Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 28

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Consensus on picture change?

Where did the old picture go? It was a much nicer picture. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's down in the "Political positions" section now. If you want to discuss it, scroll up this talk page until you see a big yellow lightbulb.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I made a comment. I hope we get rid of this grainy poor quality campaign picture and put that nice looking one back. Why would they switch it to this one in the first place? --98.243.129.181 (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Because its proponents believe it makes her look less "lights on, nobody home". In other words, less true to life; therefore more electable. Or, as The Vacant One's fans like to call it, "hot". Which is all that matters in a WP BLP of a female republican candidate for vice prez, right?

In case you didn't see Ricky Gervais on the Daily Show the other day, he made the point that this is a joke of an encyclopedia. He's right. No serious researcher would rely on the garbage that passes for factual information on most of WP. The entries I've surveyed generally display editorial ignorance of a degree that's matched only by the zealousness with which the ignorami insist that black is white and vice versa. There's lots of fun to be had here! — Writegeist (talk) 07:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Restriction of press access?

The following sentence is in the article Subsequently, the McCain campaign has tightly restricted press access to Palin, prompting protests from the Associated Press and CNN.^[1] Two comments 1) combined with the previous sentence it implies that no more interviews were given after Gibson which is not true, and 2) the source itself says "Journalists protested the campaign's decision to exclude all but photographers and a TV crew from Palin's sessions with foreign leaders. CNN decided to withdraw its TV crew, effectively denying Palin the high visibility she sought for her initial foray into world affairs. The campaign then reversed course..." so the protests are true but the campaign then "reversed course" and did allow journalists in. Hobartimus (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

... for a few moments (20 seconds when she was talking to Uribe, for instance.)

Can you suggest a rewrite that would get the concept of limited press contact without misleading? Or do you deny that her press contact has been less than that of the other 3 principals in this race, and that this fact has been notable to the press, especially given that she is a relative "unknown"? Homunq (talk) 03:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't deny anything I brought something up so together we can figure it out. If "press contact has been less than that of the other 3 principals" as you say let the article say that. I don't have a rewrite idea right now hoped you would have. Hobartimus (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Press access has been tightly restricted, as many sources have pointed out (I chose just one). That doesn't mean she won't do any interviews. It just means exactly what it says. Both CNN and the Associated Press protested, and the story indicates that the reporting pool covering Palin has been generally very unhappy with her level of availability and openness. If you prefer to add a comment to the effect that the campaign backed off somewhat in response to CNN's protest, that would be fine with me. MastCell ^Talk 03:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

How about "controlled" rather than "restricted"? Or some other verb? Really, it is easier for you to come up with words you're happy with than it is for us. Homunq (talk) 04:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Back in Eisenhower's day, they used to film the press conferences and edit out anything that would make Ike look bad. Times have changed, haven't they? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems unlikely. Who is the "they" who filmed press conferences, then edited them, then gave the edited version to the TV networks, who somehow did not note the excised booboos. How would "his people" get access to the newsreel films? He did the first TV press conference in 1955, before video tape, and it went out live. The closest I have heard is about audio tapes of speeches, in that CBS would edit out all the "ums" and "ers" for which Ike was known before broadcasting them on the radio. Ike just thought CBS had superior recording equipment. Edison (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that this is reaching the point where it warrants a sentence in the main section IF it continues. Manticore55 (talk) 12:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Accent?

Has anyone notice her accent, it sounds like the many canadians i seen on youtube vids or something from like Fargo the movie (minnisota) i think this should be put in there ChesterTheWorm (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)ChesterTheWorm

It's noted in her public image page. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 21:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it Fargo, NORTH DAKOTA? Ya, hey der!--Buster7 (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Man, this talk page moves fast. I posted the same topic like a week ago, and already it's like three archives ago. The first response I got is "she doesn't have an accent, you only think so because you have different accent than she does," which is of course what I wanted to know. Then I did some research and found she has a North Central American English accent, archetyped by Minnesota, as depicted in Fargo and Drop Dead Gorgeous. She must have picked it up when she was in school in Idaho because all sources say Alaska's residents histories are too scattered for Alaska to get a consistent dialect.--Loodog (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Though called Fargo, most of the movie is set in Minnesota. 147.136.249.101 (talk) 05:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really Canadian to my ear (but I live in Minnesota.) There's a broad band of like-sounding folk, from Wisconsin to the Dakotas and up into Canada and then Alaska. We probably hear differences you don't. The Scandinavian, Scots, Irish, Polish, and German languages are not far away from our cribs. The "Fargo accent" is a Hollywood / New York invention, perhaps swiped from Howie Mandel's "Bobby's World", but it might be older than that. htom (talk) 05:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

She pronounces her vowels, in particular the short o sound, the way people do on the West Coast of the U.S. and throughout Canada. She doesn't pronounce the ou sound the way Canadians do but has a typical U.S. pronunciation of that sound. There's a sing-song element to the rhythm of her speech, and that's more like the Minnesota accent. It might have some influence on her vowels as well. If Alaskans have a mix of influences on their accents, there's no reason to think she picked this up somewhere else. It probably is one of the influences within Alaska. Parableman (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the "ou sound" as "sound" or as in "through" or as in "rough" or as in "trough?" That isn't really a "sound." It's a spelling! 76.95.108.78 (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Here. More than you could ever want to know about Palin's consonants and vowels. Cheers.--Loodog (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin meeting foreign leaders

Pakistani President called Palin Gorgeous

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3577128/9887106

I think this should be in the article

209.183.29.224 (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I hardly think Zardari's opinion on her appearance is relevant. Grsz ^talk 01:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

<comedy>Grsz11.. Don't underestimate the VPILF factor in diplomacy.;)</comedy> --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I can almost see it now. Someone will certainly put a sentence into Zardari's article how he is guilty of sexual harassment.--Paul (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Gorgeous in the "I wish she was in my harem, wrapped in a burqa"-kinda way? --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Russia called and wanted to know if the US was doing anything Friday night. Fcreid (talk) 09:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Stevens, Palin donations

I cut this, "though the Associated Press wrote that Palin's record "undermine[s] arguments that Palin has broken from Alaska's Republican machine, including Stevens."<ref>Apuzzo, Matt. [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jrhFOsVwX9jtDyUhy3zKCBVms8tgD92UU8BO0 “Campaign money hurts Palin's outsider image”], Associated Press ([[2008-09-02]]).</ref> It is simply the AP's opinion (or the AP writer's opinion) that the contribs she received from the same organization that also donated money to Stevens "undermine[s] arguments." Further, the language is misleading - it isn't her record the AP is referring to, it is her record of receiving money from that same group. In the same edit, I removed the WP:PIPE that linked an entire clause to dubious financial dealings/investigation of Stevens. Stevens is already linked, Palin is not under investigation, etc. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The media tried to make Harry Truman also guilty by association, with the Kansas City boss Prendergast or some such. But Truman showed he was his own man. Similarly, there's too much attempt at linkage of Palin to other people's scandals. Mostly all heat with little light, so far. Thus the need for vigilance of this article. If there's a serious smoking gun, the media will cover it adequately for sure. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If you go back a few days, I inserted that mention because the AP article was being grossly misused to support a claim that Palin had broken with Stevens, when the article made the exact opposite point. I don't agree with Kaisershatner's line of thought about "the AP's opinion". When a major, mainstream media outlet calls a candidate on a lack of candor, that's a bit different from ye olde Op-Ed. When the mainstream, independent media fact-check campaign claims, then that's as notable as the claims themselves. MastCell ^Talk 19:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If it is guilt by association to suggest that Palin received money from an organization who also donated money to Stevens, is it also not inappropriate guilt by association to identify "Steven Silver" as "a former chief of staff for Alaska Senator Ted Stevens" (in the second term lobbying section)? I think it is inappropriate. It is certainly not biographical. There is no link between Palin and the former employment of Silver, and all of this happened eight years ago, long before charges of impropriety were leveled against Stevens.--Paul (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's' try another tack. I am interested in a rationalization for including the name of Steven Sliver in this article along with the fact that he, in 1996 was a former employee of Ted Stevens. While these points are prominently mentioned on dailykos.com, tpmmuckracker.talkingpointsmemo.com, and huffingtonpost.com ("Steven Silver -- a former chief of staff to now-indicted GOP senator Ted Stevens") they seem to have no real relationship to the biography of Sarah Palin other than for an oblique partisan attack and implying guilt by association.--Paul (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the sentence. It turns out that Silver left Senator Steven's office in 1981 nineteen years before Mat-Su valley lobbying. It is truly absurd to include this non-relevant fact in this article.--Paul (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridges again

Greek Paradise has returned, and edited the bridge section. It was such paradise for a couple days! :-)

I very much object to this bit: "according to state officials, spent $25 million in federal funds on a Gravina Island access road to where the bridge would have gone so that none of this sum would have to be returned." Over and over and over again, I have pointed out that the Palin administration has stated the road will open up more areas for development. Instead Greek Paradise wants to pretend that the only reason for building the road is to spend the money. Why, why, why?

I also object to this bit at the beginning of the section: "Two bridges supported by Palin in her 2006 Gubernatorial campaign...." This is misleading because Palin did not support getting a congressional earmark for the bridges during her 2006 campaign. AFAIK, she only supported building the bridges given that the federal funds had already been obtained. Therefore, I would appreciate if GreekParadise would please revert back.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

But isn't that the issue. The funds hadn't been obtained, we have a quote of her saying they should move forward while Stevens is in a "strong position to assist." She supported Congressional assistance in acquiring the funds, she didn't just support using the funds after Congress gave them. Grsz ^talk 05:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Grz's good point. I simply say she supported the bridges. I don't mention earmarks. I think you're reading too much into it but again, if you want to be more specific, I'm all for that. My only goal is that the truth -- both sides -- be told.GreekParadise (talk) 06:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that she ran for Governor in 2006 supporting further bridge-funding requests to Congress. By then, most of the money had already been squeezed from Congress. "U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young, both Republicans, championed the project through Congress two years ago, securing more than $200 million for the bridge between Revillagigedo and Gravina islands. Under mounting political pressure over pork projects, Congress stripped the earmark -- or stipulation -- that the money be used for the airport, but still sent the money to the state for any use it deemed appropriate."[1]Ferrylodge (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

On access road, what I said was in the source. That's why, Ferrylodge. That's why, why, why. :-) Here's the source, the Anchorage Daily News: "State officials said last year they were going ahead with the $25 million road because the money would otherwise have to be returned to the federal government." http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/511471.html. I'm not sure how a road to a non-existent bridge "opens up area for development" and the LA Times article seems to discount that, but if you want to include that reason too, I'm all for showing both sides. But "a road on Gravina island" without even saying it's a "road to a nonexistent bridge" hides a controvery and pretends it doesn't exist.GreekParadise (talk) 06:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Finally, the "spinmeister" quote. Here's the full quote from the source (footnote 105): “We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge, and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative,” Palin said in August 2006, according to the Ketchikan (Alaska) Daily News." http://www.gannettnewsservice.com/?p=2448. That's quite different from what it says in the article: "and criticized the use of the word "nowhere" as political spin." The source gives NO support for the quote in the article. It says what I said it said. Could you please correct it, Ferrylodge, so the proper source goes to the proper quote? If not, then tomorrow, I'll put up a {citecheck} since the source cited says nothing of the sort.GreekParadise (talk) 06:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

At one point our article asserted that the road would open new areas to development. I changed that to say that a Palin spokesperson asserted that it would open new areas. I have no objection to restoring the point as long as it's attributed to the flack rather than being stated as fact. I would be surprised if any neutral source said that a road to an empty beach, on an island that's not connected to any other land mass by a bridge, would spur development. JamesMLane t c 09:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

James, could you revert it back and include both sides, both the neutral "state officials" saying the money was only used so that it would not have to be given back to the Feds as well as the Palin spokesperson saying that the road to the empty beach and the non-existent bridge would spur development? It seems that every time I edit an article on the Bridge to make the text say what the sources say in a NPOV way, someone simply undoes all my changes, often without comment or review of the sources. I don't believe a "consensus" among Palin supporters to attribute to sources things that simply aren't there and to delete verified, sourced material without stating a reason is appropriate. And I would ask that no one again undo any of my changes without reading the sources upon which I base them. Is that fair? I will now add a "checkcites tab" to the unsourced materialGreekParadise (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(((I think the anon meant canard...not charade!)))--Buster7 (talk) 12:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how a road to a non-existent bridge "opens up area for development".

Because it's a road from the airport. From which there's ferry service to Ketchikan. -- Zsero (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I put up a tag so that someone will fix the source. When I've tried to fix it, my edits are reverted. The source (http://www.gannettnewsservice.com/?p=2448) says Palin said. “We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge, and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative" It says nothing about crticism of nowhere. That's another source.GreekParadise (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

GP, do you happen to recall which source? I would be happy to fix. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Right now, it's 105. It says what I state above.GreekParadise (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The easiest way to fix it is to just undo Hobartimus' undoing. Hobartimus undoes virtually EVERY edit I do. In this case, Grz undid my edit but when I explained it to Grz and showed Grz the source, Grz reverted back. Then Hobartimus undid it, as he usually does,without any talk page discussion. Frustrating. Particularly on something like this where the cited-to source says "spinmeister" and doesn't mention insulting nowhere as is claimed. GreekParadise (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the citation check template but based on the above added a "fact" template to the word "nowhere." That should be easy enough to check. Either it's sourced or not that what Palin found insulting to local residents and a matter of "spin" (which is an acceptable summary of saying something is done by "spinmeisters") is the word, or that she was referring to something else. Or that she did or did not say this. Incidentally, that wording is my work from about a week ago - I did not verify the citations. I was just editing for brevity, clarity, etc., and trying not to editorialize. So I might have munged it.Wikidemon (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll fix it again, but I do not want to get in an edit war with Hobartimus who appears to knee-jerkedly revert everything I do. I'll fix it once more, but if Hobartimus undoes again, then I'll leave it to some other editor to fix.GreekParadise (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked it. There does not seem to be any evidence that Palin's spokesperson was disagreeing with (or was "countering") state officials.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with your tweak. :-)GreekParadise (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Media Access

Manticore55 (talk) 12:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)I understand that the initial part of the article had consensus (at least as near as I can tell from reading the archives) but it is starting to appear that the narrative on Palin is changing. If the continued process of denial of media access continues for today and another day or two, I argue that a sentence should be added to the summary regarding her initial media policy as governor and her current one with regards to the McCain Campaign.

Prayer and Abraham Lincoln reference

With respect to Palin's request that people pray that we're doing something God is behind, the article says:

"Critics have argued that she was justifying the Iraq war as part of God's plan,[213] while Palin has explained that she was referring to Abraham Lincoln's statement, "let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side."

What she says is that her statement was about the same thing Lincoln's was about. She doesn't say she was referring to Lincoln's speech. It would be better to say that she was expressing the same view as Lincoln that we should pray that we're doing the right thing.

Also, I don't think the way it's worded is clear. Her point is that there's nothing unusual about praying that we're doing the right thing. The opposing view is explained clearly as "she was justifying the Iraq war as part of God's plan". The obvious interpretation that contrasts with that should be expressed clearly in parallel language to say something more like "she was praying that we not do anything not in God's plan". I don't think a parallel contrast is all that clear just by quoting the Lincoln statement. The contrast is between saying something is true and praying that it's true, i.e. hoping it's true and praying we're doing the right thing. That could be much clearer than it is. Parableman (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll take the blame for the current wording, but you should've seen how POV it was beforehand! I'm certainly open to suggestions how it can be better imparted. Fcreid (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The Lincoln relation to her speech was debunked in the press: "Palin: The reviews are in - First Read - msnbc.com". Retrieved 2008-09-25. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not a debunking, Jossi. It quotes Holzer "I think there is no computing the precise Lincoln quote with her own quote,’ Holzer said. ‘Lincoln sought guidance from God, he didn't tell people that God was guiding him. It is just different.’” " Only Palin stated she isn't saying God was guiding her, as the quotation in her own words demonstrates. Kaisershatner (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Holzer simply repeated Gibson's lie that Palin had said our task was from God, rather than praying that it was so. It was a lie when Gibson said it, and it's a lie when anyone repeats it. -- Zsero (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The Lincoln relation to her speech may have been debunked by a confused scholar quoted by MSNBC's First Read, but it has also been confirmed by Politifact.[2]Ferrylodge (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Sarah Palin/GA

Pic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, it's Thatcher visiting D.C.[3] And there's a not-so-subtle difference between cheerleading and seeking NPOV.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guns in schools

LLLL has just edited this article,[4] to say that Stambaugh said "he had opposed a bill in the state legislature that would lift restrictions on carrying concealed weapons in school and bars, a bill supported by Palin." I do not support the inserted material, for several reasons. First, Stambaugh is the one who said the bill would have allowed concealed weapons in schools, whereas this inserted language sounds like Wikipedia agrees that the bill wuold have done so. Second, this is a summary article and should not go into detail; if we go into detail then we should also mention that the bill passed in the state-legislature, and that it allegedly affected the concealed weapons rules in other locations as well (e.g. banks), et cetera. Additionally, the bit about schools is not in the sub-article, per WP:SS. Furthermore, the language that LLLL inserted is vague, and seems to suggest that the legislature was prohibiting schools to ban guns on school grounds, which I very much doubt is true.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those 3 words do not accurately describe the legislation. The legislation said: "A permitee may not carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun within...or on school grounds."[5]Ferrylodge (talk) 03:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

You're also overlooking the part of the 2003 statute that allows schools to ban both concealed and unconcealed guns: "The knowing possession of a firearm, carried openly or concealed, at any preschool, elementary, junior high or secondary school, including the buildings, grounds, parking lots or school buses, without the permission of the chief administrative officer of the school or district, is generally prohibited."[6]

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

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

(undent)FYI, this is from one of LLLL's links:[7]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Manipulation of the Sarah Palin Article?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unsourced POV edit

This edit inserts the following into this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Going to war

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

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

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

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

Palin Support Aerial Wolf Hunting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's explained pretty well here [8]. Fcreid (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Religion

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

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

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

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

This sentence 'After an unsuccessful campaign for lieutenant governor of Alaska in 2002...' paints a picture that she was the sole candidate in a campaign which she lost. According to the Constitution of Alaska ^[2]"...the votes cast for a candidate for governor shall be considered as cast also for the candidate for lieutenant governor running jointly with him."

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

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

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

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

accent

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

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

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

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

Corn Maze

'If you build it, they will come' : [[9]] IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She lives in Wasilla and has been writing for 15 years[10]. She lives in Wasilla and wasn't just approached off-the-street by some suit to concoct a story. She undoubtedly admires Palin, but I'm not sure why that should discredit her account. Is there some specific reference you believe contrived? Fcreid (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I hope my edit was ok

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

Couric interview

In response to Ferrylodge, who wrote,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paliban.org (fansite)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Huh? stuff like this has absolutely no place in WP at all. It is only going to make WP the laughing-stock of the Internet. Collect (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

New Sarah Palin joke info?

Media and political ops went on, what has been called by media critics, a witch hunt, looking for something, anything, to dig up re Palin’s former church (per this article and others at Wiki), and what did they find... Muthee... and Palin? The preceding sentence is pretty accurate as to what is going on in content, not style. Olberman reports (in MSNBC online transcripts here[11], also more on 9-24-08 transcript) that WAoG church "boasted" Muthee was a witch hunter (literally, not BLP vio figuratively), as did Muthee. This article and WAoG article has Palin leaving the church before the Muthee arrival. But vids show her at the church being prayed over to protect her from witches after leaving, then returning in 2008 to remind congregants of this "speaking" laying of hands, and praying over (and billing taxpayers for the trip per Anchorage Daily). This is an unusual speaker to make a special trip to a former church for. Olberman further reports that the Muthee prayer was at least partially responsible for her next step to the governorsip. More research is needed as to possible relevance for this article, but at a minimum fact check is needed re date of leaving church and possible very unusual and notable belief system w POV neutralized. Tautologist (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gravina road

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not the point. As governor of Alaska her duty was to her constituents, not to the people of the USA. If Congress chose to give Alaska money for a project that was useful and practicable, she would have had no right to just hand it back. That doesn't mean she thought it had been a good idea for Congress to have given the money, or even that she would have asked for it in the first place.

As for the tiny numbers, I think you're talking about the bridge itself. Portraying it as serving only the 8000 inhabitants of Ketchikan, let alone the 50 inhabitants of Gravina, is not just unfair but downright dishonest. The ferry that the bridge would have replaced carries over 350K passengers a year.

As for the total amount of federal spending in Alaska, the relevant question is not how much it comes to per person, but how much of it was legitimate federal spending for legitimate federal purposes. If federal spending went only to legitimate purposes, the discrepancy between per capita spending in Alaska and Illinois would be even greater. Most of Alaska belongs to the federal gov't, there are massive defense and coastguard installations there (because, yes, you can see Russia from Alaska), and Alaska's federally mandated spending is greater than Illinois's.

Obama, by the way, as a senator, did have a duty to the general USA taxpayer, not just to the people of Illinois. -- Zsero (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It is "not the point" insofar as she might be running for re-election as governor of Alaska. In that context, of course she theoretically has "no" obligation to the rest of the country. However, insofar as she is running for VPOTUS and being presented as an "anti-pork reformer", the sheer scope of her pork efforts is very much the point.

As for the tiny numbers, yes I was talking about the bridge itself. The figures I was using were $223 million in Federal bridge funds, $25 million in Federal approach-road funds, and divided that by the 14,000 people that I think live nearby. (That last figure may be off, but I don't think it's by much. And maybe it's only 223, not 223+25, but even if so, that's only about a 10% difference.) Hence my rough figure of $17,000 per Alaskan JUST FOR THE BRIDGE.

"50 residents" was dishonest. I'll grant you that. I think the papers have moved well past that point. But 14,000 is not. Accounting for tourism or other visitors is a red herring. Any locality is going to have significant (or even major) non-resident traffic. Witness other, much larger states such as... Illinois.

I was never talking about total federal spending in Alaska, just that single pork-barrel project, so your last paragraph of comments was irrelevant. Military installations, Federally owned land, etc, are clearly the national responsibility. However, when a funds are earmarked for a project that only benefits a small, local population, it is VERY relevant how many dollars are being spent per person. Hence my point that the US could never afford such lavish "pet project" funds for the entire nation.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

She earned her anti-pork chops in office as governor, where she drastically cut funding requests, and most of what she did ask for was stuff that the feds should pay for. The bridge wasn't on her watch. The road was money that had already been earmarked and the only thing she could do with it (even if she could break the contract without too much of a penalty) would have been to send it back, which would be a breach of her duty to her state. She's entitled to say that she wouldn't have asked for that money, and Congress was unwise to grant it, but now that Alaska had it she wasn't about to send it back.

I doubt the 14K area residents make 175K round trips to the airport each year. Counting tourists is valid when there are masses of tourists. Just divide the proposed cost by the number of trips per year, after allowing for expected growth to say 500K per year. It still comes to quite a lot, but not nearly what your numbers make it seem.

-- Zsero (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Now you're making some real stretches. She may not have initiated the bridge project, but she agreed with it and fought for it and changed her mind only after it was clear the Fed gov't was not going to pony up more than $223 million (the bridge was supposed to cost $398 million and I suppose she felt Fed tax money should pay for much more than half).

Additionally, I am not seeing how it would have been a "breach of her duty to the state" to return the $25 million set aside for a road that will be mostly useless unless a bridge project is completed someday. The mayor of Ketchikan, who supported the bridge, doesn't seem to think so. Also, I am sure Alaska has plenty of better ways to spend $25 million of US taxpayer money.

On the ferry numbers, first, I vigorously dispute the idea that "total tourism potential" is an appropriate way to guage how much Federal money should be appropriated for a tourism-enhancing project for a region with only 14,000 inhabitants. You don't see Florida asking for $6 billion in Federal money for massive tourism projects to prop up its massive tourism industry (or its massive state population, for that matter.)

Plus, I think you're making the numbers sing and dance. Sure, I agree with you that Ketchikan's 14000 residents are probably not each making 12-13 round trips to the airport each year. But let's be more conservative and say each one takes TWO round trips. Not all that unreasonable considering they need to go to the airport if they want to go very far. That'd be 28,000 round trips.. only about 1/6th of the total, but still quite large. Consider also that the most recent figures on ferry passengers show the ridership DECLINING by 2% in 2006. How, then, are we expecting it to suddenly skyrocket by nearly 50%? Are such projections based on a massive increase in use made possible by the bridge? "If you build it, they will come" ?

Well, yeah. I can think of hundreds or thousands of tiny towns that would benefit tremendously from a $400 million dollar project. But this INEVITABLY brings us back to the question of how we are supposed to afford such lavish spending on small numbers of people. As an aside, I can also think of much large cities which would benefit from truly massive Federal expenditures totaling in the tens of billions of federal pork funds annually just for a single major city.

Does any of this bridge hoopla mean she didn't fight against some pork projects? Of course not. But does it mean we should take her projected image as an anti-pork crusader with a grain of salt? Absolutely. As I said, the relevance of all this is that it BALANCES the view of Palin as a reformer. I think Wikipedia's mission and stated rules require just as much.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

I am totally in favor of them.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Witch hunting Pastor Thomas Muthee who blessed her

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

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MSNBC [12] transcript with unrelated stories redacted. On MSNBC, Shannyn Moore, journalist, said - "... this church, in particular, they embraced him. They knew what this pastor‘s record was... she‘s given a lot of credit to becoming governor to this pastor." Tautologist (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Arguments to include/not include

NOTNEWS RECENT, comaprison with Wright and Obama Wiki articles

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

Wikipedia is not a tabloid or a"breaking news" site, and we are not "on deadline," fearing being scooped by other media. If Palin's relationship with or counseling by Muthee is seen by reliable mainstream media as an important part of her biography it should be included, but not in any sensational or disproportionate way. Arguiing for some mention is TimesOnline article "Palin linked electoral success to prayer of Kenyan witchhunter," 16 September 2008. On June 8, 2008, long before she gained the media spotlight, Palin said at Wasilla Assembly of God [13]'“As I was mayor and Pastor Muthee was here and he was praying over me, and you know how he speaks and he’s so bold. And he was praying “Lord make a way, Lord make a way.”“And I’m thinking, this guy’s really bold, he doesn’t even know what I’m going to do, he doesn’t know what my plans are. And he’s praying not “oh Lord if it be your will may she become governor,” no, he just prayed for it. He said “Lord make a way and let her do this next step. And that’s exactly what happened.”“So, again, very very powerful, coming from this church.” ' That is her words in a reliable source, which also says Palin was anointed by Muthee during a series of 10 sermons, in which he spoke about his witch hunting, and that she said his intercession was "awesome." It sounds like more than her happening to attend a church service where he happened to preach once, or some such trivial association. See Palin on video referred to by TimesOnline, June 2008 at Wasilla Assembly of God, speaking aboutMuthee and her commissioning as a Master by that church: [14]. Edison (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Muthee what content is proposed to be included

1. When leave church? Wasilla Assembly of God article says Palin left church in 2002. But Muthee prayer was in 2005. Clarification needed.

She was still attending there in June this year, videos show Palin saying the war in Iraq is gods work and that praying stops you from getting shot in war.--203.192.91.4 (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most people would speak out against a person who hunted human beings, accused them of cuasing accidents through witchcraft, and persecuted them. According to the MSNBC transcript[16], Palin knew he did this and went to have him lay hands on her, and praised him, rather than denouncing them. That says more about a person than almost anything, and certainly goes to her beliefs and values, and transmission of the values by praising him before graduates of a masters commission at a church. Tautologist (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Muthee - specific proposals of content for inclusion,... if verifiable

Shannyn Moore, journalist - "this church, in particular, they embraced him. They knew what this pastor‘s record was... she‘s given a lot of credit to becoming governor to this pastor".
Olberman - According to the MSNBC transcript[17], ""Times of London" reporting today that Pastor Thomas Muthee (ph) not only began his career by literally persecuting a woman in a Kenyan village as literally a witch, but that he boasted about it, and Governor Palin‘s church in Alaska boasted about it, too”... he was praying over Sarah Palin, and in her presence, still talking about witchcraft", and "very powerful coming from this church. So that was awesome about Pastor Muthee". Tautologist (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Shannyn Moore - "They knew what this pastor‘s record was". But is is unclear to me who all "they" refers to. Tautologist (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Not good enough - we'd need to know what her evidence was. I have no idea who Shannyn Moore is or why I should believe her opinion, even if I knew exactly what she meant by it. -- Zsero (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, even if she was Walter Cronkite, we still do not know wat "they' refers to. Still, worth looking for why she said this. Could always just look her up and shoot her an email and just ask what she meant and where she got this. Tautologist (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin knew Muthee's history?

1. "Palin knew Muthee's history."

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

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

Shannyn Moore on MSNBC- "They knew what this pastor‘s record was"." Tautologist (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Absurdly and grossly insufficient for any claims in a BLP. Collect (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin went to see Muthee knowing of his history?

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

Shannyn Moore on MSNBC - "They knew what this pastor‘s record was... she‘s given a lot of credit to becoming governor to this pastor".

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

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

Shannyn Moore on MSNBC - "They knew what this pastor‘s record was... she‘s given a lot of credit to becoming governor to this pastor". Tautologist (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Believing in evil is entirely different from accusations of withcraft, believing in the efficacy of witchcraft, or beliving in the need for protection from witchcraft. Are you trying to defend Muthee's accusations and activities against women? And even if they were defensible, this has nothing to do with what should be in an encyclopedia article Tautologist (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No, they're not different. Believing that witchcraft exists and that it's a good thing to be protected from it is not at all remarkable. If it's true that Muthee "persecuted" a specific person whom he accused of causing traffic accidents, without hard evidence to support the accusation, and if that fact were known to Palin and the church in Alaska, then it would be notable. But it would have to be that specific. -- Zsero (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I really can't tell if you are kidding or not, "hard evidence to support Murthee's accusation of causing traffic accidents through witchcraft"? Even if she cast a spell on several people and they all died in an accident, this would not be "evidence" supporting persecution of her

Re- "they're not different" - Beliving in the existence of evil, believing that witches are evil, and believing in a need to be protected from witches, and a vice presidential candiate having the later belief are four entirely different things. Tautologist (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not kidding. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, especially if you're going to use those claims to justify harming someone, but NPOV says not to rule it out entirely. I'd be very very skeptical of such a claim, but how much evidence it requires really depends on what was done in response. If the woman was merely publicly denounced and shamed, the evidence wouldn't need to be nearly as strong as it would be if she was assaulted. And that's why I maintain that when discussing Palin's reaction to Muthee, we must start with evidence that she knew the full detail of what he did (if indeed the reports are true in the first place). So even if you manage to show that she knew he'd purported to expose a witch in Kenya, that would not be enough to support a mention in the article, because on its own that wouldn't be enough to make a normal American shy away from him. OTOH if you were show that he burned a witch, and that Palin knew this and still welcomed him, that would definitely be notable. Ditto if you manage to show that Palin is really a Martian invader who possessed the body of an Alaskan housewife and is riding her to control of the Earth :-)

And no, they're not different enough. The average American may not believe in Halloween-type witches with warts on their noses, at least not in America, but witchcraft as a form of evil cast by malevolent people is a different matter. Skepticism is all very well, but don't be so quick to rule it out. It never hurts to be protected, just in case. -- Zsero (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

She was assaulted, and they shot her pet snake in the assault. (no kidding, she had a pet snake and they shot it in the assault) Tautologist (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin praised Muthee, despite knowing of his history of publicly accusing women of causing traffic fatalities by being a witch?

4. "Palin praised Muthee, despite knowing of his history of publicly accusing women of causing traffic fatalities by being a witch."

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

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

you are correct, I fixed the wording, but am still looking for a back up source to Olberman assertions. Tautologist (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

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

I cited MSNBC as a source in section header for this subsection. MSNBC is known to be biased in selection and presentation, but not to missstate facts (if for no other reason than to avoid getting sued). They make retractions when in error. I just think it would be better to find out what their sources were. Tautologist (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No, Olberman is a liar and not a reliable source at all. -- Zsero (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please source your accusation of "liar". MSNBC is a reliable source for facts, thuogh biased in secection and presentation. Tautologist (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's start with Olberman's insistence that the president can't remove the chairman of the SEC. That's a fairly simple fact, that Olberman got wrong and refused to recant. But that's just the top of a long long list. He has no credibility whatsoever. -- Zsero (talk) 22:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that the consensus is that Murthee is totally irrelevant to the BLP, and any mention if inserted should be excised forthwith. Collect (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Muthee is relevant here in that Palin is a vice presidential candidate who made a special trip to stand under a pastor who accuses women of witchcraft and went to have him pray to protect her from witches. That is a notably unusual belief system at best. It certainly belongs here. The question is over wording. Tautologist (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope. And the entire subject is less relevant than the claim that Trig is Palin;s grandson. It is not relevant, and will never be relevant. Palin has never said anything which places her outside mainstream Christianity. Obama also considers himself a "Bible believing" Christian, taking the oath of office on one. Collect (talk) 11:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

A pastor publicly accusing women of causing deaths through witchcraft, is not "mainstream Christianity".
Palin making a special trip to a church that boasts of having a guest speaker who engages in this practice is is not "mainstream Christianity".
Standing quietly under a pastor who boasts of being a witch hunter, while they pray to protect Palin from witchcraft, is is not "mainstream Christianity". Tautologist (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
In general, pastors who boast of their notariety for hunting and accusing women of causing deaths via witchcraft, are avoided by mainstream American Christians, not sought out. Tautologist (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Proof by repeated assertion does not work. So far that seems to be the basis for your insistence that Palin backs killing witches or the like ... Collect (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not claim an "insistence that Palin backs killing witches". Such inaccurate ad hominem attacks on editors only serves to dilute discussion of my assertion, and in no way addresses whether pastors who boast of their notariety for hunting and accusing women of causing deaths via witchcraft are generally avoided by mainstream American Christians, and are not generally sought out and accepted for protection from witchcraft. Tautologist (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I would answer in depth if there were anything other than an obvious consensus at this time that this "information" has no place at all in the article. As a consensus is clear, the subject becomes joyfully irrelevant. I intended no personal attack on you, but would suggest that the person pushing the "witchcraft" angle is in the minority at this point. Collect (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

re consensus, see two sections below.

Section for ad hominem attacks on editors

I also noted Tautologist (formerly EricDiesel) was chased off the Wasilla Assembly of God article recently for trying to insert similarly poorly sourced material. What's odd is that his axe seems to be with the religious practice itself or, perhaps, even with this specific place of worship. Regardless, I haven't seen anything yet to convince me any of this warrants inclusion in the Palin article, unless and until there's consensus that her religious beliefs are intolerable. Fcreid (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I created the Wasilla Assembly of God article, and was not "chased off". I sourced all of my edits, just did not feel like an edit war. The reason for massive deletion of content was that calling Mutee a witch hunter once was violation of BLP, but that is not the case as it was used litterally, not figuratiely. See talk page there. Tautologist (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious of your goal for inclusion. Is it to expose what you feel is aberrant religious practice, condemn the WAoG for allowing this person to speak there or, somehow, to taint Palin by any possible tangential association? Regardless, and I reiterate, there is nothing here that even remotely warrants inclusion in this article. Fcreid (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Condemnation is not a role for an encyclopedia. Statement of notable factual information is. Making a special trip to see a well known pastor who boasts of witch hunting and persecution skills is abberant, but evaluating that it is abberant is not te place of an encyclopedia. Only the statement of the fact of a special trip to listen to and be prayed under a known and self described witch hunter, and later praise for the witch hunter, should be included. Tautologist (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course you're under no obligation to do so on WP, Tautologist. However, if one were publishing a "traditional" encyclopedia, and a contributor were to present highly controversial information on a biographical topic, and the publisher knew that contributor was, say, working on a political campaign that opposed the subject of the biographic, don't you think it would be incumbent upon the publisher to know that? Fcreid (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know which of the above editors is working on a campaign that you are referring to. If you are referring to me, I did once work on a campaign within a youthful ideology which I have completely reversed with education; Barr is nice for noting government as the worst choice to get anything done, and Gore for for long term vision. Biden, for sheer political posturing, tried to pass an obscure bill that would have undone a project I spent ten years midwifing and has zero experience in life as a mature adult outside of being a politician. Obama is the least qualified presidential nominee in my lifetime, but has a high degree of experience being a lawyer, an area that his campaign does not emphasize since it is despised by many. I could similarly comment on McCain and Palin, but my politics are irrelevent to what should or should not be included. Tautologist (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Then I'm even more baffled on the significance of including the Witch Doctor story in here. It seems like we have a far greater appetite here for this less than sensational event than the event itself represented in this person's life or story. Unless, of course, it's actually your belief that Muthee's blessing is responsible for her success? :-\ Fcreid (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ha, I yield to Fcreid's humor. Tautologist (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Gotta keep a bit of levity, Tautologist. :) Hey, I'm not saying it's not an *interesting* tidbit. It actually is. I could even craft the Trivial Pursuit 2010 Edition question, "Which VP nominee once received a blessing from an African cleric who may have been a witch doctor?" However, interesting is not necessary notable. As a WP neophyte, I use the "Marathon Yardstick" myself that I learned here. Question: "Which VP nominee once ran a marathon in under four hours?" No clue? You won't find it in this article either, because the consensus was such an event was trivial and insignificant to her biography. One could certainly argue Palin's direct involvement in that event was far more significant than her relationship to the Witch Doctor, but it still didn't reach the criteria for inclusion. Fcreid (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin’s “non-denial denial”, regarding praise for a known witch hunter

Reliable mainstream media reported on and showed videotapes regarding Palin’s recent praise for internationally known (and self and WAoG church-described) witch hunter Muthee, as well as Palin’s recent attendance at a sermon by David Brickner. Palin, through the McCain campaign, denied foreknowledge of Brickner’s views regarding Jews, but was silent on her reported foreknowledge of Muthee’s history of publicly accusing women of causing fatalities via witchcraft. This would argue for inclusion of Muthee related info in this article, but not Brickner related info. Tautologist (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Still emphasizing witches killing people and needing to be hunted as a position of Palin? Does not work. The argument consensus, as I read it, is that this entire topic does not belong in a BLP, does not belong in an article on Palin, does not belong in WP. Collect (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no frim basis so far cited to include an assertion that Palin believes that a witch caused any traffic fatalities. There is reason to include that she made a special trip to her former church to see a pastor who was known for successfully running a woman fortune teller out of her home, by accusing her of causing traffic fatalities because of her witchcraft, and subsequent praise for a pastor known to be engaged in such activites. Tautologist (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus developing re - not including specifics of prayer for "protection from witchcraft" in article

"Sarah Palin ‘witchcraft’ flap all smoke and no fire"[18] . When the Boston Herald debunks a claim, it is pretty much debunked. Collect (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well put, Collect, as Fcreid put above. Your citation is a much better argument regarding standing there silently than some of the above comments by editors. It argues well for not including the particular prayer quote on “protection from witchcraft” in the prayer. Since it seems dispositive of this particular component of the thread, I put it in a separate sub-section header, so we can delineate what is likely to be consensus based on your good “argument by source” on the specific point. (This assumes no further source info arises which would argue to include it). However, it does not yet address the foreknowledge and praise issues in the next section. Tautologist (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually -- it does. A guest from another nation gave a prayer in the form that he would use in his own church. Palin did not seek "protection from witchcraft." She did not praise the preacher as a "witch hunter" and she gave no indication that "witches" were in any way, shape, manner or form a part of her religious concerns. In short, the Boston Herald article ratifies the position held by the majority writing here that this has no business being in a BLP at all. Collect (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I cited the same article three days ago and before you began embellishing this discussion, Tautologist. Note the quote I provided above. Fcreid (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Fcreid, lots of stuff here, so I am tried to organize to have meaningful focused discussion, as threads sometimes wander into attacks on editors and rants from both sides, whereby forceful source citations like yours can get lost. I changed my comment above to acknowedge your original contrib. Tautologist (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus re other Muthee related topics still being debated

User:Fcreid , User:Collect, and User:Tautologist agree in the above section against inclusion of specific prayer quote re “protection”, (unless new info that Palin specificly went for protection). Fcreid Collect has conclusively disposed of this particulaar issue, in my opinion.
User:Geo Swan, User:Edison, User:≈ jossi ≈, User:Tautologist, (and unsigned editors, whose comments should not be counted unless signed), argue for inclusion of special trip to see known and self described witch hunter, praise for known witch hunter, and not peaking out against witch hunting practices. Zsero argues that mainstream Americans do not denounce witch hunting as a practice.
There is consensus that two journalists at MSNBC reported Palin made a special trip to her former church to hear a pastor who is church-described and self- described as a witch hunter. There is not yet consensus on the reliability of the various journalists reporting this. There is not consensus on whether to include the MSNBC and other repots on the foreknowledge. Since Wiki is not news, there is no hurry here, so I suggest leaving this talk page section open until a consensus is reached one way or the other on the remaining issues. Tautologist (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Kindly note that my actual position is that Muthee is absolutely irrelevant to this article. Collect (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Zsero argues that mainstream Americans do not denounce witch hunting as a practice. Americans certainly would react to the term "witch hunting", because of the specific history it has in America. But nothing here has suggested that that term was used of Muthee within Palin's hearing. However as far as I know mainstream Christianity, and other mainstream religions in America, do believe in the existence of witchcraft, and it's not at all remarkable for someone to accept a blessing against it. If a normal American were to hear that an African pastor had "fought witchcraft" in his native country, or even that he had "exposed witches" there, I don't think the first thing that would come to their minds is that he "hunted" or "persecuted" anyone. -- Zsero (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Collect, 'Kindly' is "above my paygrade", to borrow an expression from a recent remark by a wishy-washy presidential candidate at a church conference. But see the next section, for an attempt at it. Switch-hitingTautologist (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how, in the 21st century, association with a man like Muthee is considered not to be a significant matter. Charges of witch-craft often results in death in Muthee's country, as evidenced in last May's burning of 11 accused witches. Refusal to include Muthee's connection to Palin demonstrates what's wrong with Wikipedia. 71.176.120.66 (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Noncontroversial Consensus alternative Muthee inclusion relevant to Palin article

I propose including this -

"Palin made a special trip to her former church to be at the sermon of a visiting African pastor, well known for being involved in the creation of about 400 churches in Africa. There are no black churches in Wasilla."

This is neutral and well sourced (see Wiki article on Muthee) and is informative and notable for a politician in rural white Alaska, being very informative regarding her racial attitudes. It is especially notable given left leaning media commentators complaints that right leaning media was insensitive to the standards at black churches regarding Wright. – Switch-hittingTautologist (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Eskimos outnumber blacks in Wasilla might have an effect. At this point, I demur on any mention of Muthee. I find no support voiced for this iterated attempt at inserting irrelevant junk into the article. Collect (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No. "Made a special trip" implies some kind of journey. All that happened is that she visited a church where she'd once been a member, to hear a visiting preacher. People do that. I'm quite sure that the audience for Muthee's talks was higher than the usual congregation at that church, because people who didn't usually worship there came to hear him. -- Zsero (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Zsero, how about "Palin returned to her former church to be at the sermon of a well known visiting African pastor." It is illustrative of her values and attitudes toward minorities, not universal in rural towns, a worthy subject of a bio. Tautologist (talk)

I also don't understand the relevance of the absence of black churches; does it imply that if there had been any, Muthee would have preached at them instead? It may be news to you, but the overwhelming majority of American Christians are not racist, and visiting African preachers have spoken at mostly-white churches for over 200 years. (I seem to recall a mention of one in Fanny Trollope's Domestic Manners of the Americans, but I may be mistaken.)-- Zsero (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but from watching the left leaning and mainstream media counter attacks regarding Wright, one might think that no one on the right understands anything about black pastors, or has any exposure to them, which is not the case.Tautologist (talk)

I still don't see why the article needs to make any mention of this at all. -- Zsero (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Just as the negative information on Muthee would go to her character if she knew his history, which is hard to describe in an objective bio, this positive information illustrates something about her, which is the purpose of a bio. Tautologist (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My position is the same as if the same comments were made about Obama. It has nothing to do with "positive" or "negative" -- I am trained as a scientist, and thus tend to regard irrelevant stuff as ... irrelevant. Collect (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If Obama went to see Muthee, the witch hunt stuff should be in his article. But going to a black church would be less notable than in rural Alaska. There is a lack of knowledge about rural America, and an encyclopeida article is a good place to find out about historically changing values and attitudes. Tautologist (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems there’s no reliable evidence that Palin believes in witches and witchcraft (a belief that would be notable in a vp candidate). Of course she may. She may also believe in Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy. But "may" is not sufficient for an encyclopedia entry.

She heard a black pastor preach. Tautologist speculates that this is "very informative regarding her racial attitudes." Quite so. Had the preacher been white, we could be pretty sure that Palin goes out at night in a white sheet and a pointy hat to indulge in a spot of cross-burning.

No. Palin’s a God-botherer. You tend to find God-botherers in churches. Palin went to church. So what?

A friend of a friend says Palin believes the world was created at lunchtime last Friday, and that from Alaska you could see dinosaurs munching Russians on that day – now that's notable. I’m searching for qualifying sources, natch. But until I find them, Collective common sense should prevail and the church trip should be dropped. That is, if we want to preserve what shreds remain of WP’s credibility. - Writegeist (talk) 07:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism! I've been working that story for weeks and was just about to break it in the mainstream! :( Fcreid (talk) 10:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoops. Of course I meant I've been working it only since last Friday. Fcreid (talk) 11:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Bachelor of Science ????

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

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

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

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

Hey, no picking on Caltech, now. Tautologist (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Consensus to leave as Palin having a BS degree. Tautologist (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridges Chapter 45

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is an undeniable fact that the bridge was called by its opponents "the Bridge to Nowhere". It is an undeniable fact that Gravina Island has a population of about 50. As far as I know, there's no dispute that the sparse population of the island was the basis for that nickname. Zsero's assessment that the nickname was "utterly unfair" is an opinion. We are not required to include, in the Palin bio, every single fact about the bridge that supports every personal opinion about the bridge. Palin's opinion is relevant, and we quote her as criticizing the term "nowhere" and as deriding bridge opponents as "spinmeisters". For the Palin bio, that's the appropriate level of detail about the merits of the bridge project. Kossack4Truth, NPOV doesn't require us to include in the Palin bio all the pros and cons of everything that's mentioned. If it did, I'd have QUITE a bit of information to add. For example right now we state Palin's opinion about global warming but we don't give any of the facts that contradict it. On global warming, the Bridge to Nowhere, and a host of other subjects, we rely on wikilinks. JamesMLane t c 22:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"Bridge(s)to Nowhere" has the same customer recognition today as "stained blue dress" had a few years back. It has become a part of the general American lexicon. Fair or unfair doesn't matter. By now, the reader probably has some prior knowledge of the Bridge projects or will research themselves based on interest. Any attempt to balance what "Bridge to Nowhere" MIGHT convey is needless and political. It strains the meaning of NPOV.--Buster7 (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

^ Sara Kugler (2008-09-23). "Palin meets Karzai without usual reporters in tow". Associated Press. Retrieved 2008-09-23.
^ [19]

[1] Sara Kugler (2008-09-23). "Palin meets Karzai without usual reporters in tow". Associated Press. Retrieved 2008-09-23.

[2] [19]

[1]

[2]