support of editors and is not the work of "drive-by" editing as you allege. Hobartimus (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Actions taken by administrators are not done because of "broad support of editors" but because, as the template states "disputes" need to be resolved. The first step is for the admin who applied protection to enumerate those disputes. patsw (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually this was discussed beforehand a few times already and quite extensively too. Hobartimus (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Children's birthdates

There is a lot of public interest in the birthdates of at least some of the children, and it would be helpful to have them in the article just so we could see when their ages change. There is no immediate need to draw inferences from those ages (e.g., as to how long the Palins were married before the birth of their first child), but the birthdates themselves should, I think, be included, as should the full names of the children, to the extent available. Could a moderator please add the following information?

>> BLP violation deleted for the protection of the children <<

I realize that the speeding tickets are not of public interest, but they are public records that show Track's and Bristol's birthdates. John M Baker (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason these couldn't be in an {{Age}} template but I don't normally edit BLP articles. This would be a good time to read WP:BLP... BJ^Talk 00:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

While it is true that the birthdates of the children have some public interest, WP:BLP is quite specific about excluding personal details of this nature - particularly when the details are not of the actual subject of the article. Even quoting the dates on this talk page is a WP:BLP violation. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:WELLKNOWN says "Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details — such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses — or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them." I wasn't aware of that until today, but this article has given lots of us reason to peruse the BLP guidelines. Coemgenus 00:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize that the guidelines were so restrictive. I disagree on principle (as to birthdates, not the rest of them), but this probably isn't a good test case. I note that the birthdates of the two youngest children are readily available online in reliable sources. I also think it would be useful to provide the fuller versions of the children's names. John M Baker (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please list disputes that need to be resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. The article currently says nothing about Palin having an extramarital affair with a business associate of her husband even though the story has been covered by such media sources as CNN [6], The Huffington Post [7], France 24 [8], The Washington Post [9], & [10], The Sydney Morning Herald [11], CBS [12], North Queensland Register [13], The Age [14], Gawker.com [15], The Standard [16]. Lampman (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And it shouldn't. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid or place for baseless speculation. Nor is it the place to report others' baseless speculation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The old "this is an encyclopaedia"-argument, without any further explanation is a bit old. I think it was quite a while ago since we all realised that Wikipedia was something quite different from anything we'd ever seen before. So let's just relate to our most basic principles: WP:V and WP:RS, ok? Lampman (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A big Hurrah and enthusiastic second, Lampman.Catuskoti (talk) 10:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not enough coverage, a blip for now. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on, this is getting ridiculous, how much coverage do you want? Look above. Lampman (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a well-covered blip, so it's premature to include. See WP:Recentism.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

'well-covered blip' -- does that mean the same as 'round-square'? Catuskoti (talk) 10:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

or 'persistent moment', 'recalcitrant falsity', etc. Catuskoti (talk) 10:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The mere fact that a rumor has been reported as a rumor in RS doesn't make it worthy of inclusion here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Until or if there is confirmation of any alleged affair, by a real news source (which the Enquirer ain't) then it's a non-story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well that's not partisan at all: we need 100% proof before we can include any information whatsoever! In case you've been asleep the last few years: Wikipedia doesn't operate with concepts of absolute truth, what matters is verifiability. As long as assertions can be backed up with verifiable, reliable sources (see above, there’s plenty of them), that's all that matters. Lampman (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hurrah again, Lampman. Catuskoti (talk) 10:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Precisely, and the Enquirer does not qualify. And the story, at the moment, is a non-story. As with Edwards, if the mainstream media confirm the truth of the story, not merely confirm that "it's a rumor", then it's fair game for here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As it is, neither I nor Socrates know what "truth" is (no further comparison). Fortunately we don't deal in "truth" here on Wikipedia, simply in verifiability, as has been demonstrated above. Whether or not the affair took place, media coverage of it is now indisputable, and as such it belongs here. Lampman (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The only thing "verifiable" is that it was an actual rumor. It disappeared quickly, so there's obviously nothing to it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a lot of wonderful, profound thoughts by both ThaddeusB, patsw, What's up, Doc?, Kelly, Baseball Bugs etc. You should all start your own little blogs. As for Wikipedia, that's a completely different matter. I still haven't seen anyone explain what policy prevents us from relating verifiable material from reliable sources. Still waiting for that...? Lampman (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, hurrah! Catuskoti (talk) 10:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Technicaly none however given that there at the moment isn't really anything solid here and we should avoid recentism it's probably worth waiting 24 hours so that we are in a reasonable position to describe things if it is still of significance.Geni 02:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

'Solid' is a relative term, open to interpretation by the individual. Coverage in reliable sources is not. Lampman (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, recentism is a notion, but not a principle. Let it to guide you personally. Wiki-principles alone should be followed by everyone.Catuskoti (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

So basically your position is that everything that is covered in reliable sources should automatically be included in Wikipedia as well? --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, no, my position is that nothing should be deleted despite disagreement unless the deletion is backed up wholly, unequivocally, and specifically by Wiki-principles. Catuskoti (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes very intresting position that if you have coverage of a rumor you can include it. Fortunately that is not wikipedia policy. The Obama page would be several thousand pages long going by that standard. Hobartimus (talk) 03:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, since you mention the Obama page, that one says: "some Americans believe incorrectly that he is Muslim or was raised Muslim". Once a rumor gets significant coverage in reliable sources - whether it's true or not - it should be included. Lampman (talk) 03:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This hasn't gotten significant coverage though. The Enquirer reported it and the only coverage is that the campaign has denied it. Calling a non-notable and untrue rumor an untrue rumor does not make it notable. Oren0 (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It has gotten coverage. See the first lines of the thread initiated by Lampman above. (You're talking a lot, but you don't seem to point at anything....) Catuskoti (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama's name itself will continue to raise this issue. It's surprising how many Americans already have been duped into thinking Obama is Muslim. Unless he changes his name to Willie Jones or something, that belief will persist and should be addressed. Meanwhile, reporting something originated by the Enquirer and with no legs in the media, but trying to keep it here, is a sneaky way of implying it's true. There are and will be plenty of legitimate things to criticize her for. We don't need to rely on rags like the Enquirer for info. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

3. Can't edit point about "appointed long-time Mat-Su Borough associates to run the board" which has been eliminated, to somehow obfuscate any indication of cronyism. As we all know, the articles from news organisation that are available on the Internet may 'disappear' over the course of this week. I was looking at a forum two days ago, and the next day it disappeared. Now, we all know forums are not news sources, I'm just saying that we should prepare for some of the citations in this article to become dead ends in the next few days, as the sources are taken down. I would consider that 'replacing' and entire board of people that don't agree with you, and 'replacing' them with people you are associated with so you can reverse a decision is pretty f'ed up. Doesn't that sound similar to what the Attorney General's office was pulling last year? Replace dissenting people with people who agree with you in order to reverse decisions. The section paints her actions in a favorable light by stating that she 'had concerns for dairy farmers' [sic].Since we can't edit the page, and I hadn't touched it yet, this little fact is locked in to its current 'unimportant' stance as a minor blurb. It may seem unimportant, but to me it is far more important than her kid's pregnancy. (Her kid is doing exactly the same as her mom did...that's not news.) However, multiple instances of using her position and office for gains, is news. Troopergate, and I guess this is "Dairy-gate". The current administration has abused its power by replacing people who dissent, and selecting attorneys based on political affiliation, and here we have someone in BFE that is cut from the same cloth that they pick as a 'maverick'. I hope someone can find some more news on this before it is all swept under the carpet and off of her hometown newstation's website. t1n0 00:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The current version is fine & has been stable for at least 24 hours. Also, the rest of your rant makes it clear you are not thinking unbiasedly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Your hilarious...how can you say I am unbiased, yet in the same sentence you call my comments a 'rant'. Do you think 'rant' is a neutral point of view there, ThaddeusB? I did not post any changes to the actual article, in case you didn't notice;I have been only mentioning it here, to see if anyone else found out info on it...I like to look before I leap. My point is that info on that event is disappearing, curiously so. ...end of 'rant'. t1n0

I'm not sure I understand the point here. The article presently says: "Palin subsequently replaced the entire membership of the Board of Agriculture and Conservation.[74] The new board reversed the decision to close the dairy." What the heck is wrong with that? I oppose any change unless a good reason is provided and the proposed change is detailed.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Further oppose change

4. The general dispute that this article should become a clearinghouse for every Internet rumor that is reported on without independent verification by sources such as the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, etc. They cannot be relied upon to show discretion in reporting rumors they have not independently verified when it comes to Sarah Palin. These sources are becoming mere echo chambers for anonymous rumors. We do not have to be in that food chain. patsw (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In principle I agree, but the AIP story is more than that. They're airing video of her at the AIP meeting. It's notable. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Only for the purpose of trying to paint her as a secessionist. If she were a secessionist, she would not be running for VP of the USA. It's McCarthyism, guilt by association. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Kelly ^hi! 01:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be McCarthyism had Palin never been a member of that secessionist party, but there is pretty clear evidence that she was at one point. We aren't talking about a youthful indescrion here, did she inhale? This person is seeking the 2nd highest office in the land from a land she once didn't want to be a part of. She still refuses to answer the question of whether secession should be put up for a state wide vote. That's notable especially when so many reliable sources are available. While this isn't worth focusing to much on, it is worthy of limited mention in the article.--Rtphokie (talk) 02:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As an aside (totally irrelevant to the discussion of what should be in the article based on current sources), I for one can't help wondering why she hasn't stood up and said: "I do not support secession nor I have I ever done so in the past". Obviously the rumors revolve around secession (and not really about membership or participation), so I am hoping that we will soon get a direct denial on point. It would make this issue easier to deflate, in my opinion. (Unless of course she has directly supported secession, but as far as I know no reputable source has claimed that.) Dragons flight (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The question of secession has been asked by journalist recently, and Palin (or her people) simply wont answer it. You are correct that if she would simply answer the question, this could all be put to bed and this section of the article possibly deleted depending on that answer.--Rtphokie (talk) 02:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Or "I am not a crook"? Those who would demand an overt denial (not you, specifically) amounts to another McCarthyist tactic. It reminds me of Bill O'Reilly complaining that Muslim leaders won't condem terrorists to his satisfaction, therefore they must agree with the terrorists. It also reminds me of a story from the HUAC days, where a Hollywood director was asked whether he had ever made a pro-Communist movie. He said No. Nixon then jumped in and asked, "Have you ever made an anti-communist movie?" At some point, Palin will get interviewed and might get asked that question. I say again, if she were a secessionist, there's no way McCain would have her on the ticket. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem with your argument is that wikipedia would see no problem with being sucessionist. Indeed given alaska's oil wealth someone has probably made a case for it in a reliable source somewhere.Geni 02:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Nor would I. It's a point of view, and we have free speech here. There is no law against believing or stating that Alaska or any other state should have the right to seek secession. The problem is that there's no evidence that she's a secessionist. The AIP itself downplays her and her husband's participation. So anything more than a sentence in passing amounts to wikipedians trying to draw inferences that aren't there. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Equaly we need to avoid going to far the other way. Since Mrs Palin has not previously had much national exposure it is to be expected that new stuff will come up. So just because something is new and negative doesn't mean it can be written off as "Internet rumor"Geni 02:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

5. Religion. This section needs to be concise and encyclopedic, consistent with other good Wikipedia biographies.

A) Currently there are POV hit pieces about how Palin happened to be in the audience when a guest speaker said something goofy. This is irrelevant as it holds absolutely NO information about Sarah Palin's religious beliefs. Delete.

B) There is also a reference to Palin's pastor's name for some reason. He is not even significant enough to have is own Wikipedia article. Delete.

C) There are several quotes by Palin about her prayer activity. Superfluous. Delete or balance with even more quotes. Preferably delete.

D) Merge the Religion and Family subsections into one under the major heading "Personal Life". Otherwise we are inviting more mischief. Consider: there are no separate sections for Religion in the Wikipedia biographies of any of the other Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates -- only Palin. Why? If this stays, then why not go put Religion sections in every candidate's bio? I say merge the two topics, in fairness to the candidate.

6. There is a POV, weakly-sourced link to an innocuously-labelled opposition research hit piece which rips each of Palin's policies. This is basically a paid advertisement for her political opposition and it has no place in a neutral Wikipedia article. Let's lose the POV link since there is already a separate Wikipedia article Sarah Palin's Policies based upon verifiable sources.

Fine with me. Oren0 (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

7. Public Safety Commissioner dismissal. There is already an entire distinct article on this topic and a link that references it from the main article. We need to reduce this section to a concise, one-sentence description and point the reader to the comprehensive article. Otherwise it would appear to violate WP:Undue as well as being very inefficient trying to maintain and monitor the same information in two different places. Otherwise delete the separate article on the issue. Freedom Fan (talk) 04:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

8. The article says nothing about the unusual circumstances of Trig's birth (keynote speech, 8+ hour plane ride, etc.), though people, e.g., Gov. Linda Lingle, have cited these circumstances to demonstrate Palin's "toughness" and though her decisions were considered remarkable, and to perhaps controversial, at the time by the local press, before she became a national political figure. Catuskoti (talk) 10:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why people would continue to flog this, but we are not going to synthesize disparate mentions of the woman's vagina and reproductive system in order to advance some theory about their impact on the woman's judgment. Don't go there. Kelly ^hi! 10:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Point to a Wiki-principle that excludes vagina talk, Kelly. I'll talk with you about my vagina if you like. Catuskoti (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A few self-styled Dr. Spock wikipedians drawing conclusions about the way she "should have" dealt with her childbirth. It doesn't belong. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

9. The following smear is in the article, smearing Palin with the crime of "being in attendance", "On August 17, Palin was in attendence when David Brickner, the leader of Jews for Jesus, gave a guest sermon claiming that terrorism against Israel is due to the disbelief in Jesus by its Jewish population; according to a McCain campaign spokesman, Palin rejected his views." Was this person Palin's spiritual mentor for 20 years? Did she take the title of her book from one of the sermons? Did he marry Palin, did he babptise her children? Jeremiah Wright did all that to Obama and it was a major controversy yet it is not mentioned in Obama's BLP to the extent it is here with 6 sources and description of the crazy person's statement. This is not even a blip in comparsion yet someone managed to push it into the article. Being in attendance does not qualify, include it after they have a 10 year relationship just to be fair and cut the time in half. Hobartimus (talk) 10:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Request unprotection

I am not aware of all the mini-disputes and edit wars that are evidently going on on this page, but regardless of the disputes, it seems highly irresponsible to lock a page for almost an entire week when new and notable information is becoming available by literally the minute. I would certainly be in favor of going back to semi-protection, or at least letting this expire in 24 hours. There are enough eyeballs here to ensure that egregious breaches of BLP will not stay for long. Joshdboz (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

See the thread discussing this at WP:AN. {{editprotected}} is available for consensus-based edits in the interim. Kelly ^hi! 00:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It needs to stay down for a little while. The 5 days can always be reduced as needed if new and vital info arises, and I don't mean from the Enquirer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No way. It needs to be locked down for at least 24 hours, things are out of control. rootology (C)(T) 00:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the link Kelly. My argument is not focused at the initial protection, but the length of time. Joshdboz (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

After the major disputes are resolved (i.e. the point where we can block anybody who edits against consensus) I would consider unprotecting. BJ^Talk 01:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, one of the main problems was that the volume was so high the disruptive folks couldn't be identified, warned, or sanctioned. Never seen anything like it. Kelly ^hi! 01:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I support the temporary locking of the page. It is highly unfortunate, but necessary. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with ThaddeusB.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I support the locking and reverting of the page back to August 27th before it became politicized. ;-) zredsox (talk) 01:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Given my extensive edits of this article before August 27, I'll take that as a compliment. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 01:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I support the locking and reverting of the page back to August 27th 26th before it became politicized. ;-) zredsox (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

5 days!?!? That's highly inappropriate. 24 hours to let things calm down is a very good idea but limiting an article on a major political figure during a time of controversy only to admin editing is far too harsh. Have the admins lost their heads more than the editors?--Rtphokie (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You probably wouldn't say that if you've seen the fire hose of BLP-violating filth spraying here since last Friday. :) Kelly ^hi! 02:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a few too many admins up on their crosses over this article. Admins aren't the only ones working to keep articles BLP problem free, give a little credit to the rank-and-file admins who have actually read BPL,POV,N,V and the rest and spend a lot of time keeping these articles clean. A 5 day full protection says just one thing, Admins are the only ones who are capable of this task. 24 hour full protection followed by an indefinite semi-protection is far more appropriate, I wish admins would at least consider this.--Rtphokie (talk) 02:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A large discussion went on about this at [17] with most people endorsing the protection. Hobartimus (talk) 09:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You may share your thoughts on the protection on it's request for page protection discussion.

__..-- META DISCUSSION: HANDLING THE TALK PAGE --..__

MediaWiki's failings are evident in talk pages that grow to this size. However, we have to find a way to keep this manageable.

I propose that we use the {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} tags to close topics that we are pretty sure are finished and noncontroversial. In addition, we should use the {{resolved|Reason is here --~~~~}} template to signify when topics are resolved. Should this resolved tag be disputed, strike the text out with <s> text to strike </s>. Then put {{unresolved|Reason here --~~~~}} on the next line.

I am going to be attempting some of these on the above topics. Please let me know how you feel about this.--mboverload@ 00:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

!!!!!Demonstration of above tags!!!!!

The following discussion 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.

---

Resolved

 – Requested edits and actions made --User:Vetran#409

Unresolved

 – Still not enough cowbell --User:Newbie2390

Resolved

 – Have added the max amount of cowbell this article can take --User:Vetran#409

This article needs more cowbell. Also, mboverload hates America. --User:Newbie2390

Both points taken and applied. --User:Vetran#409

HEY! I SAID it needs more COWBELL!!! THERE IS NOT ENOUGH COWBELL--User:Newbie2390

Fine, I have included more cowbell. This is more than enough so I will be closing this thread since no one will object or because this is a freaking ridiculous request --User:Vetran#409

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.

Cowbell or Moose Belle? :) Kelly ^hi! 01:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about this

Agreed, but I think you should show some more good faith in User:Newbie2390's request. Joshdboz (talk) 01:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. It might be nice to collapse them, too, something with that hide/show variable. This talk page is the length of a small novel. However, the moment this is unfrozen I will add cowbell to every last paragraph. Coemgenus 01:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort, but I'm dubious that a significant number of issues could be marked "closed". The current method is that they're effectively marked "closed" just by virtue of being buried by new edits. Software fixes won't affect the underlying problem: We have many editors offering many comments on many issues, where the real-world facts and sources that we must reflect are changing by the hour. (Of course, the problem of too many comments is far preferable to the problem of too few.) We'll just have to grin and bear it until things quiet down a little. JamesMLane t c 01:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not presumtive any longer

Sarah Palin is now the Republican vice presidential nominee, not the presumptive vice presidential nominee as your article states. Benjaminleebrackman (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that is a statement of fact. She has yet to be nominated by the party. The Letter J (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe both McCain and Palin will be nominated tonight followed by a roll call after Palin's speech. Joshdboz (talk) 01:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how the GOP handles it, but my understanding is the Democratic nomination was not "officially" official until the result was certified by the president of the convention (or whatever the convention leader is called), and that technically this didn't occur until the close of the convention following Obama's speech. Such distinctions are largely rules-mongering silliness, in my opinion, but if the GOP has similar procedures it isn't clear that the completion of the roll call is sufficient to say he is the nominee. Dragons flight (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Article currently states "She was nominated at the 2008 Republican National Convention in Saint Paul, Minnesota." What date? And under what method? Roll call? Voice vote/acclimation? Would be surprised that a VP candidate would be nominated prior to a Presidential candidate "accepting" his/her nomination which i believe, in this cycle, happens Thursday--68.173.2.68 (talk) 08:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Request Edit

The word "possession" is misspelled as "possesion". Could an admin correct that? Is there some way minor errors can be corrected while allowing the larger debates to rage? Thanks. The Letter J (talk) 01:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done BJ^Talk 01:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Would a section at the top of this page be useful for requesting changes? BJ^Talk 01:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. Mazeau (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:DATE

I know this page is protected but can an admin go through and fix the WP:DATE errors in this page? Thanks in advance to whoever does. Aaron Bowen (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What date errors? BJ^Talk 01:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit request - religion redlinks

{{editprotected}} Please remove redlinks in the Religion section - several articles were deleted at AfD and are unlikely to bo recreated in an acceptable form anytime soon. Kelly ^hi! 01:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done BJ^Talk 01:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

2007 trip and Passport

I see that the mention of her 2007 trip to Germany and Kuwait as well as her obtaining a passport has been deleted somewhere over the past couple of days. The issue was mentioned in a NY Times article, highlighted in a WSJ blog, the topic of several Politico posts, and now the main topic of a Boston Globe article entitled Palin not well traveled outside US. Considering this has been highlighted in major MSM outlets and is her only trip both as governor and outside of North America, I'd suggest the following addition to somewhere under Governor of Alaska or Personal Life:

In 2006 Palin obtained her first passport, traveling to Kuwait and Germany the following year to visit with members of the Alaska National Guard; she has also made multiple trips to Canada.

Joshdboz (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this should be re-added, preferably to the person life section. There was previously some disagreement about the word "first." Has the first now been well-established, or should we simply say "a passport"? --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it should be re-added. I think "first" can appear to be pov pushy but it is a notable fact.--mboverload@ 02:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This was one of the things I was referring to with my comment above concerning the current state of the article. It needs to be re-added and there are links in the archive to clarify it was her first passport.zredsox (talk) 02:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, restore this information, except delete the part about Canada. Many Americans have been to Canada, and I'd guess that Alaskans are even more likely to have visited there... though I suppose they call it the Great White South. JamesMLane t c 09:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

How is this notable? Please just a short explanation. Hobartimus (talk) 10:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe I explained that in the initial paragraph. Only trip abroad, first trip as governor - and this has become a common reference point in the media for talking about her foreign policy experience. The only reason I'd include Canada is because it's been constantly added by her spokespeople, so they apparently think it important, and there's no hurt in rounding out her foreign travel info. If there is general consensus, as there appears to be, I'd appreciate if someone could add it to personal life. Joshdboz (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Pastor's name

The "Religion" section currently identifies her pastor, Larry Kroon. I don't see a reason for including the name in this biography. Thoughts? Kelly ^hi! 01:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any either --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Note to others: The reason this appears like an echo box is because Kelly is usually right =P. I agree with the removal. --mboverload@ 02:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason not to include it. I don't think it is generaly considered a bad thing to be a VP nom's pastor. I seem to recall he's been mentioned in some news coverage so might as well leave it in there.Geni 02:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur with removing the pastor's name; he is not even significant enough to have an article in Wikipedia. I also favor removing the "Religion" and "Family" subtopics, and just stay with the "Personal Life" major heading.

Also, all the quotes about her religion are superfluous per WP:Undue and should be deleted. The topic of her religion needs to be concise -- consist with all the other Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates' biographies. This sexist witchhunt does not belong in a Wikipedia article. Freedom Fan (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Since we have articles on the family of both bush and obama merginging it into personal life may not be ideal. Religion would depend on how significant the reporting of it has been.Geni 02:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

request deletion of external link

{{editprotected}} The link labeled "64-page annotated and referenced document of positions Palin has taken during her political career" should be deleted as it is not what it claims, but rather a long opposition published "hit piece." --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The Politico says that the document was prepared by Democratic gubernatorial candidate Tony Knowles two years ago. Politico calls it a "Democratic opposition research document."Ferrylodge (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer a little more consensus on this. BJ^Talk 02:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is the most comprehensive document on the internet concerning Sarah Palin and should be retained as a link. It is up to the reader if he or she wants to leave Wikipedia to view it and the contents are not part of the actual biography. The only thing I would recommend would be a slightly more "upfront" name for the hyperlink such as "64 page opposition research paper."zredsox (talk) 02:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Wikipedia rules say the following:

Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view.[18]

Ferrylodge (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an obvious delete per above. Hobartimus (talk) 02:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with presenting this alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a NPOV. zredsox (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)So, do you have any objection Zredsox if we delete the link in question until such time as we locate a balancing GOP puff piece to link as well? More Guidelines:

One should avoid….any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research"….In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links.[19]

Ferrylodge (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I do object. To be honest, the majority of those links are already quite fluffy - have you taken a gander at the biography? Secondly, this page was locked down in a state when it was well out of balance so picking off what you consider negatives at this point would only further lead to that imbalance and I don't think that is the right course of action if we are to attempt to maintain some sort of neutrality. If you feel more fluff must be added, that can be done when the page comes out of lockdown.zredsox (talk) 03:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but partisan research is not in any way just 'what I consider negative' - it is highly biased by its very nature and not worthy of inclusion in ANY article. And it should especially not appear under a misleading title like 'positions X has taken.' Did you even look at the document? - a large chunk of it is not even political positions but people's opinions about her. P.S. Do you think ANY negative fact about Palin should EVER be left off. I haven't seen one yet. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I already know how you Kelly and Ferrylodge are going to respond on every issue, but thanks for typing it out. And yes I did read it and feel it does actually offer some balance to the current choir singing piece we have globbed together.zredsox (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Its not my fault that most the issues raised on talk are people trying to write 5 paragraphs for "today's scandal of the day." fact it most of these things are not important and only deserve the 1-2 sentences they are edited down to. Also I did recommend the re-inclusion of the passport bit and the reduction of the disaster release fluff, so my record is not 100% "pro-Palin" as you assert. As to my actual edits, a good % have reintroduced negative material, although the vast majority of my edits were completely neutral in nature - copyedits, rephrasing for clarity, and such. Again, have you EVER sided on the "Pro-Palin" side? --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Out of balance"? What, not enough scandals? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What scandals in the article? Have you taken a look at it recently? It is like the McCain campaign themselves made the last 10 or 15 edits and removed any hint of impropriety before the page was locked. zredsox (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I favor deletion of the highly-biased opposition research link per Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV. There is already a whole separate article with verified sources citing Palin's policies. Freedom Fan (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As a immediate measure, would it be easier to achieve consensus on a more accurate description of the link? The current description is not accurate. GRBerry 03:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but no. See page 1 of the derogatory external link: "Palin's management style is to bully and demand." This is a 100% clear violation of Wikipedia policy, which says: "In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links."[20] Also see page 3 of external link: "lying....vindictive".Ferrylodge (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Political opposition research from her enemies? Are you serious? Delete, BLP violation. That document also contains her social security number and vehicle VIN numbers, if I recall correctly. Kelly ^hi! 03:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes the VIN numbers are on page 63.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I give up. I can see this is going to be the staffers and operatives version of Sarah Palin's Bio as even when the page is locked her star continues to shine brighter. So, I am on my way. My parting suggestion would be that in place of the disputed document we add in a giant "Donate" button that links to the McCain/Palin Campaign contribution page[21].zredsox (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Come on folks, the external link calls her a lying, vindictive bully and provides the vehicle identification number (VIN) of her personal vehicle.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think consensus, and more importantly policy, points to a clear delete here. Frankly I am surprised anyone objected. Can we get this rather trivial change made now please? --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Every change is trivial. That is the problem. When you step back and look at two or three hundred "trivial" changes, an entirely different article emerges... zredsox (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

While I see your point, I certainly wouldn't say every change is trivial. More to the point, though, I'd say the current article is at least as "negative" as the one I first read on the 29th. I'd say the vast majority of edits have moved toward NPOV rather than away. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

My count is five editors for deletion, and one against.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done BJ^Talk 03:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Lets move on to the next task my fellow conservatives. So, can we get everything about the Bridge to Nowhere removed, the entire Public Safety Commissioner dismissal section, and any mention of the actual population of Wasilla? Once those are gone I think we should make the Governor of Alaska section much more substantive, maybe stretching it out a few thousands words (talking mostly about National Guard Duties and their importance with the Russian threat.) Well, I am sure you will all get right on that, so I'll be back later to inspect the work. zredsox (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Zredsox, you've probably noticed that it's not really helpful to your point of view to constantly make accusations of bias against other editors. You'd have much more luck (and more enjoyment) working collaboratively and basing your case in Wikipedia policy. Take it as you will. Kelly ^hi! 04:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is helpful to my point of view when the most prolific editors on said article all hold a singular agenda and enforce it to the detriment of the larger majority of editors that are attempting to create a neutral article. You yourself said you were biased and lost objectivity[22], so I find it disconcerting that you have been the "decider" when it comes to this article from the get go. That being said, I am moving on and will let you guys run unchecked and make this the biography that the McCain campaign and Sarah have always wanted it to be. As for Wikipedia policy, I see this as a clear case of WP:COI.zredsox (talk) 04:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Cascade protection

Resolved

 – --lajolla2009@ 07:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, I copy/pasted the article to User:J.delanoy/Sarah Palin and cascade-protected that page until September 8. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

So everyone understands, the effect of that action is that any template, image, or other page that is actually displayed as part of the text of this page will also be protected until that time. GRBerry 02:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I just wanted to ask what it meant. Hobartimus (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin's speech

Something should be added later if she says something notable. Also soon she will no longer be "presumptive" but actual nominee for vice president. Hobartimus (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless the lockdown is lifted, it doesn't make sense cherry pick new topics for inclusion. zredsox (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This USAToday.com blog [23] indicates her official nomination will come tomorrow night, i.e. Thursday. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously her nomination will come once McCain accepts the party's nomination. Lampman (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin's mother's name

Resolved

 – --lajolla2009@ 07:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ms. Palin JUST introduced her mother as Sally, NOT Sarah as stated in her wikiP page. It should be changed! 66.218.202.185 (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No, there's no problem. "Sally" is a diminutive of Sarah; Mrs. Palin is just trying to be informal. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 03:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Mat-Maid Dairy involvement

I don't know how to phrase it so it doesn't seem too negative, but hear me out. The original statement was, "appointed long-time Mat-Su Borough associates to run the board" Something went on there. She 'replaced' (some might say fired) the board, which had already voted to close a state run Dairy business that was 'hemorraging losses'. I am in business, and that term is used to mean bad, nightmarish, never-ending, no end in sight, losses. Ferry's earlier humourous criticism of me aside, it denotes really bad and hopeless losses, not just 'unprofitable', as the article now states.

It originally stated that she replaced them all with people she knew somewhat, who immediately reversed the previous board's decision to close the 'hemorraging' dairy. She had dumped 600K of state funds into that black hole that got scrapped anyway and sold for less than its debts. Why? To protect farmers?? Nah, sorry, I don't buy it. (no pun intended)

Please note that I had not made any changes to this article, because there is nothing left that states it explicitly. However, if you go outside and the sidewalk is wet, you can assume that it rained; do I have to cite that? Her hometown paper has this article taht states her involvement as nice as possible..

http://dwb.adn.com/news/alaska/matsu/mat_maid/story/9261530p-9176496c.html

web-citation snapshot

and you can see some of the other related stories there.

Read it before it too disappears.

I'm not trying to be biased against her, I'm just suspicious when articles start to disappear.

I can't keep looking by myself, so somebody help me out with this.

Oh,Lawd! that is the coolest thing! I wish I had known about that before..Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by T1n0 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Majority?

In the Electoral history section, there is a header that lists 'Majority' of votes won by. That number is wrong. Rather than listing the votes she had in excess of 50% (which is a majority) it lists the votes she had in excess of the second place candidate. Either the numbers should be re-calculated, or the header should be changed to 'Plurality' Can somebody who is able please correct this? (I don't imagine it is the cause for the edit freeze!). 216.121.130.208 (talk) 03:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say delete the "Majority" row entirely (and "Swing", and some other things). It's from a template created for UK elections, and it really has no place in reporting US election results. This wasn't a parliamentary election. —KCinDC (talk) 07:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit request - librarian

It appears the firing of the Wasilla librarian has been removed from the article. According to the New York Times[24]:

"Ann Kilkenny, a Democrat who said she attended every City Council meeting in Ms. Palin’s first year in office, said Ms. Palin brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting. “They were somehow morally or socially objectionable to her,” Ms. Kilkenny said.

The librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, pledged to “resist all efforts at censorship,” Ms. Kilkenny recalled. Ms. Palin fired Ms. Emmons shortly after taking office but changed course after residents made a strong show of support. Ms. Emmons, who left her job and Wasilla a couple of years later, declined to comment for this article."

I don't know who threw this down the memory hole, but it needs to be edited in again. Rizla (talk) 03:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There was a brief discussion of this earlier. Apparently saying she was fired is technically incorrect, hence the correct version that says "Palin notified the police chief, Irl Stambaugh, and the town librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons that they were being fired." See also the original source: [25] --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Trivial detail. If you think this is so notable you are free to open an article about the event or the participants and test their notability at Afd. Hobartimus (talk) 03:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus, are you arguing that no specific incident in Palin's life can be included in her bio unless a separate article about that incident would survive AfD? That is not now and never has been the standard. If it were, we'd remove the passage about what "she was praised for" as mayor, none of which is independently notable. There are aspects of her mayoralty that have attracted attention, and we should report all of them, the ones criticized as well as the ones praised. JamesMLane t c 06:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No I'm saying that the article is protected right now so the best way to see if this is notable is to open up an article about it and see if it stands. Since the firing was a well defined event an article could be written about it if it's notable enough. I'm not saying it's the standard for inclusion here just that the article is protected for a few days anyway so it's an alternative now. Hobartimus (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Trivial detail? This woman wants to censor art and free speech by banning books. I would hardly call that trivial for a VP candidate. Erik Veland (talk) 06:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus, I'm a confirmed inclusionist and even I would favor deleting that article. A shakeup in municipal personnel in an obscure little hamlet? No way. How is that "the best way to see if this is notable"? Would creating a separate article also be a good way to see if her changes in Wasilla's taxes were notable? JamesMLane t c 09:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Look the issue may blow up or something may come of it later I didn't look into this beyond what is written above. But I'd like to note something intresting. Inclusion in extremely high profile articles such as this is sometimes even higher than having a standalone full article. Consider the Obama-Ayers controversy, full fledged notable article, not a word in Obama article The Obama Nation fully notable article, not even a link on the Obama article The Case Against Barack Obama full article not a word in the main article. So just for comparsion sometimes creating a fully notable article will not get you a mention on such a high profile article like this. Hobartimus (talk) 10:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Expect intense editing disputes arguing that verified material sourced by Democratic partisans has acquired instant significance to a Wikipedia article on a living person where the matter is viewed to be a source of political embarrassment. patsw (talk) 10:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Public Safety Commissioner dismissal

Someone certainly tilted this paragraph to Mrs. Palin's favor by completly ignoring the recorded timeline of events. As written:

...............................

Initially, Palin denied that there had been any such pressure, either from her or from anyone else in her administration.[89] After she had the Attorney General's office conduct an internal investigation, Palin revealed that her staff had contacted Monegan or his staff about two dozen times regarding Wooten.[90] Palin stated that most of those calls were made without her knowledge, and reiterated that she did not fire Monegan because of Wooten.[87][91]

Palin's choice to replace Monegan, Charles M. Kopp, chief of the Kenai police department, took the position on July 11, 2008. He resigned on July 25 after it was revealed that he had received a letter of reprimand for sexual harassment in his previous position.[92][93]

On August 1, the Alaska Legislature hired an independent investigator to review "the circumstances and events surrounding the termination of former Public Safety Commissioner Monegan, and potential abuses of power and/or improper actions by members of the executive branch".[94]

...............................

This sequence of events is incorrect and misleading. Palin's internal probe was launched after, and as a result of, the State Legislature's August 1 announcement that it was conducting an investigation into the firing. Palin's admission of improper contacts originating from her office also came AFTER the Legislatures probe had began. The article, as written, implies that Palin both conducted her probe, and admitted to improprieties, prior to the announcement of the State investigation, which is not the case.

Here's the Anchorage Daily News article citing the true timeline and motivations for the Governor's probe: [26]

Once this article is un-protected, might someone correct this misleading inconsistancy? Thank you. 75.88.83.220 (talk) 03:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Paul

What wording do you propose? Kelly ^hi! 03:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin Happyme22 has edited this section down to a proper summary, which I applaud. I believe his/her edit removes the timing issue referenced here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not too thrilled about the wording in general. Just shifting some lines around, I think something akin to this would be more accurate:

Initially, Palin denied there had been any pressure upon Monegan to fire Wooten, either directly from her, or from anyone within her administration.[89]

On August 1, the Alaska Legislature hired an independent investigator to review "the circumstances and events surrounding the termination of former Public Safety Commissioner Monegan, and potential abuses of power and/or improper actions by members of the executive branch".[94]

As a result of the announced State investigation, Governor Palin instructed her Attorney General's office to conduct it's own internal probe[27] and later revealed that her staff had actually contacted Monegan or his staff about two dozen times regarding Wooten.[90] Palin stated that most of those calls were made without her knowledge, and reiterated that she did not fire Monegan because of Wooten.[87][91]

Palin's choice to replace Monegan, Charles M. Kopp, chief of the Kenai police department, took the position on July 11, 2008. He resigned on July 25 after it was revealed that he had received a letter of reprimand for sexual harassment in his previous position.[92][93]

75.88.83.220 (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Paul

There must be "Loyal Bushies" at work... The article still misrepresents the timeline of events, but now two more facts that reflect poorly on Palin have been removed. 1. Any reference to Palin at first denying any pressure was applied is removed. 2. They removed the "nearly two-dozen calls were made" or "over 20 calls" that is reported all over the media and toned it down to simply "calls were made". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.83.220 (talk) 05:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a whole article that goes into exhaustive detail on the topic - Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal. Kelly ^hi! 05:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh... It's a "summary" now. Well, then. The fact that she denied any wrongdoing had occured, before admitting it had, is not a main point in this worthy of a summary? Making it "numerous calls" is too much text to add some factual substance to a "summary? And how is still stating that she admitted calls were made BEFORE mentioning the State investigation being launched correcting the timeline?

75.88.83.220 (talk) 05:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Paul

Hang on while I check with Karl Rove. :) Seriously, what specific rewording do you propose? Kelly ^hi! 05:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if it's a summary, then why are there 4 sentences about the topic, then 40 words about some guy named Kopp, then 4 more pertinent sentences? Kopp has nothing to do with it, so let's cut 40 worthless words out of this summary, then move one sentence to correct the sequence of events, then reinsert about 5 words that were selectively removed making the article less factual and decidely pro-Palin? How abou this:

---

On July 11, 2008, Palin dismissed Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan, citing performance-related issues.[83] She then offered him an alternative position as executive director of the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, which he turned down.[84][85] Monegan alleged that his dismissal was retaliation for his failure to fire Palin’s former brother-in-law, Alaska State Trooper Mike Wooten, who was involved in a child custody battle with Palin’s sister, Molly McCann.[86][87] He further alleged that contacts made by Palin herself, her staff, and her family had constituted inappropriate pressure to fire Wooten.[86][87] On August 1, the Alaska Legislature hired an independent investigator to review the situation.[92] After initial denials, Palin later acknowleded that her staff had repeatedly contacted Monegan or his staff regarding Wooten,[88] Palin stated that most of those calls were made without her knowledge, and reiterated that she did not fire Monegan because of Wooten.[86][89]. The State investigation is scheduled to be completed in October 2008.[86] On September 1, Palin's lawyer asked the state Legislature to drop its investigation, saying that by state law, the governor-appointed state Personnel Board had jurisdiction over ethics issues.[93] Palin also asked that the Board review the matter as an ethics complaint.[94]

---

75.88.83.220 (talk) 06:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Paul

That summary really leaves out a lot of context about Wooten's alleged behavior. Kelly ^hi! 06:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wooten's alleged transgressions have nothing to do with this investigation. The controversy is about alleged abuse-of-power. If anyone cares about accuracy, then events should not be listed out of order, and points that are major to the story should not be omitted. I believe my second example,just above, is more factual, informative, and unbiased than what is currently posted.

75.88.83.220 (talk) 07:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Paul

Kopp is part of the whole thing. I just happened upon this paragraph from Wonkette:

We are getting about a thousand emails daily like this one: “Surely you have found out by now that Governor Palin not only fired an excellent Public Safety Commissioner as part of Troopergate, but in July she appointed a sexual harrasser, Chuck Kopp, as the replacement. Because he lied about it and she didn’t vet him properly, he stepped down after 10 days in the position and was given a $10,000.00 severance deal whereas the man who was fired without notice got nothing. All the documents and proof can be found in the Anchorage Daily News.” [28]

We don't need to cite Wonkette for any of these facts, because all the proof is indeed available elsewhere. I give this passage as an example of how the Monegan and Kopp issues are related. Besides, if Kopp weren't in this section, he'd have to be in the article somewhere. The governor appointed a Public Safety Commissioner who resigned in scandal after two weeks. That's a significant event in her administration. JamesMLane t c 09:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

editprotected ro remove "ibid."

{{editprotected}} Please edit the article to replace the lone occurrence of <ref>Ibid.</ref> with <ref name="nytimes090208" /> instead, getting rid of a deprecated use of the term "ibid." -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done BJ^Talk 03:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Roll Call starting

Soon the article will have to be changed to get rid of presumptive stuff. Hobartimus (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Ronnotel (talk) 03:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the hidden comment that asked editors not to remove the word presumptive. - auburnpilot talk 04:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"about regarding"

This article presently includes the words "about regarding." Please delete one or the other. Otherwise, it's nonsensical. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done BJ^Talk 04:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"She is expected to be nominated"

This ought to be changed to "She was nominated." Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically, not yet, as far as I can tell. If not, it's a technicality that will fix itself today. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Small Factual Error Re: Float Plane Owner

According to the official FAA Airmen and Aircraft Registration databases, Sarah Palin is not listed as a licensed pilot. Todd Palin is registered pilot with a current medical certificate and is separately listed as the registered owner of a Piper PA-18-150. There is no indication in this source as to whether this is a float plane or not. (Though this aircraft is capable of such a modification and it would make sense in Alaska.) Scottwrites (talk) 04:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Census Bureau on Wasilla population

As of July 1, 2007, the most current Census Bureau population figure for Wasilla, Alaska is 9,780. http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/tables/SUB-EST2007-04-02.xls This means that Wasilla is now the 4th largest city in Alaska after Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau. Next time an admin edits, it would be sensible to change the much lower number indicated in the article.--Sturmde (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The town has grown greatly in the past few years. It makes more sense to give the population at the time she was mayor, with a "then" in there someplace. PhGustaf (talk) 05:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with PhGustaf. Conveniently, the 2000 Census occurred during her term, and that number is also more reliable than the between-Census estimates. While we're at fixing up that sentence, the primary rendering of the city's distance from Anchorage should be in miles. That Anchorage is a port is irrelevant. I suggest: "The city of Wasilla, located 42 miles (68 km) north of Anchorage, had a population of 5,469 in the 2000 Census." JamesMLane t c 06:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit request - whitespace in PSC dismissal

{{editprotected}} Remove extra whitespace in "Public Safety Commissioner dismissal". Kelly ^hi! 04:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done BJ^Talk 04:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Palin would be the second"

Should be "Palin is the second." Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done BJ^Talk 05:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions section is too short

She does not attribute global warming to being man-made. QuackGuru 05:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That is mentioned in Political positions of Sarah Palin. Kelly ^hi! 05:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It can be mentioned in both articles. QuackGuru 05:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph here is just a summary. Kelly ^hi! 05:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

At this point, the political positions section is too short. We can include a bit more information. See WP:SUMMARY. QuackGuru 05:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It's all right the way it is now. See the "political positions" section in Joe Biden, which is about the same length, if not shorter. Kelly ^hi! 05:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is NOT alright as it is now. There, two to one. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The length is appropriate, this is a SUMMARY, the reader HAS the ability to make a single click to a highly visible link, where they get the whole article on political positions. Hobartimus (talk) 06:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Pro-creationism

Her creationism position must be in the article. It lasted in there for days, and nobody complained about it, just modified the wording. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That is also mentioned on the political positions page. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Look here: Political positions of Sarah Palin#Education and creationism.--Paul (talk) 05:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Why even have any text in that section if no actual political positions are there? See my proposal below. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be the generally accepted style for political candidates - it was discussed a few days ago, but it probably in the archives somewhere now. Kelly ^hi! 05:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not true, and Palin's is especially short on facts. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem with our editing guideline related to splitting and summarization, the village pump is open to you to make a proposal to change them. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A featured article has a balanced political positions section.Barack Obama#Political positions The current version for this article fails to meet WP:GA status. QuackGuru 06:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The summary is unbalanced, that has nothing to do with guidelines on splitting. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of political positions section

In one edit User:ThaddeusB removed basically all of Palin's political positions and replaced it with pablum. I propose that rather than arguing about what to put back, for the moment the rest of the section be removed so that readers will just click through to the Political positions of Sarah Palin. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the summary is appropriate. See the "Political positions" section in Joe Biden or Barack Obama or John McCain. Kelly ^hi! 05:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The political positions section should be restored. The current version is a stub. QuackGuru 05:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Biden's seems too short to me. McCain's and Obama's say a lot. Look, she has undisputed political positions; the current "summary" is either too short or too Pro-Palin. It is easier just to remove it; so far only Kelly likes it. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The proposal has only been here a few minutes, you might want to give the consensus a little time. :) Kelly ^hi! 05:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Approve of the short summary as per, omg, WP:SUMMARY. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment but I think this is a change that could wait until after the unprotection. BJ^Talk 05:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, the article has room to say "(playing the flute)" in the Miss Wasilla Pageant, but no room to say that she is for allowing debate on creationism and evolution in public schools. A Google News search turns up 1,049 hits for 'Palin creationism' but only 87 for 'Palin flute'. 06:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A featured article has a very well written political positions section.Barack Obama#Political positions This article would easily fail to be a WP:GA because of the very short political positions section. QuackGuru 06:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This article could also easily fail to be a Good Article due to being fully protected, but arguing that is simply trying to make a WP:POINT. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comment is disruptive. QuackGuru 06:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually this was discussed and nobody had a problem with it when all the fury was going on with the article editing, as what previously was there was a horrendous violation of about 3 policies so the change was definitely an improvement at the time. There is always room for improvement but there is no reason why the section should dominate the biography. Hobartimus (talk) 06:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Its rather ironic that someone who does not wish to follow Wikipedia's editing guidelines is suggesting that pointing out a silly argument based on "but that article has one!!!!1111one" fallacies is gamey. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is saying the section should dominate the biography. See Barack Obama#Political positions section for an article that reached featured article status. QuackGuru 06:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, his political positions section DOES dominate his biography. This is exactly what we should avoid. Articles are split off for a reason. Then again his campaign is the only thing he does have to show as an accomplishment. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess we'll have no problem figuring out where your political affiliations lie, huh? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

More than 50 percent of his article is directly related to this political campaign. Says something, doesn't it? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. This section is borderline fluff. Where are the positions? Erik Veland (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions of Sarah Palin which is linked from the section. Surf on over. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Summary is unbalanced. That is all. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Summarily removing the entire summary is pointless. If you want to balance it, suggest a better summary. Any summary is better than none. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Current summary is indeed fluff and is indeed unbalanced. For example, the current version says she "backed ethics reform measures that passed the Legislature" -- pretty meaningless, no one is against "ethics reform measures" but the devil is in the details. This version doesn't mention her ardent support for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which was the only context in which I'd heard of her before the VP speculation started.

More generally, the incessant invocation of the existence of the separate article is misguided. When material is spun off into a daughter article there must be a reasonable summary in the original article. JamesMLane t c 07:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems a few editors don't want a balanced and quality written Political positions section for this article. Are they ashamed of her positions? See a featured article for how it can be done. QuackGuru 07:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I see a lot of name calling and debate but as far as I see, nobody suggested a better summary yet. Hobartimus (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This older version is somewhat too long but would be better than what we have now. We'd get to a good summary more readily by trimming that one. Incidentally, that's not necessarily the best version in the history; I just randomly grabbed one of the acceptable versions. JamesMLane t c 07:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That version wasn't even a summary at all. The reason for changing it was exactly that the old one was so bad in format and styling (list format in an article, constant use of bolding etc). Hobartimus (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Association with Car Wash Necessary?

Is this necessary or valid?

Palin also had a 20% ownership in an Anchorage car wash business, according to state corporation records filed in 2004. Palin failed to report her stake in the company when running for governor in 2006; in April 2007, the state issued a "certificate of involuntary dissolution" because of the company's failure to file its biennial report and pay state licensing fees.[17]

Checking the source, it doesn't give any more information than is in the wikipedia article. The current phrasing makes it sound as though she committed a crime not disclosing the car wash when there are a number of other possibilities, such as they sold their stake in the interim between 2004 and 2006 or that by 2006 the car wash had been shut down, which would explain the dissolution and lack of subsequent reports. Skits2 (talk) 05:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

btw, she has a business license under the name "Rouge Cou", which means Red Neck in French. Pure class, I tell you. I didn't know this lady a week ago, but woo-hoo, she and her family should be a reality show...they're a hoot! t1n0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by T1n0 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

She has a sense of humor. One of her good points, imho. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No, trivial. The only relevant part is that she owns part of a car wash, which we might work in somewhere in a discussion of her professional activities outside of politics if it's at least slightly notable. We can work in the joke name as a harmless piece of non-notable trivia if it fits and can be done neutrally, but the matter of receiving a routine notice for failing to file routine corporate forms is below trivial. Wikidemon (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Wikidemo(n) basicly. Hobartimus (talk) 08:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Slightly relevant, but only if it can be added gracefully. Corpx (talk) 06:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Even now, someone somewhere is creating a video with clips of Palin underscored by the "Car Wash (film)" theme. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Why has Sarah Palin's stand on abortion been deleted?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/01/palin-on-abortion-id-oppo_n_122924.html

I demand this be restored. We have a right to know and to make informed opinions.

Let me give an over-elaborate answer, it may come in handy later. There are two likely reasons for the absence or presence of a fact:
A: Due to our open editing model, good articles on high-profile recent events are created by having a huge mess and a fair few fights as the whole inches towards quality. Efficient? Heck no. Effective? Yes. This article is still very much in flux, and we cannot keep track of what is and isn't included at any given moment. Things will stabilize with time, and such problems will disappear.
B: This is a BLP article, or a Biography of a Living Person. The rules on such things add up to saying that we should be right bastards with sources, especially for controversial statements, because doing otherwise would make us even bigger bastards to the people the articles are about. This poses some interesting philosophical questions, but is the only workable way on dealing with such articles. Such problems also tend to be temporary as activity decreases and freshly discovered facts receive more media attention.

You can rest easily in knowing that we're already committed to factual accuracy - there's no need to "demand" us anything. Also, in your particular case the abortion stand isn't in this article because it's been moved to the article Political positions of Sarah Palin, where the topic can be covered better than here. So the above paragraphs were completely unnecessary, but I'm hoping that you'll benefit from some info on our mechanics and that other people can co-opt my text to answer similar questions. --Kizor 06:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominee today?

Resolved

 – --lajolla2009@ 07:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, she's still the presumptive nominee until tomorrow, right? Oren0 (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe she's already the nominee as she accepted it today Lajolla2009 (talk) 07:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Actual Budget Actions and Voting History

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

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

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

Where'd they go? Did they ever exist?

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

Please post verifiable info on her budgets and voting. t1n0

Sandbox

I suggest we start a sandbox for article development. QuackGuru 07:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a good idea but I'd suggest a different sandbox for every major section change so they can be merged one by one. BJ^Talk 07:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As suggested, a proposed summary

How about this; the article's sectiom on political positions be returned to roughly where it was before, minus the ugly miniheaders. I trimmed some things, and I grouped things together by topic; pro-life, pro death penalty, gay material, science material, 2nd amendment, foreign policy. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In 2002, while running for lieutenant governor, Palin called herself as "pro-life as any candidate can be." She opposes abortion in cases of rape and incest, supporting it only in cases where the mother's life is in danger, and suggested that requiring parental consent for abortions be added to Alaska's constitution. Palin is a member of Feminists for Life. A 2006 article in the Anchorage Daily News refers to Palin as supportive of contraception but does not go into detail. She is a "firm supporter of abstinence-only education in schools", saying, "explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support".

Palin supports capital punishment for some crimes. "If the legislature passed a death penalty law, I would sign it. We have a right to know that someone who rapes and murders a child or kills an innocent person in a drive-by shooting will never be able to do that again."

Palin opposes same-sex marriage and supported a non-binding referendum for a constitutional amendment to deny state health benefits to same-sex couples. Palin has stated that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

Redundant yet incomplete. I would go with:

Palin opposes same-sex marriage and supported a non-binding referendum for a constitutional amendment to deny state health benefits to same-sex couples. However, Palin subsequently vetoed a bill that would have denied the benefits. Freedom Fan (talk) 08:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In this summary, we don't have room to explain that she had no choice but to veto that bill, so it can hardly be said to be a 'position'. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In a televised debate in 2006, Palin said she supported teaching both creationism and evolution in public schools. She clarified her position the next day, saying that if a debate of alternative views arose in class she would not want its discussion prohibited. She added that she would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum. Palin does not believe that global warming is human-caused. Palin opposed federal listing of the polar bear as an endangered species on the grounds that the "population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation," and supported a controversial predator-control program involving aerial hunting of wolves to increase moose populations for hunters.

Palin, a long-time member of the National Rifle Association, strongly supports its interpretation of the Second Amendment as protecting individual rights to bear arms, including handguns. She also supports gun safety education for youth.

Palin's foreign policy positions were unclear at the time she was picked as McCain's running mate. When asked for her views about troop escalations in Iraq, she replied "…while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place…"

Support. Seems fairly straight-forward. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll stop finding little wisps of text to trim. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The foregoing would certainly be a vast improvement over the wrong version that was protected. Per my comment a few threads up, though, I'd suggest adding her support for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It's an important national issue but it's an order of magnitude more important for an Alaska politician. JamesMLane t c 08:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It says it elsewhere in the Energy section. I took out the pot-smoking too, for the same reason. Please, lets just get it back to the way it was before. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I support this balanced version. QuackGuru 08:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It has some redundancy as well as trivial info. Political position on polar bears really? That should be included in a biography of a person what they think of polar bears? Also in many places this is not a proper summary it goes into needless detail in places and overall much too long. The summary of political positions should be the same length as in the Joe Biden article the other candidate for VP exactly b/c it's a summary. I oppose this until it's cut down to the same length as the section in the Biden article. Hobartimus (talk) 08:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It also curiously leaves out almost all text from the previous version, such wholesale deletion of established text I don't think would be easy to implement if the article were not protected and freely editable. Hobartimus (talk) 08:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

One editor took out the text and replaced it, so it did not grow organically. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I generally support this version but suggest removing the polar bear position which although clearly relevant to her support of Arctic drilling is already in the energy section. 194.83.141.23 (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone will read the whole article. Some readers will just go to the political positions section for a quick take, and won't know that there's additional relevant information elsewhere. It won't kill us to have one sentence like: "She supports drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and opposes the listing of polar bears as a threatened species." JamesMLane t c 08:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

One could argue for the removal of the polar bear material from the energy section, once we get the bulk of the summary back in. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Footnote 36

Resolved

 – GRBerry 11:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Fn 36 (relating to her run for Lt. Gov.) has the same web link twice. Coemgenus 11:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A protected page? To whom? From whom?

Take a look at the diff since the page was protected. Is there any Wikipedia precedent for this amount on editing on a protected page? patsw (talk) 11:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin's ethnicity: Alaskan Native/Native American?

I want to find reliable sources on Sarah Palin is of American Indian or Alaskan Native ancestry. She stated about her family roots are Irish and German with a previous family history in Canada and Alaska, but how come the news media added part Inuit (Eskimo) and/or Salish Indian to her ethnic/genealogical roots?

I guess this is part of her increasingly mythological personality and political career Sarah Palin has made, but I kept uncovering and finding many claims about her aren't true. This is an often revised wikipedia article full of unverified, falsified, exaggerated and mythological facts or information about a suddenly popular politican not expected to be selected as John McCain's running mate at the first place. Now is it true she and her husband Todd may be members of American Indian tribes through lineage?

Everyday, there's a new useless fact on the article about Sarah Palin to further make her some sort of modern day American legend, whether she was a school varsity sports athlete or a former beauty queen, a TV sportscaster or a mayor of a small town in Alaska, a Pentecostal minister or a school tutor, Palin lives in a home without household staff and she's a skilled hunter with NRA membership, how she chose to keep her newborn baby boy with Down's syndrome and she's gonna be a grandmother when her 17 year old daughter announced she's pregnant, and whether or not she's from Alaska or the US-Canadian border but she's eligible to run for vice president.+