Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 30

This is an archive of past discussions about Sarah Palin. 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 28

→

Fair and Balanced, Brit view

For a better "global" view, try http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/sarahpalin/2823573/Sarah-Palin-interview-pundits-give-mixed-reviews.html

The self-styled "hockey mom", who portrayed herself as a "pitbull in lipstick" during her party's national convention, took a tough line on national security and foreign policy in her discussion with Charles Gibson of ABC World News.

She "presented a confident face in what was considered an important early test of her knowledge of foreign affairs," according to The Boston Globe.

You might wish to note that this cite presents bothe sides of opinion. Is there a problem here? Or are POV-pushers going to push yet again? Collect (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Cease mentions of "POV pushers" - that is hostile and does not promote a friendly working atmoshpere. If you feel specific edits tend to appear biased, it is easy to say so without making personal attacks at no one in particlar, or at specific editors with whom you disagree. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I recall having made zero claims against editors, or threats against my peers. It is "disingenuous" to suppose that one person who said that some editors are "paid by the Republican Party" does not have a POV. Pne should also note, moreover, my constant attempts to get compromises worked out, rather than making wholesale edits. Indeed, I trust you will find my input on the talk page is substantial, and my input on edits, small. I thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's hope she doesn't do well in the debate. We'll then have to run the NY Times lead, "Palin disingenously misleads American public and press for a month". :) Fcreid (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's try another "global" cite: http://poligazette.com/2008/09/12/gibsons-palin-interview-too-demeaning/

Some of those who belong in the second category do criticize Gibson, however. They note that ABC clearly edited the interview, to make Gibson look more authoritative and stronger than he actually was. His stern demeanor, then, was not something visible during the interview itself; it became visible after ABC edited the footage.

Quod erat demonstrandum for those who think only their side merits inclusion. Collect (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Collect, I am really disappointed that you view this as being about whose side someone is on. We should all want to write a great WIkipedia article. This means complying with our policies. This means providing an account of all notable views from reliable sources. What difference does it matter what side anyone is on? Is the view notable? Is the source reliable? That's what counts - then it is just a matter of grammar and style! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I am more disappointed that my record of seeking compromise goes unrewarded here. My "side" is the WP official side -- that of NPOV. WP is not a repositiory of every piece of information on a person in a BLP, nor ought it be. I would moreover state that I find the Telegraph to be a "reliable" source. Do you demur? And please try to avoid personally attacking me or the others who have worked on this. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes, the Telegraph is a reasonably reliable source, as are nearly all of those listed above. Your sources all deal with the Gibson interview. I think it is reasonable to say that the first (Gibson) interview met with "mixed reviews" (as the title of the Telegraph piece notes), while Palin's performance in the subsequent interview with Couric was greeted with more universal alarm, concern, and (from some quarters) ridicule. These sources are not mutually exclusive, so it would be most productive to find ways to bring them together into a coherent summary rather than assigning each to a given "side". MastCell ^Talk 20:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Mashing stuff is SYNTH, if I recall correctly. Guidelines suggest that where one source covers the whole content of a sentence, that it is a proper source to use. If one needs two or three sources in a sentence, that goes to WP:SYNTH. Here we have one source which presnets criticism and praise all in one package. I also furnished this as someone kindly asked what my ref was for the "edited" comment in my two sentence draft prior. I trust this also fill that requirement, n'est-ce pas? Collect (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that is an incorrect interpretation of WP:SYN, which states: "Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page." That's what I'm proposing. MastCell ^Talk 20:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) With all due respect, "mashing stuff together" is not SYNTH. We combine sources all the time, that is part of the job description in writing an encyclopedia, SYNTH is only using distinct primary sources to create a novel argument, and KC is clearly not doing that. Also, about the Telegraph, I already expressed my views on using the Telegraph in my 19:25, 30 Sept reply to you. And everyone's side here is "the WP official side," surely if this is what you meant by "side" you would know that you, me and KC are all on the same side, right? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, Collect, the way you expressed itself suggests you may be thinking about this backwards - you write as if we have a sentence in an article and then go out looking for sources to back it up, and if we find one source for a sentence that is the best source. But the proper way to write an encyclopedia article is the reverse: we read various sources and then write sentences and groups of sentences that provide an account of all the notable views. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Collect..just yesterday you said my claim of paid operatives at work here was, let me think, o yea....reprehensible and that I was not editing in good faith. My claim was, as it turns out, verified by this [[1]]. My POV is that Kelly and ferrylodge were editing the Sarah Palin article in mid-July---5 weeks before she was a twinkle in the eye of Americans. Ok....maybe they are not paid. But someone would have to have blinders on to not realize that this article needs to be controlled by the Republicans. And, the Democrats need to do their best to counter. It only makes sense in this CyberAge. Perhaps you don't agree. But you needn't condemn me and call me heinous. War is reprehensible and heinous. I edit in good faith!!--Buster7 (talk) 03:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are stating that Kelly and Ferry lodge were being paid, report it to WP proper. Such libels do not belong on a TALK page, for G-d's sake! Palin, by the way, has been in the news for 2 years now -- that you think she was "conceived" just now indicates a portential POV proble. She was even mention in the New York Times, and other media long before July. Editing and making charges are two different matters. If you have evidence against Kelly and Ferry lodge, be mensch enough to charge them openly. Casting aspersions in Talk pages seems a tad craven. Collect (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, Both of you - cease the accusations, direct or veiled, about other editors. This page is for discussing the Sarah Palin article. (btw, I have worked with Ferrylodge here for some time, and I would be highly surprised to find he was paid by anyone but his employer. I have objections to many things about Ferrylodge, but that is not something I have ever seen any reason to suspect him of.) Thank you - KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Um -- read my posts. I accused no one of editing in bad faith. I did state that accusing editors of being paid by the Republican Party did not belong here. I somehow think that DEFENDING AGF should not be a problem. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 00:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Rearrange Last Paragraph

Palin has stated that she would not allow her personal religious beliefs to dictate her political positions.[214] She stated, "I would never presume to know what God’s will is...that's a repeat in my comments [of Abraham Lincoln's words], '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.'"[84][215] However, she has come under scrutiny in the press for comments made at a commencement address to a graduating class of ministry students at the Wasilla Assembly of God church in June 2008. In that address, Palin stated, "Pray... for this country, that our leaders... are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."[215] Critics have argued that she was justifying the Iraq war as part of God's plan.[216] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.66.137 (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

My only comment for the day (::waits for applause::) ... while I personally think Palin's claim is contradicted by her views on creationism being fair game in school, and overturning Roe v Wade, among other things this quote introduced above only confirms her analysis of her own comments. Notice: "Pray THAT there is a plan and THAT that plan is God's plan." Clear use of the subjunctive indicating that it is a hypothetical statement of volition (wish, intent).

In essence: "Pray that we are doing the right thing". Although heavily tinged with religious dogma, it explicitly does NOT presume that God justifies the Iraq war. It also does not directly imply any particular political action although it could be said that it seems to suggest it. On the flip side, this draws a fine line that is quite likely to inflame the radical Muslim world which needs little confirmation that they are engaged in a holy war and will probably not pay attention to the minute details of what was said (in a foreign language). But, to tie in to Palin's own analysis, that quote is the exact quote which she was referring to (more or less correctly) as a paraphrase of Lincoln.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 05:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I would commend you to go to church or synagogue (or mosque). Prayers for the nation are routinely found in virtually every formal denomination. "Pray for peace" was, in fact, the primary postmark in the US for many years. "...-" was the primary postmark in the British Empire during WW II, and QE II is head of the C of E. Prayers in churches internationally contain prayers for the leaders of nations and nations. Ought we include all of these? I would trust not. http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=7903

God bless you and God bless America.

Collect (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

2/3 of the personal life section is about her religion and its effects on her politics. I would remove most of that into a sub article but who am I to do that :). Cheers, --Tom 14:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I trimed it, but it could use more since there is still material about her religion and her political beliefs. --Tom 15:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

VP debate moderator wrote pro-Obama book which is being released on January 20, 2009

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

closed because identical post / edit / discussion taking place at Talk:United States presidential election debates, 2008 - Wikidemon (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Ifill, the scheduled moderator of the October 2, 2008 vice presidential debate, wrote a pro-Obama book called "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," which is being released on January 20, 2009. ^[1] ^[2] ^[3]--- unsigned by user:Grundle2600 15:24, 1 October 2008

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.

Haxxored

Her secret Yahoo account was hacked by Anon. Should be put in. Titan50 (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It is in the VP section. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Should be expanded, feel free. Hobartimus (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually it shouldn't. It's already covered in the weight it is due. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

'Political positions' section - request comments

The first paragraph of the section has been expanded and now reads like a campaign commercial that is comprised of her quotes from the Time magazine interview. I feel the paragraph needs to be edited to reflect the style of rest of the section/article.

The sentence on Iraq has been removed from the section. It used to say something like: Palin generally supports the Bush Administration’s policies on the war in Iraq. The Political positions of Sarah Palin article contains the following sentence: “Palin supports the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq, but is concerned that "dependence on foreign energy" may be obstructing efforts to "have an exit plan in place".

Two of Palin’s positions that were discussed during the Gibson interview are not mentioned in the section. Her opposition to a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons and her opposition to embryonic stem cell research. These can be included with a brief addition to the existing text.

IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

SemiProtection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agree with Zaereth and Cube lurker. There have been a huge number of non-consensus changes over the past weeks, and making it "open season" for POV editors is insane. Collect (talk) 02:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm about to give up. My preconceived notion with WP was that articles of topical or political content fail miserably under the community model, but I thought to be fair I actually had to participate before damning it. It looks like I was right. Worse, I'm starting to think that some here may actually be getting *paid* to taint this article. I guess political "reform" is a relative thing. Fcreid (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I love how the presence of editors with a differing point of view and an equal level of persistence somehow becomes evidence of a vast conspiracy in these discussions. Contributors cannot be expected to assume good faith in their fellow editors when they are accused of being paid shills simply for having the audacity to disagree. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 16:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

..I agree, Fcreid. And the editors that are being paid by the Republican Party should proudly state that their sole purpose for being here is to protect the Sarah Palin article from those "braying donkeys (Democrats) at the gate". Back in late August and early September, under the guise of repeated vandalism, a protective shield was implemented to prevent any non-favorable content. Editors with too much power prevented a natural editing process from taking place. Nothing has changed. If there is any "tainting" taking place it is predominately from the pro-Palin forces that evade fact and promote censorship. If anything, the editors that you berate have brought balance and stability to what would have been an advertising campaign.--Buster7 (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Accusations that editors are being paid "being paid by the Republican Party" are reprehensible. That sort of charge is about the most heinous you can make. It does appear, moreover, that your position is highly POV against Palin, which reduces the need to grant you "good faith." Sorry that my opinion of you has hereby fallen. Collect (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Fcreid threw down the gaunlet of *paid* editors. Obviously, he meant Obama supporters since his POV has become well-known. I merely pointed out that his sword cut both ways. Those of us that have been at this since early September pretty much know where the gaggle of editors "line up". I am not anti-Palin. I am anti-hiding Palin. I am anti-pretending this article is something other than what it is. Rather than reprehensible, it's common sense that both political parties are extremely concerned and protective of what is written here and in the article. I can assure you that members of the "Campaign's to Elect" all four candidates have been envolved in the editing process from the very start. It would be reprehensible if they were NOT!!!--Buster7 (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Fcreid did not make a specific accusation. You did. And your POV does not need any exposure. And your accusation was that current editors ARE being paid. Absent any sign of understanding, I think thiis conversation is pretty much over. Collect (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My comment about paid attacks was out-of-bounds, and I regretted making it almost immediately. I do assume good faith. As Collect correctly surmised, it was not intended at a specific person, but rather at the non-stop flow of personalities here who had obviously spent oodles of valuable time researching sources to create (mainly negative) content in this article (and, in many cases, before such stirring existed in the mainstream). When I see smart people wasting that much time on here, I get concerned. The economy's not that bad yet! Now, someone will surely note I spend a lot of time on here. Maybe I'm just not a smart person! You'll also note that I rarely (never) come up with an original reference. I'm also a pretty fast typist. :) Fcreid (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but with that in mind do you have any thoughts about the subject of the NYT article about this article, found at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/technology/01link.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin ? It details the way this article, in the 24 hours BEFORE Palin's candidacy was announced, was plastered with bubbly, glowing commentary of Palin sourced from her published-just-in-time-for-the-election biography? This editor has since admitted working for the Palin campaign and has a massive list of rationale on his talk page as to why it was ok to do this. This includes blatantly false claims like "Every single one of my edits complied with Wikipedia policies regarding reliability, verifiability, and neutral point of view." Does this concern you?

Looking through the edit history, I can also see that Ferrylodge had a burst of activity nearly coincident with YoungTrigg's, that day/night before the announcement. This included polishing the blatant POV pushing / borderline crystal-balling original research YoungTrigg was posting. It suggests the possibility that Ferry, despite having an established Wiki account and a history of working on that article, may also have been a campaign operative preparing for the big announcement. That certainly concerns me.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyone who has contributed to this talk page "may also have been a campaign operative". If you have particular edits of mine that you think violate Wikipedia guidelines, then please provide diffs. Otherwise, please stop making frivolous accusations. I was not and am not anyone's operative, and I have not been and am not now in communication with any presidential campaign. Regarding Palin, the closest I came to contacting her campaign was to email her office to request permission to use her official photo (never heard back). Regarding McCain, the closest I came to contacting his campaign was attending a fundraiser about four months ago in Connecticut, during which I made a contribution and watched him speak. That's it, and I've been up-front about this for months. I'm interested in politics, I had no idea Palin would be selected any more than I thought Jindal would be selected, and I edited his article before the selection too.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You and I wouldn't even be having this discussion if this weren't a campaign article. Palin was foisted upon the world as a little known public figure, and the world (and WP) scrambled to find facts. However, she was not unknown to Alaskans, so let's assume they aren't morons and have researched her qualifications and history for her role as governor. She was also not unknown to those who follow politics closely, and I understand some blogger may have played a role in spreading her notoriety for months. Finally, let's assume there are some genuinely good things to say about Palin (biographical in nature--personal, professional, etc.) If there weren't, she wouldn't be governor of Alaska and now being considered for VP. In my estimation, both the good and the bad were ferreted out very quickly by interested parties with opposing objectives in this article.

That said, here we are a month later, and we're *still* seeing people arrive with outlandish claims that she called dinosaurs "Jesus ponies", sought counsel from witch doctors and who knows what else! That should be a clue that we probably already know what's important to know about Palin, and that we should be particularly circumspect of new topics (positive or negative) being introduced that are not based on current events. We should particularly scrunitize interpretive "reliable sources", i.e. any source that takes a well-known fact, such as her religious beliefs, and derives convoluted conclusions. Finally, I'm sure you already understand human nature, but it's always much easier to praise than to criticize. Those who generally sit on the sidelines, myself included, only trigger on the bizarre claims that are clearly inappropriate or interpretive. After all is said and done, she is a fellow person and deserves that. Fcreid (talk) 10:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I note the specific claim or implication by Factchecker that Ferrylodge was either paid or a sockpuppet, and that he is connected to YoungTrigg. I fail to see how that is in any way shape manner or form proper usage of this Talk page. It also violated WPLAGF, and a host of other policies. Such concerns, if FactChecker believes them, should be aired as an adminstrative complaint, and not only do not belong here, they poison this page. Collect (talk) 11:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is certainly a stretch. By Ferrylodge's own admission to the world, he is a "right-minded Republican" (hope I got that right), so it's no surprise that he has an interest in this page. He also obviously follows politics closely and is not a "Sunday Partisan" like others, so it's no surprise he knew of Palin well in advance of her nomination. However, to imply he was "appointed" for a role of stewardship here is ludicrous, particularly given that he actually moderated many of the early undue claims painting Palin as a saint (even when there was a bigger groundswell to support it). From what I've seen, his edits have the net effect of bringing the pendulum back towards NPOV. Fcreid (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Calling other editors reprehensible, their edits heinous and implying they do not edit in good faith poisons this page. Ferrylodge was "spring-cleaning" the Sarah Palin article 5 (FIVE) weeks before she was asked to join the ticket. A truly remarkable co-incidence!!! To pretend that operatives don't exist and to take editors to task for stating the obvious is improper behavior.--Buster7 (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it wasn't your intent, Buster, but these selective facts lead one to an incorrect conclusion. Ferrylodge has been a constant participant on pages of notable Republicans (Reagan, McCain and others), and he has continuously participated in articles on the full range of potential VP candidates. He has edit histories on Romney, Jindal, Hutchinson and even Palin that date back further than five weeks. More importantly, he is an expert in the biographical background of these individuals, which is exactly the kind of individual we should be encouraging to contribute. Finally, and I contend his edit histories on the articles themselves support this, his edits have been very effective in "righting" the language to avoid or undo wildly POV attacks and bring them more to NPOV. Fcreid (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if anyone actually is getting paid to waste time on here, drop me an email offline. (Doesn't matter which side... capitalism trumps all!) Fcreid (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Buster, kindly do not ascribe words to me which were first used by you, and have never been used by ne to describe ANY edits. I did state that libelling other editors does poison the Talk page, perverts the proper use of the Talk page and is errant and wrong. I would also state and aver that libeling editors is not proper behavior. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect,I believe you made the following comment, about me.....

Accusations that editors are being paid "being paid by the Republican Party" are reprehensible. That sort of charge is about the most heinous you can make. It does appear, moreover, that your position is highly POV against Palin, which reduces the need to grant you "good faith." Sorry that my opinion of you has hereby fallen. Collect (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

And now I am "craven". Is that not 'poisoning the page"???

Also, I have absolutely no problem with Ferrylodge (operative or not). (And, if you would read what I said it is in no way liable or even derogatory). He is fair minded and makes every attempt to be civil. My mention of his early appearance was only to clarity my belief that BOTH political parties are here safeguarding their respective positions. I agree with Fcreid regarding Ferrylodge and appreciate Fcr's attempt to be a peacemaker. As far as I am concerned, this matter is over. I will say no more about it!--Buster7 (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned the issue of good faith only the highlight that editors who appear sympathetic to Palin have repeatedly questioned the good faith of editors who appear unsympathetic to Palin. This is merely to remind everyone of the context in which these claims are being made. Speck in neighbor's eye, boulder in own, and all that.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you most kindly. Read your own posts. Collect (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I note that you still consider Ferrylodge an "operative." Such charrges have no place on Talk pages. I made no claims that people were paid here. I think you ought to understand that accusing people of being paid is improper. Thank you most kindly! Collect (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

All, it was I who introduced that snide comment about being paid, and I deeply regret it. It's not nearly as funny as I thought while I was typing it. Beat me up if you must. :-[ Fcreid (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

TY User:Freid...for your "ooopps". You penance is to compile a composite directory for the archives to these talk pages. See you in 2009. (LOL)--Buster7 (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Good thing storage is cheap nowadays! :) Fcreid (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we're back to a topic that everyone agrees upon... The Bridges to Nowheres in Particular. :) Fcreid (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Content of Palin's Convention Speech

The only thing you need to say about her speach is that she did NOT write it! It was written by the McCain camp before he even got around her (his third pick for the job)--203.192.91.4 (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

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

In her convention speech, Palin quoted Westbrook Pegler:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

: : At the single biggest moment in her life, Palin invoked this quote from a person known to have publicly espoused rascist ideology. Certainly she knew the prominence of the political moment would invite analysis into the views of those she elected to quote. This reveals Palin both identifies with Pelger's ideology and wants America to know this. Adnd so America should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.42.233 (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No, this is not ad hominem at all - nor is it anything like 6 degrees - she is using a quote from a reprehensible source. If Obama had quoted Karl Marx without attribution, would you say it was irrelevant? Somehow I doubt that. Her speechwriters knew who they were quoting even if she did not - and quoting someone like Westbrook Pegler can be seen to be code, and should be exposed. Maybe she'll want to disavow herself of her own speech. Tvoz/talk 22:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly ad hominem — you can't find anything wrong with the quote, so you claim she shouldn't have used it because of who first wrote it. It's a good quote, it speaks a great truth, and if the author later went nuts, well, lots of authors went nuts late in life. That doesn't retroactively turn everything they wrote into falsehood. And to read some sort of "code" into it is insane. -- Zsero (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm hardly alone in that insanity - in addition to Martin Peretz and RFK, Jr., Frank Rich sees it, as does Thomas Frank in The Wall Street Journal. And who is it ad hominem against - Pegler? Tvoz/talk 23:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

An argumentum ad hominem is by definition one made not against a person but against something he's associated with; the argument consists of the fact that he's associated with it, and he's a bad person, QED. This attack on Palin's quote is a textbook example of this fallacy. -- Zsero (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

[ec] And here's a better citation from Martin Peretz - from The New Republic editor's online blog, which would be acceptable as a reliable source. And Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s reaction to her use of a Pegler quote is foundhere. Something about this should be included in this biography - this was indeed her biggest life moment, and this was her speech. Tvoz/talk 22:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any facts in Peretz's piece, to support the idea that there was some sort of code here. All he adds is that his mother hated Pegler; I don't see why that's relevant. The fact remains that it's a good quote, and the only reason to object to using it is the later writings of its author. It would have been different had she referred to the author approvingly: "as that great American writer Westbrook Pegler wrote..."; but she didn't. So there's no there there, except an exercise in witch-hunting to do Muthee proud :-) -- Zsero (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, does anyone know when Pegler wrote that line? Was it while he was still a respectable writer, or in his radioactive stage? -- Zsero (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

More silliness. Does anyone have any evidence that Palin was even knowingly or unknowingly quoting him? Fcreid (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

First, some editors try to get material into this article to imply that Palin is a lightweight Bobblehead (tm) who doesn't have the intellectual heft to be VP (e.g. she doesn't know what the "Bush Doctrine" is!). Now we are supposed to believe that Palin is familiar with Westbrook Pegler, a newspaper columnist who's career started 31 years before she was born and which ended several years before she was born. Today, even those of us with gray hair need to do some research to find out anything about Pegler. The facts of the matter are 1) there is no evidence Palin put the quote into the speech, 2) there is no evidence Palin knows anything about Pegler, 3) there is no evidence that the speechwriter knows anything about Pegler, and this entire matter is an ad homiem attack by proxy three or four people and 50 years removed. The original quote was praising President Truman, and was also used in that context in the speech. Does anything about Pegler and his enemies change the clear meaning of the quote and the context in which it was used? I don't think so.--Paul (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

She's not responsible for the content of her speeches? That's an odd defense. So if someone says there's a specter haunting Europe, and that specter is Communism, no blowback will follow from the right because of the source of that statement? Tvoz/talk 21:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Its bad for Palin even if she did NOT know the source of her quotation... Its HER speech; at the single biggest moment of her life. She is accountable, whether or not she was aware. Surely accountability is still important in our prospective politicians.?! Right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.202.139.195 (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

- I also strongly agree that Palin's quotation of Pelger in that seminal speech is highly relevant because her invocation/usage (whether or not intentional; let the reader decide) implies that she has a veiled association with Pelger's views, or is a coded message intended to elicit the support of those Americans who do. Given the circumstances of the speech, this reasonable inference is highly relevant to who Palin is, who she purports to be, and what kind of political leader she would be for America. It would take a very powerful argument to deflate this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.202.139.195 (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but your comments have deflated any potential for powerful argument. However, in fairness, I'm going to examine all of her speeches using simple character substitutions to see whether we can find any further coded messages being broadcast to the minions in her global following. Fcreid (talk) 10:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your parsing of "comments" from the argument I make through them, which you acknowledge is legitimate (which I very much appreciate). I also appreciate your expressed intention to examine other Palin speechs, although I deem them irrelevant to this analysis given that no speech Palin has ever made approached the weight and significance of her convention speech, through which Palin introduced herself to American voters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.202.139.195 (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems a bit silly. Any semi-sophisticated adult realizes that "small-town values" is a code phrase. That's politics, but Wikpedia isn't really the right forum to press that point. Of course it's legit to question the sources of the quotes used in Palin's speech. I mean, if I'm going to praise the benefits of a vegetarian diet or the harms of cigarette smoking, I don't quote Adolf Hitler, even if he was enthusiastic on both topics. It wouldn't be ad hominem to say: "Hey, wait a minute... did you just quote Adolf Hitler?" More to the point, this issue may have some relevance for a subarticle, perhaps about the campaign, but the level of coverage doesn't seem to warrant inclusion in this parent biographical article (my 2 cents). MastCell ^Talk 18:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? "Small town values" is a code-phrase for racism? That's something I hadn't heard! Fcreid (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Opinions probably differ on what, exactly, "small town values" signifies, but as used in current political discourse it's obviously a code phrase meant to evoke the culture war in a broad sense. That's all I was getting at; I don't have any reason to believe that the inhabitants of "small towns" are any more or less racist than those of big cities. MastCell ^Talk 20:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I thought you were lending credence to this nonsense about the quote being a "code" to bring out the fascists, like the latest al-Qaeda video or something! :) Fcreid (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No, they use terrorist fist jabs for that. :) MastCell ^Talk 19:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll watch tonight to see if I can decode any signals and then report back! :) Fcreid (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Putin rears his head

Why was the reference to Putin rearing his head removed. I think it is becoming one of the most important quotes from the campaign. Mpondopondo (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes her extensive foreign experience she explains should be talked about

"That alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country Russia and on our other side the land boundary that we have with ah Canada itit its funny that a comment like that was s kinda made to er ummm caret er um I dont know you know"

"It certainly does because ourw our next door neighbours are foreign countries. There in the state that that I am the executive of (Have you ever been involved in any negotiations for example with the Russians? ) we have trade missionss back and force we we do. Its very important when when you consider even nation security issues with Russia as Puttin rears his head and and ah comes into a the air space of the United States of America. Were where do they go? Its its Alaska is just right over the boarder. It is a from Alaska that we sent those out to make sure an eyes being kept on this very powerful nation Russia because they are right there they are right next to ah um our state" --203.192.91.4 (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Keep. Include. Illustrative of her reasoning, and in her own words. Tautologist (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Should we also keep the "ums" and "ers" in there? Fcreid (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Clearly that is his poition. Shall we quote Obama's "ums"? I should hope this is dispositive of this side excursion! Collect (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Despite the fact that the 'ums' and 'ohs' are humorous, they're probably not noteworthy. Removing them, and fixing the grammar with the appropriate tags is likely the way to go.Trocisp (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah and the Dinosaurs--Jesus Ponies and Dinogate (aka Dinosaurs and Evolution vs. Creationism and Intelligent Design)

I just added this to her Wikipedia entry.

Palin has also said that she believes that humans and dinosaurs coexisted on Earth 6000 years ago, that dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time, and that she has seen pictures of dinosaur tracks showing human footprints within the tracks.

Reference -- Stephen Braun, 09-28-2008, http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-palinreligion28-2008sep28,0,3643718.story Palin Treads Carefully Between Fundamentalist Beliefs and Public Policy, Los Angeles Times.

The electorate should be aware of this information because it has implications for voters' perceptions of her IQ, her education, and her philosophy.WhipperSnapper (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. It is not a political position. Also, the way it was presented did not accurately reflect the source. According to the source, one person says that Palin said this. --Elliskev 14:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose that it isn't a political position though it does modify and elaborate on her belief in creationism and her position that perhaps creationism should be taught in the public schools. I do hope that the Dinogate story (as I'm calling it) makes national headlines and gets featured on television; the American electorate deserves to know who exactly they are voting for or against. Hopefully journalists will dig deeper and further investigate this juicy story.WhipperSnapper (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Even though this is the L.A. Times, it is not a reliable source. Philip Munger, the single source quoted in the article, runs an anti-Palin website Progressive Alaska. This is just another partisan attack.--Paul (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It may be an attack, but do you have any reason to believe that she does not believe that? Don't you think it's consistent with her beliefs?WhipperSnapper (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Most people dop not have ESP sufficient to insert this issue into a BLP. Collect (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe Kelly at one time heard a speech where she referred to dinosaurs as "Jesus ponies". I forget the source, though. See if you can dig that up, Whippersnapper. Fcreid (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a repository of speculation, WhipperSnapper. It does not matter at all if it is consistent with her beliefs (and it undoubtedly is). Really, Wikipedia should not include ANY fact that is not established beyond a reasonable doubt, let alone a fact one guy mentioned in one article on a topic that is saturated with bias in both directions. Or should I go edit Obama's page with the various attacks published by the less scrupulous neocons?

And for the record, your arguments about people judging her IQ and the like based on such weak evidence are invalid. If she is unfamiliar with evolution aside from the constant misunderstandings of it that get so much more attention from the public, then it is much more accurate to say she is simply ignorant (and as for that charge, isn't her clearly well-substantiated college record much more condemning of her education anyway?). The influence of intelligence is far more subtle than you seem to realize. -- Drlight11 (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The article I referenced was published in the Los Angeles Times. Is one of the nation's largest newspapers not a reliable or appropriate source? As another poster mentioned, might questioning the reliability of an article published in a major newspaper constitute dreaded original research? As far as IQ goes, people will indeed judge other people's IQ's based on their philosophical beliefs and how seriously they take them. I find her beliefs on this issue to be insightful in this regard. -- WhipperSnapper (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the nation's largest newspapers would NOT be a reliable source for any other encyclopedia, no. Again, judging strictly on your posts, you don't seem to recognize when a fact would be well-established. And if it's an innovative suggestion to you that an editor, who might have gotten his article published simply on reputation, MAY be biased...I have nothing to say. Just know that it is NOT "original research" - such a label applies only to insight not possessed by the community at large. -- DrLight11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.30.65 (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I am under the impression that editors are not entitled to pick and choose their "favored" contributors from a reliable publication. Simply being controversial or non-sympathetic to the subject does not automatically disqualify inclusion of material produced by a writer for a reliable source. If I am wrong on this, please cite the relevant guidelines which mandate this material be excluded. As for its placement in a "political positions" category, this objection would be easily avoided by placing it in a "Religious views" or "Positions on science" section. If this BLP is going to contain anything other than dry biographical information, then such categories are completely fit for inclusion here.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This BLP should contain nothing but "dry biographical information". --Elliskev 16:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the arguments supporting that course of action, but I do not personally have the time to excise everything but dry biographical information. If anyone takes this upon themselves, they should be diligent to avoid removing only material that is critical or only removing material that is sympathetic, otherwise it will just be blatant POV pushing.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We certainly have to comply with BLP, no compromising that. But there are two issues here: first, do we have a reliable source, and second, is it notable. I believe it is notable because she made the alleged statement in her capacity as an elected official, it is she who would have chosen to make this a public issue. Is the source reliable? I dunno and agree we should wait and see. In a few days it will either be confirmed or disappear into the blogosphere. Let's wait and see if there are reliable sources for this. But if it turns out that there are, it certainly is relevant. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear to me that LA Times = reliable source and therefore end of story. My understanding is that second-guessing a reliable source constitutes original research and is therefore inappropriate.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As Paul mentions down below, the entire evidence for this claim, posted in LA Times or not, is a single source, which as he points out is immediately suspect. LA Times reliability (which is already suspect) is no longer the core question - you need to look at the contributor. Don't forget, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia - do you really think Britannica would print this with such dubious support? I agree with Paul that you guys seem oddly determined to ignore fairly obvious considerations... -- Drlight11 (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if others agree I am not objecting, just saying we can wait a couple of days to see if anyone else picks this up. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Include it If not, when the slow motion encyclopedias come out, Wiki will be the only ecyc w/o it. Certainly something an encyclopedia user investigating the teaching of evolution in the US would want to know about a major politician. It was the core issue from the evolution debate (before it was resolved well over a century ago). Tautologist (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again before the chorus of reinforcing voices takes over here, there is a single source for this claim: Philip Munger. He made the claim on September 3, 2008 on his anti-Palin activist leftist blog. Any first year journalism student knows that something is that has no corroborating sources, and which is based on a charge by a biased source is no good. All this shows is that the L.A. times is biased and, in this case, is not a reliable source. Unless there is some corroboration published in some additional sources that are reliable, this is BLP radioactive. Forget it. People that are pushing this after the problems with the source were pointed out are making it hard to assume good faith.--Paul (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that this claim of yours constitutes original research. See WP:Verifiability, specifically the primary criterion: "readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true". If we had a reliable source calling Munger a biased liar who was willing to say anything to slander Palin, that could also be included in the article as a counterpoint. But the LA Times is not a questionable source, even if Munger is (which remains to be seen). Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The WP:BLP guidlines override the lax requirements of WP:Verifiability especially the part about "not being true"--Paul (talk) 04:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Unless there is a quote directly from Palin about the "young earth" theory, this doesn't really belong in the article. Right now what we have is a second hand claim from a biased party, and that doesn't mesh well with the BLP guidelines. A ni Mate 04:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing about "not being true"... only about where you believe it's true. This article is full of things that I think are blatant falsehoods yet they must stand because somebody important is on record saying so, some paper has quoted somebody saying some bs, or else somebody has done their best to avoid answering a question, instead giving a non-answer.

Anyway, the BLP guidelines also specifically require this sort of material: "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone."

No matter how much of a liar you think that guy is, he's a critic, this is on reputable record by a publication with a factchecking department and the ability to be sued for libel, and that is the whole basis for Wikipedia's reliance on mainstream news publications. The only appropriate thing to do here is to include this with the reference and attribute it specifically to this guy with explicit mention that he is a liberal critic of Palin. (He's also a Wasilla resident, in case that means anything to you.) That's a neutral, encyclopedic tone. This is what allows readers to form their own conclusions and that is what Wikipedia is supposed to do.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 04:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

We would then have to include multiple conflicting accounts (and there are many impromptu testimonials from both adversaries and friends) that state Palin does not "wear her religion on her sleeve" (to quote one I recall). Let's not degrade WP into providing a voice for everyone with either an axe to grind or a pin to polish... the blogs do plenty of that already. Fcreid (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Has Palin herself said anything and has this been broadly reported? A ni Mate 05:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The only thing we could possibly report from this source is that some guy from Wasilla says he heard Palin make these claims. At some point, we have to ask whether the claim of any random resident of Wasilla that is mentioned in a single story (of thousands written about Palin) carries enough due weight to be included here. Even if it weren't a BLP violation, the idea that this story carries due weight is laughable. Oren0 (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Did Palin also say something to the effect, at some point, that she thought that the dinosaurs were Jesus Ponies? I know that it's possible to find t-shirts on Cafepress where she is being mocked to that effect. -- WhipperSnapper (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for sending you on a wild goose chase, Whippersnapper. Anyone who has been around this talk page for more than a few days knows I'm occasionally a wise-ass. Frankly, I was going to leave your comment as the final exclamation point to this entire topic, as I felt it illustrated your motivation and the sincerity of your academic pursuit for the truth. That said, the factoid you really want is already in the article--in Palin's own words. In there, she describes herself as a "Bible-believing Christian". Apparently, in your estimation, that simple fact means she (and the other 75% of Americans who believe similarly) is utterly unqualified to serve in public office. Fcreid (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No apology needed; I enjoy the thrill of a quick Google hunt for incriminating information and enjoyed a chuckle at the sight of the Jesus ponies t-shirts. And, yes, as an intransigent atheist I believe that people who take religion very seriously and without a good deal of skepticism are unqualified to serve as president. From my perspective, someone's saying that Palin believes that humans and dinosaurs co-existed is tantamount to someone saying, "look at the retarded child, she really believes that the Moon is made of green cheese, isn't that cute?" I'm not a particularly big fan of Obama and I disagree with him on many issues that are important to me (foreign outsourcing, immigration, foreign work visas), but at least he possesses advanced reasoning capability. -- WhipperSnapper (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

We agree in principle on more counts than you know, but let's hope we don't usher in an age where laws don't require any book of religious belief to carry a disclaimer that it is fictional or, worse yet, be banned. We fought too hard to have those rights. Also, don't be so quick to judge that this person, in particular, lacks the skills for advanced reasoning. Fcreid (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I think that if cafepress has made a T-shirt, we should include it as a notable and encyclopedic fact. OK, that was sarcasm. Look: assertions on a blog run by a political opponent are not particularly good encyclopedic material, for obvious reasons. The L.A. Times used them as an attention-grabbing lead-in, but the focus of their article is actually much more nuanced. We are not going to say in this encyclopedia that someone believes dinosaurs and humans coexisted based solely on the self-published words of a political opponent, even if those words have been mentioned in a reputable newspaper. This seems like it should be self-evident, but apparently it's not. MastCell ^Talk 16:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course it shouldn't be included on that basis alone, but I sure would like to know the exact source of the reference. -- WhipperSnapper (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the exact source on Palin and dinosaurs. Certainly not a reliable source, and even a reliable source, like the LA Times, quoting the blog doesn't pass the threshold for WP:BLP. If Palin explicitly discusses her faith or clear evidence of her beliefs is presented, perhaps these kinds of details can be included. A ni Mate 22:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. After reading that entry, you almost get the sense that she might also believe in the Rapture. -- WhipperSnapper (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I can not believe this is still around. It is joyfully irrelevant, and has no part of being in a BLP. By the way, Joe Lieberman "believes" the world is about 5,770 years old. "La shanah tova tikatevu" to those holding that faith. Care to try adding that to his BLP? I thought not. Collect (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The dinosaur issue isn't what's worthy of inclusion in a politicians BLP, it's the position on intelligent design. Remove the quote about man and dinos walking the earth together if you must but Palin's recommendation that intelligent design be taught in schools helps define her political position and is relevant here.--Rtphokie (talk) 22:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

When you add the dinosaur thing, which you know violates BLP and other policies, in the same edits as your ID additions, you can't expect people to only revert you selectively. If you want to add neutral and well sourced information regarding her stance on Intelligent Design in schools, feel free. But you're going to get reverted if you add the dinosaur BS without getting consensus. Oren0 (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't appreciate any implication of deliberate attempts to disrupt this article. This is not a violation of BLP. It is well sourced addition to this article which has been widely covered. If the quote proves to be invalid or the newspaper's source unreliable, then information can be removed from the article. Neutral point of view means doesn't mean avoiding the controversial and doesn't just apply to what's included in the article, it applies to what is excluded as well. NPV says all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. The coverage of this is significant and the subject matter is also significant given the position Palin current holds and is seeking. We aren't talking about some actor's views on religion and education, we are talking about a major political figure who's personal views may impact public policy. Also, BLP guides us to choose reliable sources, which the LA Times is. WP:V and WP:RS guide us on what is considered a reliable, verifiable sources. It is the wikipedia editor's responsiblity to present properly cited information in a nuetral form, it is the LA Time repsonsibility to vet their sources. Without some similarly reliable source challenging the validity of that article, excluding it from this article is original research.--Rtphokie (talk) 03:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"The coverage of this is significant" - Is it? Link more reliable sources reporting this story and the conversation changes drastically. Regardless of that, your edit makes a huge leap that the LA Times article doesn't: supposing that the "dinosaur" thing is something Palin believes. All the LA Times says is that one individual (and known Palin critic, but that's beside the point) claims she said something about dinosaurs once. To jump from that report to saying that she "believes that 'dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time'" as a totally unqualified statement (not 'some guy says') is such an absurd leap that assuming that these edits are in good faith is difficult. And the fact that you'd make an edit like that and then accuse those who disagree with you of original research is the height of irony and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the policy. I suggest you read the Wikipedia policy on Original research. It applies only to the content found in articles, not editorial decisions. Editors must constantly use their discretion to decide what material to exclude, how to organize it, and so on. Editorial discretion is not forbidden by Wikipedia's prohibition on original research and in fact is a necessary part of writing any article. Oren0 (talk) 07:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I know of no evidence that Leiberman believe the world is 5770 years old, but that is a matter of discussion for the article on Leiberman, I do not see how it is relevant here. And how exactly does the dinosaur remark violate BLP and other policies? Please no threats to remove something on sight when it is under discussion here. How does it violate BLP? It certainly is relevant to an article on a person actively campaigning for the position of vice-president, and whose public career is a matter of record. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The answer to that is simple, and has been addressed here already. The secondhand dinosaur "quote" originated on the blog belonging to a political opponent of no particular notoriety. This demonstrates nothing about Palin's personal beliefs, since it cannot be verified that she actually said it. It is a violation of BLP to attribute a belief, statement, or action to a person which no reliable source can solidly link them to. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 00:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read up on Orthodox Judaism, and the dating of the Jewish Calendar (about to enter year 5770). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_evolution#Orthodox_scientists_respond_to_Darwin

"The vast majority of classical Rabbis hold that God created the world close to 6,000 years ago, and created Adam and Eve from clay. This view is based on a chronology developed in a midrash, Seder Olam, which was based on a literal reading of the book of Genesis. It is attributed to the Tanna Yose ben Halafta, and covers history from the creation of the universe to the construction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. Although it is known that a literal approach is not always needed when interpreting the Torah, there is a split over which parts are literal."

Further cites are available. And the most "liberal" Orthodox view is that Man was created 5770 years ago. Collect (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Collect, this is a perfect example of why we have an NOR policy. Your quote is about classical rabbis. It is not about Joe Leiberman. Joe Leiberman is not a classical rabbi, and a quote about what classical rabbis believed is not a quote about what Leiberman believes. Moreover, Orthodox rabbis are not classical rabbis. There are many Orthodox rabbis who believe all the things Classical Rabbis believed. But there are also many Orthodox Rabbis who accept modern science and, like the Catholic Church, accept that the universe is about 13 billion years old and accept the theory of evolution. Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist Jews - like many Orthodox Jews - all go to synagogue on Rosh HaShanah to celebrate the "birthday of the world" and yet believe that the universe was created 13 billion years ago. If you have evidence that Joe Leiberman believes otherwise, present it at the Leiberman article. But the issue here is, did Leiberman ever make this claim in a speech he gave as a US Senator? The issue here is what Sarah Palin said as mayor i.e. in her capacity as holder of an elected office. Now, there may be some debate over the reliability of the source, but the source is claiming that Palin said this in a public event and in her capacity as mayor. Your bringing up Leiberman is a red herring. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/29/lieberman.religion/index.html ""As a people, we need to reaffirm our faith and renew the dedication of our nation and ourselves to God and God's purposes," the Connecticut senator said. " Joe is a scholar of Torah, and a firm believer in Orthodox Judaism. I would suggest that the beliefs of "reform" Jewish rabbis do not apply to him. Collect (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again you bring up an irrelevant quote. We all know Leiberman is shomrei mitzvoth but one need not believe that the earth is 6000 years old or whatever to be shomrei mitzvoth. You have yout to provide any evidence at all that Leiberman does not believe the current estimates of astronomers as to the age of the universe, or the current theory of biologists as to how species evolve. Keep blowing smoke if you want, or find a quote that actully says what you say it says. It is disingenuous to cite a quote and claim it says one thing when it doesn't. Don't srew around with quotes. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the lecture. The primary issue is whether a belief in "Creation" is a valid issue wrt Palin, and whther Orthodox Jews hold that belief. Joe attended Congregation Agudath Shalom http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/12/07/a_moral_drive_for_the_presidency/ , which had a very famous rabbi, Joseph Ehenkranz. http://www.sacredheart.edu/pages/12231_rabbi_ehrenkranz_attends_united_nations_peace_summit.cfm

Let us for a moment contemplate what each of the Abrahamic faiths believes and holds sacred:

There is only one God.

God created the universe, and human beings are the crown of creation.

In simple terms: Creationism. Somply stated by Lieberman's rabbi (and stated to me as well). Care to claim that this is not a "creationist" statement? Collect (talk) 10:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I guess you are admitting that you have no quote at all demonstrating that Leiberman believes the earth is only 6000 or so years old, and denying that he accepts the scientific theory of evolution. If you just do not have the quote, you don't have it. Since you have given up on Leiberman we can return to Palin: she is reported to have made a direct statement in her role as mayor. If we have a reliable source supporting that this actually happened, we have something to add to the article that is important, relevant, and (unlike your imitation of "research") we actually have a quote. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You are bing deliberately obtuse. I cited Joe's rabbi on the belief in Creation. I cited Joe's strict Orthodox beliefs. The issue was whether others would have the absurd claims made about them that have surfaced about Palin. I demonstrated it in spades. The fact I knew Joe is irrelevant. The fact I knew Rabbi Ehrenkranz is irrelevant. You know neither, and that is relevant. There is absolutely no sane basis for the "dinogate" absurdity which was attempted here. That is a fact, and everyone who reads this knows it is a fact. As for your continued posts to me -- they verge on impropriety on your part, and I would encourage you to cease. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk)

Uh, I do not like the way you are demeaning me, but since you bring it up, you are the one being obtuse. You have not cited Joe's beliefs about scientists' claims about the age of the universe or evolution. Nor have you cited his rabbi's beliefs. The statement by the rabbi is clearly tied to a moral purpose: "Our task is to partner with God who constantly improves the world through the people He created. If one country is depleting its resources and destroying the environment, then this is a global problem, and we need to come together financially and technologically to challenge and assist that country to the benefit of everyone on the planet. We are God's instruments and we have the responsibility tirelessly and lovingly to improve the world." This is the point of his claims that God reated people in His image. I know too many observant Jews, including rabbis, who are devout, who attend services regularly and praise God as creator of the universe and yes, even attend shul on Rosh HaShanah and celebrate the "birthday of the world," and yet who believe that the universe began with the bib bang about 13 billion years ago and that life evolved on earth through natural selection and genetic processes like drift, to fall for your falacious claims that because someone says they are observant Jews or that God created the universe it somehow magically therefore means they also do not believe in the claims of mainstream science. So you know Joe and his rabbi - and yet you still cannot find a quote in which they deny that the earth was created about 4 and a half billion years ago, and humans evolved more than a hundred million years after the dinosaurs? Pathetic - you claim you know them and still have no quote backing your claim. As for my relationship with the senator, you have no idea what it is and I am not going to bring it up because Wikipedia is not based on personal claims it is based on verifiability, something you clearly do not care about. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You could also ridicule some Christians by noting that they believe they are drinking human blood and eating human flesh when they consume the Eucharist at church every week, making them Cannibals, or that they believe in a ghost. Edison (talk) 06:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's run with that one for tonight's headline! Fcreid (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, it is worth looking for other sources for this. We need a reliable source. My point is simply that once we agree that we have a reliable source, this issue is relevant enough to the article to merit inclusion. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Concur. We need to hold true to our "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources" principles on this one, particularly given the only attribution for the claim is from Munger, who rarely lets a day pass without maligning Palin on his blog. In addition, there are myriad other sources that indicate such a discussion is out-of-character for Palin, including sworn rivals. Fcreid (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

All - I did find an unusual prayer which was almost definitely said over Palin. Does the following sound odd?

" I adjure thee through the living true and holy God, the God who made thee for the well-being of the human race, and commanded thee to be hallowed by his servants for the use of those who come to the knowledge of her by faith."

"I adjure thee, unclean spirit, in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost to depart and remain far away from this servant of God (Sarah). He commands thee now who walked dry-shod upon the waters, and when Peter would have perished in the sea stretched out to him his saving hand. And so, accursed spirit, give heed to the sentence passed upon thee."

How would you interpret such a prayer? Collect (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? It doesn't sound odd to me - it sounds close to the typical baptism prayer. This is a ritual that is pretty common in lots of Christian churches, I do not see how Palin's being baptized merits any more comment in the article. I know it already says she was born into a Catholic family, do we really need to add that she was baptized a Catholic? I think identifying her as a Catholic is sufficient. And I do not see how this has any bearing at all on the far-from-ordinary pronouncements she made ... no, not as a minister or priest, but as mayor and governor ... about religion and politics or religion and public education. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet it is very akin to the African prayer much in the news. Amazing, isn;t it, how cultural references taken out of context can create false controversy? Vide also "Thank you that I was not born a woman" as a liturgical statement ... and a host of others from all faiths. Seems to me that placing any such religious controversy in any article ill-serves WP. But that is just my own opinion, of course. Collect (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Boy, you really do not understand WIkipedia's policies at all, do you? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"Boy"???? I would suggest that placing a question which goes to the heart of this entire section of the Talk page is exactly and precisely in line with WP policies. Thank you by the way very much for calling me "Boy" as it is quite dispositive of the "AGF" issue with regard to how you view it. Collect (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! Not here too! I believe consensus above was that the Witch Doctor, while interesting in a trivial kind of way, certainly did not reach the criteria for inclusion. Fcreid (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Collect, I did not call you a "boy." Please find a dictionary - "boy" is a common exclamatory term, like wow or golly. And your question runs counter to WIkipedia policy. I personally have no issue with that African prayer. Apparently you do not either. But you know what? Your view on the matter is irrelevant. So is my view. Editors' views do not go into articles. You throw around words like fact and false a lot, but Wikipedia is about notability and verifiability, and not about true or false. You ropinion that the controversy is false has no place in any discussion on this article. Someone lese's view that the controversy is "true" also has no place in this discussion. The only question is, is the controversy notable and if so, are there verifiable and reliable sources for providing an account of the controversy and the various views involved in, and about, the controversy. Then it is just a matter of writing an account of these notable views from verifiable sources. There is only one ground for excluding it from Wikipedia: that it is not notable and to include it would give undue weight to a non-notable set of views. And perhaps the controversy is not notable enough for inclusion (I never heard of it and I listen to and watch the news regularly). But this is the only grounds for exluding it, not the fact that you think it is false or silly. You really need to get over this belief you seem to have that your judgement that a one view is better than another, or one topic truer than another, is simply irrelevant. Boy! Slrubenstein | Talk 20:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

First -- "Boy!" is an exclamation. "Boy, ..." is NOT an exclamation. Your message to me did not use "Boy," as an exclamation. Exclamation marks are not commas. A comma is used when you are addressing someone with the name you give before the comma. Yhe issue I was dealing with is the relevance of ANY statements which might inaptly deal with a subject's religion. This entire section about dinosaurs falls into that classification. Giving weight to a view which is notable only because of deliberate misinterpretation is improper. In the case at hand, I have sought to show that such wilful misinterpretation is errant. I am sorry that you only feel "notable" is your only concern. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

if that is how you want it, that's your business. boy as an interjection, with a comma rather than an exclamation point, can still mean the same thing as boy with an exclamation point, just as boy with an expclamation point can still be vocative. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Exclamations in the form of "Boy, you ..." are quite rare. Since this seems to be degenerating into English grammar discussions, I think it has outlived its usefulness here. Rather like having a (sic) contest, or the like. Interjections generally are not followed by commas, at least not in any Manual of Style I have found. Collect (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

section uneditable

Unfortunately, a prior section is showing as being uneditable (infinite time loading) -- so I am using a new section to reply. I know that I have been on WP a full year less than KC, but I think my c.v. is more than adequate. I did not think quantity of edits was needed to get the presumption of "good faith." I have been online since 1982, and have acttively overseen as a wizop more than four million messages, and more than 50,000 files. Closer to seven million messages by now. KC avers no presence in anything related to Sarah Palin in the past. Except for Talk:Sarah Palin Archive 18. Talk: Political Positions of Sarah Palin Archives 1 and 2, and possibly other places (including User Talk pages). I am therefore claiming that I have made no improper claims about anyone, and that I endeavor to grant the presumption of good faith to everyone. Is that clear? Collect (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no thoughts at all about your CV, but I am disturbed by one of your recent comments in the preceeding section (about The Guardian) that shows me you misunderstand what Wikipedia's NPOV policy and policy on Reliable Sources mean. NPOV does not mean that we write articles that are completely lacking in bias, or use sources that have no bias. It means that we represent all notable views. And reliable sources ... well, just read the actual policy. The Guardian is certainly a reliable source if we are writing about news media reception. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As you will note above, I offer a British BALANCED view as a cite. Do you have a problem with the Telegraph? I would suggest that it offers a more balanced view than the Guardian offers. Thanks!Collect (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Collect, I urge you to read our NPOV policy. According to whom is the Telegraph more balanced? You? Me? It doesn't matter! NPOV is designed because editors are going to disagree over right and wrong, fair or unfair, balanced or biased. Instead, we represent notable views. Is the Telegraph notable? That is the question, and the answer is yes. And The Guardian is just as notable. We should draw on both as sources. But none of this silliness of claiming one is more balance than another. Let's just follow our policies; in this case they represent a tremendous amount of wisdom that has been tested and proven a lot. Please, just read our NPOV policy and let's follow it. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That would certainly be true if this were an article on a Mars landing. However, I think it is patently disingenuous of editors not to acknowledge the only thing reliable about certain press outlets is their propensity to bash whatever political bent is opposite their own. This is demonstrably true during an election cycle, and it has been incredibly so in the case of Palin. (One need not look hard to find myriad sources outlining specific unfounded criticisms and plain-old smears of Palin--on an order of magnitude not "enjoyed" by any other candidate--and with no remorse about having to recant in the fine print a few days later!) Finally, let's look at the big picture of our situation. Palin's first debate is in two days. Even people without political interests have already pre-programmed their DVR. What would you estimate will be the number of page views here between now and Friday morning? How sweet it would be for either side should this article be manipulated and tained in either direction before then? Fcreid (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ought we include every possible newspaper? I would suggest that an article which is seen to be NPOV is suited for citing here more than one whose POV has been disputed, no matter how much you like it. As for your suggestion that I have NOT read the policies -- I assure you that I have (actually over 200 pages of policies now) and I find your statement to be demeaning in the extreme. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You find my statement demeaning? Look, you are the one who keeps insisting that one POV is better than another, it is you who thinks that someone we should only be using sources that are "NPOV" when in fact NPOV is a policy about how to use different sources and views. If you have read the NPOV policy, I suggest you read it again. This is not a demeaning comment or personal attack, it is a constructive suggestion. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting as I can not find one place where I demeaned someone's POV. Or stated that one POV is "better" than another. BTW, as I iterated I have read the NPOV policy. Tp wit in part:

"The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions."

Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You now deny having denigrated the view of The Guardian and having claimed that the view of The Telegraph was in some way better? You have on several occsasions stated that we should not use the Guardian as a source. You now quote our NPOV policy, and a passage that makes it very clear that views other than your own should be included. This means that just because you do not like the Guardian, this is not a good reason not to use it as a source. The NPOV passage that you quote certainly does not support your attempts to dismiss the use of the Guardian as a source. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Stating that an outside source might have a bias is denigrating or demeaning to an editor here? NPOV would imply that a point of view OTHER than the Guardian's ought reasonably be included. I fail to see why insisting on a SINGLE source is better than using a less biassed source or both sources? And I stand by my comments on the Guardian's biases in some matters. Use booth then. Just don't claim that the single source represents all points of view on the matter. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course I do not think saying something is biased is demeaning. The Telegraph is biased - now, I did not say anything to demean it, and this does not mean that it is an unreliable source for notable views ... did I ever say this? But to return to what you have argued: You did not simply write that the Guardian had a bias. You wrote, "The Guardian is not a reliable source concerning anything remotely related to the Bush family (which it has repeatedly linked to Hitler). A biassed "global view" is no more valid than a biassed local view." Now, I interpreted this to mean that you were opposed to our using The Guardian as a source - if you really think it violates our WP:RS policy then we cannot use it. Did I misinterpret you? Are you actually saying that we should use The Guardian, and that the Guardian and the Telegraph are equally acceptable under our reliable sources and NPOV policy? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I was accused of demeaning people. Stating what has been averred by others -- that the Guardian has biases, does not per se disqualify using the Guardian. It does, however, imply that other sources ought be considered in order to balance statements. This is in accord with NPOV

"Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.

By value or opinion,[2] on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That The Beatles were the greatest band in history is an opinion. That the United States is the only country in the world that has used a nuclear weapon for military purposes is a fact. That the United States was right or wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion. However, there are bound to be borderline cases where it is not clear if a particular dispute should be taken seriously and included.[1]"

I trust this is clear. Collect (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You were accused of demeaning people? Who accused you of that? When? Where? About "facts" - the claim that all people agree about something is itself a view that needs a source; in any event, your claims about "facts" suggests you haven't read our V policy or do not understand the point that wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I am still very curious to know who accused you of demeaning people, and when and in which section. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Check your own posts where you state that you are not demeaning me. As I stated, I never demeaned any edotor whatsoever. Zaereth below wished to end this stuff, and I was done until you decided to add "the last word." Then I would suggest this part of Talk is finis. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, NPOV is a Wikipedia term of art and has no meaning when applied to newspapers. The Telegraph is a generally reliable news source. So is the Guardian. One is not "more reliable" than the other in any meaningful or general sense, and this line of argument seems a bit silly. More silly is the contention that the Guardian is inherently biased because of a news article about the Bush family which one editor dislikes, while the Telegraph is "BALANCED". MastCell ^Talk 20:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Certainly I didn't contend that. In fact, I asked nearly a month ago of editors involved in furious debate (about the infamous "bridge" as I recall) if there were a single source that both sides agreed presented information neutrally. I received zero responses. Fcreid (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that; I was responding to comments by User:Collect higher up. "Neutrality" of a source is highly subjective and impossible to nail down, whereas a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and solid editorial oversight are somewhat less elusive qualities which are possessed by any number of sources, including the Guardian, the Telegraph, etc. MastCell ^Talk 20:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This whole thing is getting out of hand. As Collect has said, this whole section is about the opinion of others. Then a debate over who "others" should be insues, which inevitably leads to a sourcing war, each claiming their source is more reliable ... and this is what we end up with. Who's to say what opinion is more valid than another. Because this section is about opinions, I think it will become a powerful magnet for POV, not just from the pushers, but even subconsciously from the most well intended individual. For an article primarily about opinion, not to bring out our own predjudices will take a lot of careful thought and discussion. I'm gonna stay away from this one, and trust that the many good editors here will be able to cease hostilities and work this out in a dignified manner. Zaereth (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to whomever fixed the font. I thought I'd been on SP so long that my eyes started failing. Fcreid (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal / Religious

Hey Jossi, what specific objections do you have to Homung's recent edits? Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I restored one edit, the deletion of a vague and unsourced statement. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that to me was very insulting and a bizarre sentence anyway - I have seen no claims her faith is fake, so why on earth would we have a sentence "countering" a non-issue? KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this is Homung's other edit, which I thought was an improvement. Not saying it was the best possible, but it seemed better written than what was there, to me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's my suggested sentence from that edit: "Palin's use of religious language in relation to non-religious subjects, such as an oil pipeline or the Iraq war, has caused comment." My intent was to have a sentence that would allow the average politically-aware reader to fill in both sides of this issue ("She says God wants us in Iraq! No, she just hopes she is doing what God wants!") without actually taking sides. I fully agree that the sentence is imperfect, but it is much better than "Some of Palin’s assertions relate her personal religious beliefs to public policy, e.g., that development of an oil pipeline for Alaska is God’s will, or that the Iraq War is part of God’s plan with the US military on a task from God in Iraq." which clearly takes sides, imputing a debatable interpretation to her quote. Jossi, as someone who felt strongly about wanting this article to be able to grow, I really think that you should try to respond to productive edits with more productive edits, not with reverts. I will not war on this but I think the article is silly as it stands. Homunq (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

~~Give me a f#%&g break.~~ "She has made appeals to American sensibilities in several comments relating her personal religious beliefs to public policy"????? And she likes apple pie, I hear, too, and is a mother of 5. Whoever it is _{(note: Ottre)} didn't even bother to change the reference...

Let's recap: I, an editor who personally dislikes Palin, makes an edit that takes the article from an unfair attack on Palin, to being something in the neighborhood of NPOV. I get a comment on my talk page saying "Great edit" (thanks, by the way). Jossi, another editor who dislikes Palin, reverts it. It starts a talk page discussion. Then the sentence is twisted around to be totally pro-Palin with no comment on the talk page.

This is a really pathological process here. I'd love to put my own edit back, but I promised not to edit-war on this one and I will stand by that promise. Homunq (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I do not "dislike Palin". I am interested in a neutral presentation of this person as reported in the numerous sources available on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That can be assumed. I was talking about your personal feelings; "dislike" may be a poor characterization, but most of the editors on this talk page, you included, have long past tipped their hands about which "side they're on". The point is not that that's bad in itself, just that NPOV means compromise on both sides - not based on who yells louder, but based on using verifiability and logic to find statements that are as unarguably true as possible. "She said God is on our side" just isn't, based on the quotes we have. Homunq (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've cooled off now, but I really don't get where "American sensibilities" even comes from. Homunq (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here is what is there right now:

She has made appeals to American sensibilities in several comments relating her personal religious beliefs to public policy.^[4] After the Republican National Convention, the McCain campaign told CNN that Palin "doesn't consider herself Pentecostal."^[5]

- I am sure we can do better than that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I just tried!! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That works. NPOV writing 101! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

... and now the article is back to the anti-Palin slant. Please, people, if there are ~~two~~ redundant statements ~~covering the same material~~, remove the POV one, not the NPOV one, even if the NPOV one is newer (looking at you, Grsz). Homunq (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone want to edit this one before I do or have some suggestions to improve it and reflect the truth? "Some of Palin’s assertions relate her personal religious beliefs to public policy, e.g., that development of an oil pipeline for Alaska is God’s will, or that the Iraq War is part of God’s plan with the US military on a task from God in Iraq. [218]" Fcreid (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This was a perfectly good statement a day or two ago. Someone has distorted it to a completely POV shot at her. I don't like to review edit history, because I'd prefer not knowing who that was. Fcreid (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the end result of any statement that includes either of this clauses (Iraq War and pipeline) will also include that it was provided to a group of missionary students at a commencement address in the Wasilla church. Boy, this irks me after we spent days on end making this right. Fcreid (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It irks me, too. My suggestion is above: "Palin's use of religious language in relation to non-religious subjects, such as an oil pipeline or the Iraq war, has caused comment." I think that this issue deserves no more than one sentence. I understand your point about it having been said in a church; however, I think that adding "in church" to that specific suggested sentence would be awkward and come across as clunky POV. Homunq (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding the venue and the audience is absolutely critical to the context of that statement. Otherwise, it has no merit. Unless someone can cite something she said in a political forum, e.g. to the Council of Mayors or state legislature, then the statement must include that very relevant context. Fcreid (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Fcreid. It makes a huge difference that she was speaking at a religious service, rather than to the legislature or something like that.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

She was invited to speak because she was mayor, not because she is a theologian. ANd I have no idea why you think that the claim that someone links their religious views to public policy is a bias against Palin, unless you are so anti-religious you think that any claim that someone has religious beliefs is an insult. personally, I find that offensive. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be reading into my comments something I never said.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No one is making any statement or judgments about her personal religious beliefs here. This is purely the need that material we present is accurate. If she had made these now-renowned comments to a departing brigade of National Guard soldiers or the Wasilla High football team, they would have been wholly inappropriate. That they were made as a commencement address to a graduating class of the "Jesus Masters" program at Wasilla Assembly of God makes them absolutely appropriate. Fcreid (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Fcreid that we ought to very briefly mention that the comments were made at a church.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

And to graduating ministry students. Fcreid (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This might precede smoothly into the campaign clarification statement: "Palin's use of religious references in a speech to graduating ministry students at Wasilla Assembly of God, specifically regarding the topics of the Alaska-Canada oil pipeline and the Iraq war, has called into question the influence of Pentacostal Christianity on her politics. Fcreid (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I have a somewhat improved suggestion below, in this section of the talk page.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Some background. I've been here every day for a month, and I count the edits I've made to the article on one hand. I'm a consensus-builder, here and in real life, as I've found that always brings me closer to the truth. When I first saw this quote (badly mangled at the time, claiming she said "Iraq was a task from God" and "God will bring us a pipeline", I was blown away (read into that what you will). When I peeled the onion just a single layer, I quickly learned this speech was made as a commencement address to these "Jesus Masters" graduates and given in a church (from a pulpit), it made a helluva lot more sense to me. Ironically, this quote is *all* that stands as criticism of Palin's alleged conflict between governing and religion. There is no other quote, in any other public forum, to reinforce that assessment. Therefore, it is imperative that those elements of context be included. Otherwise, the next Joe coming to the article will also be blown away. Fcreid (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and SLR, my knee-jerk response wasn't directed at you. As I said, I really don't care who made the edits today, but the end result was a clear POV-push. If you had known how many hours and days of discussion were spent on making that one idiotic quote stand on its own enough to pacify both sides, you'd appreciate my ire. Fcreid (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Here was my original contribution at the end of the paragraph, using NPR as source-

Some of Palin’s assertions relate her personal religious beliefs to public policy, e.g., that development of an oil pipeline for Alaska is God’s will, or that the Iraq War is part of God’s plan with the US military on a task from God in Iraq. ^[6]

The idea was that it is very accurate as to what she said in her church speech, is consistent with the "spiritual warfare" teachings of the church, but does not sound like an unusual thing to say for the unbelievers, so is neutral.

Looking at the mass of words on this talk page above, apparently I missed something. Tautologist (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you did. The current proposed wording is above. You're welcome to join in. Fcreid (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) This article currently says: "Palin's use of religious language in relation to public policy has caused some to speculate on the influence of Pentacostal Christianity on her politics." I see two problems.

Problem #1: See WP:Weasel. The phrase “has caused some to speculate” is weaselly. It seems that it refers to the following two sentences of the cited source: “Poloma says some people might hear that and say Palin believes this is a holy war, or that Pentecostals think this is a holy war….Bock, however, warns against drawing conclusions about anyone's policies from his or her faith.” So, Bock is warning people not to speculate, and Poloma only admits that some other people might speculate.

Problem #2: There’s no mention that Palin made these remarks in a church, rather than to a legislature or something. The cited source says: “Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin dropped in on the Wasilla Assembly of God, the church she and her family attended until 2002.”\

So, I'd suggest: "In a speech to graduating ministry students at Wasilla Assembly of God, Governor Palin used religious references in relation to public policy, which has led to some discussion about whether (or to what degree) her faith influences her politics."Ferrylodge (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That works for me, FL. I suspect it won't be enough for the meat-lovers who want to see "Iraq" and "pipeline" prominently in there. Fcreid (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Currently states: "In a speech to graduating ministry students at Wasilla Assembly of God in June 2008, Governor Palin used religious references in relation to public policy, which has generated discussion about whether (or to what degree) her faith influences her politics" - which is completely acceptable to me. Are we all done trying to make it sound like she was shaking chicken bones and reading entrails now? Sorry for being short tempered about this, but honestly, people! KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks great. Thanks and apologies to all. I appreciate your humoring me. Fcreid (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks great to me too - I am pleased with Ferrylodge's changes. I hope this shows everyone here that whatever our personal beliefs, it is actually possible to build consensus! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - anyone who knows the history between myself and Ferrylodge will surely realize that if we can work together, virtually anyone can. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Acknowledged. :) Fcreid (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite through here. It seems the article has now implied that she may mix her religion and politics. We should also include her denial. "Palin has stated that she would not allow her personal religious beliefs to dictate her political positions," according to CNN.[2]Ferrylodge (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Her campaign says she doesn't mix her faith with government business….Palin has done little while in office to advance a social conservative agenda. She told The Associated Press in an interview in 2006 that she would not allow her personal beliefs to dictate public policy. "I've honestly answered the questions on what my personal views are on things like abortion and a lot of controversial issues," Palin told AP. "I won't hesitate to answer those questions about what my personal views are, but I am not one to be out there preaching and forcing my views on anyone else."

Yes, that was there earlier but somehow during all the editing it must have been removed. IMO we should be careful to balance the weight - concerns raised, she says no, but a sentence each should do it, you agree? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Not sure what your subsequent remark (immediately below) means.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, its probably best it was removed, since you're working on it - the one before said something about "the McCain campaign" rather than Palin, which sounded like McCain's crew was talking out of their hats. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No, darnit, it is there (apologioes all, I am sorry I'm spamming here) - this sentence: "After the Republican National Convention, the McCain campaign told CNN that Palin "doesn't consider herself Pentecostal" - does anyone feel this strikes a really lame note besides me? I don't know whether Palin considers herself Pentecostal or not, I haven't seen any press on it, but McCain's campain told??? Hrm. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(this is literally at least my 6th try to add this comment, I would be about 20 comments up if not for edit conflicts). Getting closer. How about: "In a speech at Wasilla Assembly of God in June 2008, Governor Palin spoke in religious terms about the Iraq War and the Alaska-Canada oil pipeline.(ref) Palin has stated that she would not allow her personal religious beliefs to dictate her political positions.(ref)" (changes: 1. choose church or ministry students - either one establishes religious context. 2. religious terms, not religious references - I think that is a totally neutral change but a little bit more accurate 3. mention specific issues 4. instead of weaseling about conclusions "some" draw, let reader draw their own. 5. Include her denial.) Homunq (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. But are we removing or leaving the McCain-Palin statement that she doesn't consider herself Pentecostal? If it's true that she doesn't then that seems noteworthy, if we actually want to describe her religion correctly. And there doesn't seem any reason not to believe it's true; i.e. it's basically the same as her saying it herself. BTW, here's some more from her: "Faith is very important to so many of us here in America, and I would never support any government effort to stifle our freedom of religion or freedom of expression or freedom of speech….freedom of religion and freedom of expression will be things that I will fight for."[3]Ferrylodge (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

IMO, we ditch it completely. I was wavering between "ditch" and "rephrase" but the only source is a rambling CNN article which also states that she said thetroops in Iraq were sent on "task that is from God, and includes a lot of views and Palin's 20-yr membership in a Pentecostal church, but darn little which merits inclusion. If we start adding He said, she said, others disagree crap, we're writing a sub-article. I say cut bait. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ouch, a lot of that was my multi=posting, I'm sure, sorry about that. Yes, I think your changes are definite improvements! Especially including Palin's clear denial, which as you see FL and I both feel should be included. What is your take on the McCain's campaign sentence I pasted above? Is it clear why it bothers me, or do I need to explain? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As to the "not pentecostal" thing, if the only problem is that "the McCain campaign" sounds bad, how about "a spokesperson" or something? I think we can justly conclude that the McCain campaign speaks for her since there's no RS doubting that. Oh, and move it up in the paragraph to where it makes sense. Homunq (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. KC disagrees, but maybe can be persuaded. KC, if we don't include that a spokesperson says she's not Pentecostal, then many people will think that she is Pentecostal. Do we want that?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If the consensus is, and it seems to be, to keep, than rather than the somewhat nonsensical "campain told CNN" - I mean, how can a campaign "tell" anyone anything? and yes, that crappy phrasing is in the CNN article as well - we should rather say "A statement from the McCain campaign" or "A McCain campaign spokesperson stated" - you get the idea. A sentence which actually makes some kind of sense would be nice. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I understsand KC's point but my feeling is, if we have a reliable source that says it, we should keep it. That said, I have no problem at all with either Homunq or Ferrylodge's proposed additions. And if we need to choose one of the three, well, I leave that up to you guys because any one of them is fine with me. The important thing is we are now working together - a refreshing change from last night! Slrubenstein | Talk 00:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I was bold and put the article to where I think this consensus is settling. Feel free to make further adjustments. Homunq (talk) 00:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Just a comment: I think we could have come to much the same place with a lot less "verbiage" here if people weren't so hair-triggered with their reverts. It is a lot easier to understand where someone's coming from if they propose new versions of things, even if it's essentially the same stuff, rather than just reverting.

Thanks Homunq. Good job everyone. Good night John-boy. Good night KC.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. After all that, we have another overhaul of the section.[4] No, I do not agree with this. See WP:Weasel. The new phrase “leading some to question whether her politics are influenced by Pentacostal Christinaity” is weaselly. It seems to refer to the following two sentences of the cited source: “Poloma says some people might hear that and say Palin believes this is a holy war, or that Pentecostals think this is a holy war….Bock, however, warns against drawing conclusions about anyone's policies from his or her faith.” So, Bock is warning people not to speculate, and Poloma only admits that some other people "might" speculate. This new phrase is unnecessary, and it does not seem to be supported by the cited source.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, i think the added clause is necessary, indeed crucial context for understanding why the McCain spokesman and Palin would make statements about religion not influincing her politics - they were responding to the kinds of concerns that the National Public Radio story covered. And the source that we are using - the NPR story - is explicitly about people having concerns about pentacostalism influencing her politics. It is a straightforward matter of representing the source accurately. That She has made clear that religion does not influence her political acts is an important view to include. That some people have made concerns over this a campaign issue is also an important view. Adding it provides both views and complies with NPOV; and the view added is verifiable and from a reliable source. It fully complies with our policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Please quote what portion of the article you're relying upon.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, what do you think the article, as a whole, is about? An article or news story is not just a collection of individual lines, those lines fit together to form a whole. If people didn't wonder about he religion affecting her politics, there would not be a story, period. Look, perhaps you do not follow American politics closely to know that lots of people have raised this concern. This has come up repeatedly in many news outlets, and it is something that many people opposed to her are talking about. It is easy to find sources that support this, and I will add one or perhaps more right now. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

So, you're not going to revert yourself, and you're not going to quote anything from the cited source? Please note that it's not only me that has objected. Homunq said above: "instead of weaseling about conclusions 'some' draw, let reader draw their own." Ferrylodge (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, like I just told you: I was busy adding additional citations to support the point. Didn't I say that was what I was going to do? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the two sources I added more than cover the point. As for the NPR story, my response, as i suggested above, is not a single sentence or paragraoh from the story - taken out of context - but the story itself, i.e. the entire context for any sentence you might select. The only reason authorities on Pentacostal Chrsitianity would be given time on NPR to warn people not to think that her religion is influencing her politics is because people are concerned about this. The story ends: "Bock says President Bush and Democratic nominee Barack Obama have already been through this sort of spiritual vetting. Now it's Palin's turn." That is, Palin's turn to be vetted. What do you think this sentence means? Clearly, it means vetted as to whether her Pentacostal religion will influence her politics. And I repeat: making it clear that this is the concern many people have is essential context so that the denial that she is penatcostal, and the denial that religion will affect her politics, makes any sense. I am puzzled as to why this is unacceptable to you. We have added material you considered essential context, and have not reverted other changes you made. I have explained at length my reasoning and I see no reason for me to revert myself or for anyone else to revert a loine that adds balance and context to the paragraph. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, I quoted directly from the NPR story to show you that it does not support your point. Just pointing to the article's aura, without quoting it, does not help you.

Regarding your other two sources, I haven't looked at the NY Times article yet, but will shortly. Your Huffington Post source is unacceptable.[5] The primary author of the HuffPost piece is Nico Pitney, an editor at Huffpost. He was previously Deputy Research Director at the Center for American Progress and Managing Editor of ThinkProgress, both renowned liberal institutions (the latter being a subset of the former).[6] He says in his blog post that Palin views the war in Iraq "as a messianic affair." It's not a reliable source.

Also, see here. "Further, in recent times the Internet has become a major source of information about current events. These include blogs, and sites like The Drudge Report and the Huffington Post. According to WP:RS blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.[1] However blogs that also collect news information present a unique challenge to the Wikipedia Editor. For example the Huffington Post blog also contains an extensive repository of news articles from around the country."

I'll get back to you in a moment about your NY Times source. I hope you realize that you're turning things upside down here. Editors have objected to including the kind of language that you want here. That means there is no consensus to include it, and you ought to remove it until there is such a consensus.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, regarding your NY Times cite, again you have not quoted any particular language in the article that you're relying on, presumably because you think that it's enough to simply rely on the aura of the article, notwithstanding what it actually says. So, I'll quote for you the part that comes closest to supporting what you've jammed into this article against consensus: "Ms. Palin’s religious life — what she believes and how her beliefs intersect or not with her life in public office in Alaska — has become a topic of intense interest and scrutiny across the political spectrum as she has risen from relative obscurity to become Senator John McCain’s running mate." Does that really support your inserted language that some people have been led "to question whether her politics are influenced by Pentacostal Christianity"? I don't think so. See how the NY Times balanced out the matter: "how her beliefs intersect or not", acknowledging both possibilities. In any event, I agree with what Homunq said above: "instead of weaseling about conclusions 'some' draw, let reader draw their own."Ferrylodge (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

When my initial insertion, which had the clause in it, was removed the explanation given was solely that it was redundant. Then you and others faulted it for not giving information about the audience. These were the objections given when I last added this, and we have responded to them. As fr your current objections, I am not talking about aura, I am talking about the point of the articleas a whole. Also, the Huffington Post is an extremely reliable source for what people on the left think. Reliability depends on the view. In this case the viewpoint is partisan - it is the view of people who oppose Palin; thus it is precisely because it is partisan that HP is a reliable source. It is like a creationist publisher is a reliable source on what creationists think, even though it is not a reliable source on evolution. HP may not be a reliable source on what Palin thinks, but it is a reliable source on what other people think. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC) This quote from NYT explicitly supports the clause I added: "Ms. Palin’s religious life — what she believes and how her beliefs intersect or not with her life in public office in Alaska — has become a topic of intense interest and scrutiny across the political spectrum" Slrubenstein | Talk 01:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I previously quoted that passage from the NYT article above. You're right; it's the closest that the cited sources come to supporting the language you inserted. I've reworded to more closely track the NY Times: "In a speech at Wasilla Assembly of God in June 2008, Governor Palin spoke in religious terms about the Iraq war and the Alaska-Canada oil pipeline, leading some political observers to question whether her politics intersect — or not — with her religous beliefs."

Regarding the Huffblog piece, you can say about any essay that it accurately reflects what the author thinks. But that does not satisfy WP:RS.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have no objection to your rewording - if this satisfies you, go ahead with it. And you seem to be misunderstanding my point about the Huffington piece. My point is that reliability of a source is in part a function of the view that the source ius being used to articulate. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor Ottre

Not even going to bother reading this farce. You have no idea how much history you are attempting to summarize... in a single sentence, no less! The only things which need to be said in this article are: Palin is a life-long Christian, and Palin has appealed to American sensibilities in this regard. Nothing further. Ottre 23:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

And just in case I have underestimated some of the editors here, note: KC, that connotes the need for a separate article which makes some attempt to represent sociological opinions. Ottre 23:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"Uninvolved", ottre? You put that in the article earlier today. If you can't read the talk page, I understand, but please then refrain from editing the article, as consensus is delicate. Homunq (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So you won't bother reading, but you want us to read what you wrote. i did, and it wasn't worth the bother. Really, Ottre, not only are you uninvolved, but this idea of "American sensibilities" is meaningless and I doubt that anyone who has worked hard on this article considers it a constructive contribution. The above discussion is much more interesting (and constructive). Slrubenstein | Talk 23:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ottre, I agree that a much shorter discussion of her religion would be better. However, whenever it is shortened, it reappears. This is something that people are apparently very interested in.

I disagree with your "globalize" tag. That's massive overkill, IMHO.

And there already is a separate article section titled Religion in public life.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I really hate to sound like a broken record and don't want to wear my welcome thin, but I still believe the exact context in which the comments about God, Iraq and Pipeline were made is critical to an exact understanding them. It certainly does for me. Somehow, that this speech was made to ministry students has been lost. Anyone? Fcreid (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not remove it. And I do not object to your putting it back in. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The article now says, "in a speech at Wasilla Assembly of God in June 2008, Governor Palin spoke in religious terms about the Iraq war and the Alaska-Canada oil pipeline." So, it's mentioned that she made the speech at the church, which seems like enough context to me. I don't see why it matters a whole lot that the audience consisted of ministry students.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the context in which she gave the speech. It is not the context in which this fact became ntoable for national news media. This involves a larger context, which is my point. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we're so familiar with this issue now that we don't see the entire perspective others might. Many will infer, due to the venue, that it was an audience of churchgoers. Others may not. Furthermore, knowing they were graduating ministry students versus ordinary church attendees puts the comments in an even greater context for the uninformed, like myself. :) Fcreid (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The clause i added is so short, I see no harm in keeping it unless someone really believes it violates policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"in a speech at Wasilla Assembly of God in June 2008, Governor Palin spoke in religious terms about the Iraq war and the Alaska-Canada oil pipeline." That is not factually accurate and a violation of WP:SYNTH. Why not let the sources speak for themselves? They quote Palin saying certai things and there is no need for interpreting these. Let the readers do that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you please elaborate? Why do you say is it inaccurate, and why do you think it violates WP:Synth? The cited source says: "In the address at the Assembly of God Church here, Ms. Palin’s ease in talking about the intersection of faith and public life was clear. Among other things, she encouraged the group of young church leaders to pray that 'God’s will' be done in bringing about the construction of a big pipeline in the state, and suggested her work as governor would be hampered 'if the people of Alaska’s heart isn’t right with God.' She also told the group that her eldest child, Track, would soon be deployed by the Army to Iraq, and that they should pray 'that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God, that’s what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan, and that plan is God’s plan.'" I think we summarize it pretty well. I might be okay with putting extended Palin quotes in the sub-article or the footnotes of this article, but we don't need to put them in the main text of this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If anyone would prefer "group of young church leaders" versus "graduating class of ministry students" to track exactly to the NPR source, that would be fine too, although it looks fine now. Fcreid (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

God

It seems that Threeafterthree removed stuff about religion and political positions from the "Personal life" section.[7]

Then some of it was reinserted back in, and I think the reinserted material is very problematic and POV. We would have been better off sticking with the original material. For example, this article now says:

Some of Palin’s assertions relate her personal religious beliefs to public policy, e.g., that development of an oil pipeline for Alaska is God’s will, or that the Iraq War is part of God’s plan with the US military on a task from God in Iraq. [218]

First of all, she did not say that the Iraq War is part of God’s plan with the US military on a task from God in Iraq. According to the cited source, she said this: "Pray our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country — that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God....That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan." In other words she wanted people to pray that the Iraq War is part of God’s plan with the US military on a task from God in Iraq. There is a not-so-subtle difference between praying for something and simply asserting that something is true. The setting is also very relevant: she was speaking in a church service, rather than to the legislature or something like that. Palin has explained: "I would never presume to know what God’s will is...that's a repeat in my comments [of Abraham Lincoln's words], '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.'"[8] So, basically, what's in the article now is a complete distortion, and I'm removing it.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, please read the section two above this one. Homunq (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Homunq, I see that you suggested the following: "Palin's use of religious language in relation to non-religious subjects, such as an oil pipeline or the Iraq war, has caused comment." The main objective of my recent edit was to remove blatantly distorted language from the article. If people want to reach consensus about something to replace it with, then I have no problem. As I said, we would have been better off sticking with the original material.

As to your particular suggestion, I'll comment about it above.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, "religious beliefs" doesn't include everything in the universe, but I am pretty sure in includes beliefs about God and prayer, which your qyote illustrates perfectly. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Great! I put back in a sentence thast was removed because it was redundant. Since that time, the sentence that made my edit redundant (which I agree was problematic)has been removed. I have re-added my sentence, which no longer can be faulted for being redundant. It is necessary to explain why, after bringing up her religiosity at the RNC, she later denied being a Pentacostal - she was responding to concerns that had been voiced publicly, including in a report on Americas national public radio station. The sentence I added simply reports - accurately - why people had concerns and is precise about the nature of those concerns. Now the following sentence, in which she denies being a Pentacostalist, makes more sense. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I have again removed it. Please do not add it back until we reach consensus in our discussion above. Fcreid (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You should not have remoced it, since I addressed the objection given when it was removed. That is how consensus works: we discuss and address objections. You can't remove it without explaining exactly what policy it violates and how, and if you really believe in a consensus-building process, suggest ways that you could see it complying with policy. "Consensus" does not describe a situation where one editor has a veto over content; it describes a collaboration between editors trying to work together. The sentence expresses a notable view and has a verifiable source. If you object to the wording, how would you express this notable view that comes from this verifiable source? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Pretty simple. If it omits the venue and the audience, it's wrong and POV. Both of those elements are equally reliably sourced. Discussion continued above. Fcreid (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Deus ex machina edits serve no one well, and serve NPOV quite poorly. Collect (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thatr's it? Really? If you knew that, why did you delete it? Why didn't you simply add the venue and audience? Or don't you care about building consensus? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Part of that was frustration and the other part just me being an idiot on how to make all the links and such work. You're right. I shouldn't have removed it, but I thought I had already conveyed my additional concerns above which were summarily ignored. My apologies. Speaking of which, I'll see you up there, okay? Fcreid (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Youp, I just commented up there - anyway, I am pleased with Ferrylodge's changes and glad to see that it really is possible to use the idea of "consensus" as something that encourages people to collaborate and not just to antagonize. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Education

Maybe it was deleted is because she never really finished any of the schools.

I am puzzled why my addition of an explanation that two of Ms Palin's colleges were two-year schools has been deleted, without adequate explanation. I do not live in the U.S., and didn't understand they were community colleges, and I believe many others wouldn't either. I also added in the nature of her major and a brief summary statement of her diversified career. To my understanding, after 2500 edits on 100s of articles, my edits were terse, informative and NPOV. And deleting them violates NPOV. Bellagio99 (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any big problem mentioning that two of the colleges were community colleges, although I don't really think it's necessary. I don't think we'd mention that a graduate of Harvard had attended an "ivy league" school or a "top-ten" school, and we wouldn't say that a graduate of Rutgers went to a "state school" or a "government-run" school. What I do think was excessive was mentioning that she attended five schools in six years; people can do the math for themselves, and I don't think this needs to be part of our summary of the succeeding sentences.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you're comparing apples to oranges here. Community college is a type of school distinct from a normal college. In particular, community colleges typically offer two year degrees, but do not offer four year degrees. Ivy League, top ten, and state, all refer to the same type of school, a college. Similarly, a university offers graduate degrees, whereas a college offers four year degrees. If the schools in question offer four year degrees (particularly in the field she was studying), I don't think they should labeled community colleges. Aprock (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you're adding (Community) to every mention is POV and not needed. If it was in the college name that's one thing, but there is absolutely no reason to hide North Idaho College as the actual name. Grsz ^talk 21:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I certainly think this is the case. There doesn't seem to be any great reason to mention that fact given that it's clear that she transferred more than once. For most people, listing the institution which issued the terminal degree is sufficient. Aprock (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Grsz, I added the word (Community) twice (i.e., "every mention = 2") once to each college where it is pertinent. As a non-resident of the U.S., I found some of the colleges unknown, so went to their website to understand. When I did, I added it to disambiguate. I do not understand, why you have deleted this. It is a pertinent to understanding her post-secondary life. Wikipedia must be understandable to those who don't understand American institutions. This is not Ivy League vs Slippery Rock; it is a basically different school. Indeed, I am under 3RR now, but this exchange has suggested that I add a bit more later discussing the various and diverse kinds of schools she attended in an important part of her life. I believe it behooves those who have not allowed this change to explain why they want to obscure this part of her life. Cheers,Bellagio99 (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If someone really wants to know, all they have to do is click on the link. Grsz ^talk 22:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Grsz11 here, although I don't feel very strongly about it. Bellagio99, the important factor for me is that the credits from the Community College are accepted at the regular university. That's the way a Community College works. They do a great job at teaching introductory-level stuff, and simply don't teach the advanced stuff. So, really, I think you could spend your first two years at a community college getting just as good an education as at a big university.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I also agree w/ Grz, Aprock, Ferrylodge. Many times attending a Community College is a financial decision. The normal ascent is to then attend a "regular" 4 year institution. And, as Aprock states, the terminal school is considered most important.--Buster7 (talk) 11:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what the hub bub is, but the family section doesn't need to be 80% about religion and politics. Take that material to a sub article and dump it there. The section as is, is already pretty silly looking with the amount of space weight given to her religion. Anyways, --Tom 15:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You're a bigger optimist than I if you think the "Iraq Crusaders" story will stay out of there for very long! Fcreid (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

College

Hawaii Pacific University was actually "Hawaii Pacific College" until 1990, so I'll adjust article accordinglyFerrylodge (talk) 03:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like North Idaho and the college in Alaska both awarded nothing higher than an associates, but I think "colleges and universities" is ok. "Undergraduate institutions" is really used for places that award BAs or BSs, so that wouldn't have cut it. Jd2718 (talk) 04:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

American usage allowes "college" for two-year institutions. "Undergraduate" refers to any program before a person receives a degree. Thus "community colleges" are "undergraduate (that is, before the students get a first level degree in a subject) institutions." It is not restricted to four-year programs. Collect (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Altering sources

I've never looked at this article before, but I was curious about it's history once I did. I'm comparing versions between the current one and from early Sep. '08, and found that between then and now someone has been tampering with the citations. It seems that access dates have been stripped, as well as some alterations to the URLs linking to articles so they point nowhere in the domain. Clearly someone is either trying to hide these from being viewed by the uninformed public, or is an asshole. So which is it and what do we do about it? I'm willing to fix all the links...

If you're right, that's a pretty serious problem. Could you provide some examples of citations which have been changed, and where they are in the article? Do the links still function, or are they dead? »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 21:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was mistakenly comparing to old articles. It seems those issues were already resolved. Sorry to have caused any confusion. DKqwerty (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you were referring to this edit, which messed up a lot of references. I reverted it a bit later. -- Zsero (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

article

How do you edit this article? I want to add information about her. I want to edit this article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.233.200 (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Create a user account, wait four days, and you will be able to edit the article. In the meantime, if you have suggestions for improving it that can't wait, please post them here on talk, and they'll be considered and implemented if they are neutral, well-sourced, notable and appropriate. Thanks for your interest. Tvoz/talk 00:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

^ The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama (Hardcover), amazon.com
^ PBS Debate Moderator Writes 'Breakthrough' Book About 'Upstanding' Obama, Black Democrats, newsbusters.com, October 1, 2008
^ VP Debate Moderator Pens Pro-Obama Book, Fox News, October 1, 2008
^ Hagerty , Barbara Bradley (September 5, 2008). "Examining Palin's Pentecostal Background". NPR.
^ Kaye, Randi (2008-09-12). "Pastor: GOP may be downplaying Palin's religious beliefs". CNN. Retrieved 2008-09-16.
^ Hagerty , Barbara Bradley (September 5, 2008). "Examining Palin's Pentecostal Background". NPR.

[1] The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama (Hardcover), amazon.com

[2] PBS Debate Moderator Writes 'Breakthrough' Book About 'Upstanding' Obama, Black Democrats, newsbusters.com, October 1, 2008

[3] VP Debate Moderator Pens Pro-Obama Book, Fox News, October 1, 2008

[4] Hagerty , Barbara Bradley (September 5, 2008). "Examining Palin's Pentecostal Background". NPR.

[pastor-5] Kaye, Randi (2008-09-12). "Pastor: GOP may be downplaying Palin's religious beliefs". CNN. Retrieved 2008-09-16.

[6] Hagerty , Barbara Bradley (September 5, 2008). "Examining Palin's Pentecostal Background". NPR.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]