Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

Huge tag

I really prefer the nice little padlock symbol, instead of the huge tag, at the top of the article. The huge tag will cause many readers to not read the article. Any chance we can go back to the little padlock?Ferrylodge (talk) 06:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Why would the tag cause anyone not to read the article? I don't understand. Proxy User (talk) 06:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Because it's big and ugly and says the page has been VANDALIZED.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

See the links provided in the thread above this one. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 06:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I am not disputing the need for locking up the article. I'm simply saying that the huge tag is hideous. The small padlock symbol would work just as well. We have been through this before.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the tag gets in the way of the article. If someone tries to edit the article they will find out it is locked. There's no need to make the page look ugly for the rest of the folks. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 07:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, Ferrylodge: The diff you are pointing to has utterly no bearing on this. That was from the last shit-storm around the time Palin's VP-candidacy was announced. Why are you bringing it up now? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 07:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it is the exact same situation. NYB was saying to keep the article locked up, but use the small padlock symbol instead of using the huge tag. It's exactly what I'm requesting now.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

And if you look at the talk page discussion at the time, many editors disagreed with NYB who has no special standing with respect to such decisions. Dragons flight (talk) 08:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to lock this article down till after the election then I prefer the large, obnoxious box. It is a more honest way of announcing to readers and editors that something unusual is happening here. I'm not sure I agree that protection is needed though. Dragons flight (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's pretty much irrelevant for readers, and would just tend to drive them away. It basically says that the article's been vandalized, so why would anyone stay and read it? For editors, the explanation at the top of the talk page seems like plenty.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather they recieve the warning and choose not to read the article then recieve no warning. Dragons flight (talk) 08:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also believe the smaller tag is sufficient and does not convey unnecessary or unintended consequences. From a WP-level perspective, the big tag brings negative PR to the Wikipedia model of community editing to perhaps millions who will view these four pages over the next several days. More importantly, it diminishes the accomplishments of the many active editors who have worked on these articles for months through donated effort, essentially slapping a public and glaring "Red F" on their collective results. Fcreid (talk) 10:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Worrying about having good "Wiki-PR" and preventing 24-7 editors from having hurt feelings on the articles they WP:OWN would not form the basis of a legitimate decision. Of course, this probably means it will happen.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Come now, Factchecker. Certainly there's a need to take pride in your community, isn't there? Fcreid (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you hate freedom?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I've fought my entire life for freedom, but I gotta tell ya I'm digging the relative silence around here! :) Fcreid (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Kinda eerie, isn't it? :) Personally, big tag, little tag, doesn't make much difference to me.Zaereth (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I like the big one. 216.215.233.66 (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Section on Parodies missing

I'm missing a section on parodies about her, especially this link is missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.195.67 (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Somehow, I don't see this article being summarized in her biography right now! Fcreid (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

That is a good point. Given the "star" status of Palin, it comes with the territory. A short sentence on the Tina Fey impersonations would be a nice addition. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the Fey impersonation is covered in there along with her appearance on SNL. I suspect "soon" we'll be able to include notable impersonations and lampooning in popular culture in the manner some others are covered, although I don't know if that is the norm for other political figures. I recall a fair amount of Simpsons parodies mentioned on other notable figures, but I don't know what WP policy is for such inclusions. Fcreid (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Idaho Republican

Should she be considered an Idaho Republican since she was actually born in Idaho or not? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.44.99 (talk • contribs)

Of course not. Why on earth would her birthplace make a difference? Has she ever been a member of the Idaho Republican Party? Not unless it was at college. -- Zsero (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Photo was removed

Just wanted to say that I am disappointed my photo ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Palin_Cape3.jpg )was removed for the Palin article. I worked hard for the shot, which I felt turned out fairly well, and then spent quite a while editing it specifically for this article. One of the reasons I liked it was because I have never seen a photo of Palin with a compassionate expression, and I think it shows her feelings for disabled children much better than a worded description does. Lonerockalex (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be original research and has no place in a Wikipedia article. Cenarium ^Talk 02:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Everyone absolutely appreciates your contributions here, Alex. I don't know the ropes around here well enough to know either the details on photo usage policies, and I'm just barely learning those regarding WP:OR as Cenarium indicated above. Above all, I'm sure you understand we have limited space in such a small article for everything, so whatever decision is made is certainly no statement on your picture's content or quality. Fcreid (talk) 02:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution to WP Alex and your comment on my talk page. As mentioned above, the main reason the photo had to be removed was because of original research (the child is not visible in the image). We also have very limited space for additional photos. When a photo is added or changed, it is discussed at length here to achieve consensus. Take care, IP75 (talk) 03:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments on the photo Fcreid and IP75.

>the main reason the photo had to be removed was because of original research (the child is not visible in the image).

Ok, sorry. I understand the original research clause. While having verifiable claims is extremely important on Wikipedia, I didn’t realize a simple byline would be enough to illicit controversy. However, I have provided a reference¹ if you need one.

>When a photo is added or changed, it is discussed at length here to achieve consensus.

Great. Let’s start discussing if and where we’re going to put it.

References

(1) Television cameras of KFVS-TV 12 Cape Girardeau / Viacom recorded the moment which was replayed on the evening news, along with other interactions between her and the crowd [10/30/08 episode of KFVS 5PM News on Channel 12 (KFVS)].

Lonerockalex (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Since I provided a reference (which was the main objection) and invited discussion about whether the photo was appropriate for the article (and no one has replied after two days) I'll assume that it is acceptable to replace my photo in the article. Lonerockalex (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you'll have to discuss it with the admins at Commons, as it was deleted earlier today as a copyright violation. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Problem fixed (some liberal from Holland deleted the photo with no justification other than "copyright violation" even though I took the photo and licensed it under GNU). Can we move forward with the discussion now?Lonerockalex (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, okay then. Please don't strike other editors' comments in future, 'kay? As for the picture, I personally think the viewpoints above are quite correct: it's not a bad shot, but it's less representative than the other images in the article, and it doesn't show the context, which would have to be described in the cutline - that's not really ideal. Plus, the article's well stocked with photos already - it might require discussion as to whether this would be better than one of those to fit in. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Palin prank call

Various bods in the Ferrylodge WP:TAGTEAMster faction have censored relevant, verifiable, significant, notable and correctly referenced information about the phone prank on Palin by repeatedly reverting it: [[1]]

Each revert brings a different reason, so that when one is rebutted another is deployed: they have ranged from Zsero's objection on the imaginary and really rather surreal grounds that the sentence is actually more than one sentence to Ferrylodge's objection on the grounds that Palin's SNL appearance reached more people. The latter misses the important point that the prank call was more significant in relation to the BLP of a candidate for the second-highest office in the most powerful nation on earth as it casts light on her grasp of foreign affairs.

See the WP:WELLKNOWN policy on material about Well-known public figures:

If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.

IMO the incident as documented in the full, unmolested sentence is notable, relevant, well-documented by reliable public sources, and belongs in the article. — Writegeist (talk) 05:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Writegeist, please consider this a warning. The term "Ferrylodge WP:TAGTEAMster" is a personal attack. If I see you use it again, I will block you for it. Risker (talk) 06:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, The Masked Avengers' prank on Sarah Palin is not notable. --Evb-wiki (talk) 06:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I do agree, it is not of a scale of notability for this topic. Not unless it stays in the news cycle for a few more weeks. 216.215.233.66 (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. I try to picture what this article will look like five ... ten years from now, when all this "important information" that we have accumulated here has been reduced to a few paragraphs, if not to make room for future happenings in Palin's life, then just in the interest of making this into a bio and not an up-to-the-minute report of the campaign.Zaereth (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

To get an idea of what the Sarah Palin article might look look in a few years, take a look at the William E. Miller article. Edison (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! :) Fcreid (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No Heading

From archive 40:
"Johnson links
I first mentioned the Johnson dead links a good week ago, in Discussion. Cleanup time." -sig further down in quote-
"* Concur on general housekeeping chores. Fcreid (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)" done.
Want to point out that the Johnson quotes are all over the article. The type in the cited source is very small, I find the material boring, and haven't time to check that it is used correctly, ie fits the material it cites. These cites are not mine, don't blame me if they aren't relevant. I will check them some day, maybe. Anarchangel (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The cites are accurate, or they were when I added them some week ago. They used to link to a full cite of the book, which has for some reason been deleted. Coemgenus 14:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Mangled ref needs fixing

{{editprotected}}

This paragraph has a mangled ref at the end:

Palin attended [[Wasilla High School]] in Wasilla, located 44 miles (71 km) north of [[Anchorage]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.anchorage.net/467.cfm |title=Alaska Maps and Charts |publisher=Anchorage Convention & Visitors Bureau |year=2008 |accessdate=2008-10-14}}</ref> She was the head of the [[Fellowship of Christian Athletes]] chapter at the school and the [[point guard]] and captain of the school's girls' basketball team that won the Alaska state championship in 1982.<ref name="Johnson"/><ref>[http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/27091580/ NBC sports] MSNBC</ref>, "Palin was no pushover on basketball court", Associated Press, Oct. 8, 2008</ref>

Where the /ref after "MSNBC" doesn't belong, but that's only part of the mangling.

Unimath (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done Nice catch. Thank you! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please revert vandalism

{{editprotected}} I request that an admin undo this edit. I initially added Recently Palin has begun to use the term "Democrat party" to refer to the Democratic party. That's a completely neutral tone that doesn't imply anything about her motivations for using the term. JCDenton2052 (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 18:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry JCDenton2052, this is clearly a disputed edit, based on the discussion that continues up above. Let's give it more time to see if a consensus develops to include this. Risker (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this really notable in a main bio? IP75 (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think not, but see the discussion above, titled Silliness.Zaereth (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

change in link to creationism

Political positions Main article: Political positions of Sarah Palin See also: Public image and reception of Sarah Palin Palin has been a registered Republican since 1982, and has described the Republican Party platform as "the right agenda for America".[188] Palin is a social conservative. A lifetime member of the National Rifle Association (NRA), she believes the right to bear arms includes handgun possession, and is against a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons.[189] She has supported gun safety education for youth.[190] She supports capital punishment.[191] In a 2006 gubernatorial debate, responding to a question asking the candidates whether they would support teaching creationism in public schools, Palin stated that she supported teaching both @creationism@ and evolution. Shortly after that debate, however, Palin said in an interview that she had only meant to say she supports allowing the discussion of in public schools,

the link to creatonism is on the word with the @ signs surrounding, it should be placed at the word with the # signs surrounding.

Afudge (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal Life

"He and his unit deployed to Iraq in September 2008, for 12 months.[180]"

If you read the article it actually doesn't say that at all, so that should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tehjamez (talk • contribs) 20:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion for what it should say, that is supported by this or other reliable sources? The ref you cite, dated September 6, 2008 says Track Palin's unit was to be deployed to Iraq "soon" and that the deployment is expected to be for 12 months. What is in question? More recent articles say he is serving in Iraq, in a Stryker unit[2]. Edison (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Mistake

{{editrequested}} A "ref" tag is showing, due to this recent edit. Therefore, please change

"Palin was no pushover on basketball court", Associated Press, Oct. 8, 2008</ref>

to

<ref>[http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/27091580/], "Palin was no pushover on basketball court", Associated Press, Oct. 8, 2008</ref>

Thanks.

Ferrylodge (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Woody (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have put the second bracket after the article title, but it's good enough for now.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I had reported this above and, although it was marked "done", the correction didn't appear. Thanks for making the correction. However, now the footnote is malformed. The ref should probably be something like:

<ref>[http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/27091580/ "Palin was no pushover on basketball court"], Associated Press, Oct. 8, 2008</ref>

Note that the closing square bracket is moved and one comma is deleted. Unimath (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Used the cite news template to fix the issue. Regards. Woody (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Section On Unpopularity Among Major Republicans?

Many influential Republicans dislike Palin's nomination to the point at which they've endorsed Obama. I think we can come up with a list of at least five to ten or more, starting with prominent Republican leaders like Colin Powell and Ken Duberstein (Reagan's White House Chief of Staff). I think the section (or subsection) deserves a short paragraph, due to the unusual historic nature of this weird trend. Hasn't happened ever before in US history, has it? Anyone willing to help with this? Suggestions? VictorC (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thankfully, just 1-day to go. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That is a fantastic idea. Oh wait, you are pushing your agenda again, never mind. --Tom 18:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Politicians stabbing each other in the back? No, that never happened before.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You guys are shameless. SHAMELESS!!!!! Colin P, Charlie K, Ken D - not any old backstabbers - these are people we know and trust far more than your dear friend Sarah.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Usual non-agenda-pushing responses from the Palin campaigners. ;-) VictorC: if, as you say, the endorsement of a Democratic candidate by prominent republican leaders is historically unprecedented, then clearly (to all but the Palinites) it warrants inclusion, given qualified sources. — Writegeist (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's going to be less relevant after tomorrow, eitherway. So why not wait until after tomorrow? GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a suspicion it might result in less of a s-storm of silly emotional remarks on the discussion page by then. You have a good point. The relevancy is an issue, but it's regrettably perhaps impractical as you have astutely no doubt ascertained. VictorC (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Whereas Palin has stated that she isn't going anywhere, people trying to ensure that both the positive and the negative are included in the article probably aren't going anywhere either. I've worked in some pretty disputed articles before, but the rampant...what's the word....Legal Chicanery? that I've seen here makes anything else pale in comparison. "Agenda Pushers" are not limited to one side or the other. 216.215.233.66 (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Politicians endorsing the other side? Yeah, it happens in every election. Ed Koch is the first that comes to my mind from the last election, but I'm sure there are more. Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman, Lincoln Chafee, etc. Coemgenus 22:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I would like to put together a thorough list of prominent Republicans who have jumped ship, but specifically in reference to negative reaction to this vice presidential candidate. I have a feeling we'll find that this is a kind of historical avalanche, but I think we need to reference other unpopular vice presidential candidates - charged with preventing the success of the campaign, for example I believe this happened with Sargent Shriver some time ago. I remember there was a vice presidential candidate who was replaced (Thomas Eagleton) because it was revealed he had been treated for depression? OK. In any case I remember many pundits attributing the vice presidential candidate as a significant factor for party-crossing voters. However, the instance of prominent and influential party members (in significant numbers) endorsing the other party's candidate I have no idea of this ever happening ever before. Like you said, there are a few isolated examples that we all can refer to in the last few elections. This is much bigger. Let's see if we can come up with a good basis for some context. Formulating a list of vice president candidates on the losing side should be pretty straightforward, but going back to find references of historically unpopular candidates might take doing. Also -to GoodDay- don't worry this won't be up for a while, it's too big a job to be getting together any time soon!! LOL. VictorC (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Vic - see Public image of Sarah Palin - there's a list there - and a lot of citations to others not listed....LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 01:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What you're talking about sounds an awful lot like WP:SYNTH unless you actually use a source that draws the conclusion that it's a "historical avalanche".--Cube lurker (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) VictorC, maybe you should form a committee and spend a few months working on this "material" and then report back to us. I will check here every day with baited breath. Thanks mucho, --Tom 16:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

From the moment I began working on this article, I've noticed that nothing promotes good talk page etiquette like completely unmasked, biting sarcasm. Kudos. PS -- it's "bated" breath. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

...OK, that's a burn. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 23:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Getting consensus before editing - and could someone maybe do an archive?

Here I was concerned that this article would have to be watched carefully for vandalism. I certainly didn't expect to see an edit war going on. Please ensure edits are made according to talk page consensus - and get the consensus up front, please.

As an aside, it would probably be good if someone familiar with which threads are quiescent would archive this talk page. Right now, it's at 180KB, which is difficult for a lot of people to open, and we do want to invite comments from unregistered or newly registered editors over the next 24-36 hours, I would expect. Thanks. Risker (talk) 04:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I heard a rumor that this article was going to be full-protected for election day. What's the scoop, Risker?Ferrylodge (talk) 05:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The plan is that non-involved administrators are watching the article and will full protect at the first sign of vandalism or edit warring. Hence my watching, and noticing the bit of a skirmish. I'd rather keep it open as long as possible for good faith edits that improve the article, but any edit warring is going to put the end to it. In fact, the FAs have been brought down to semi-protection as well, for now, again with constant vigilance for edit warring, but in the hopes that good faith edits that improve the article can be made. I assume that works for most people. Risker (talk) 05:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Miszabot does automatic archives every night at about 10pm, I think. I wonder why it missed last night's; maybe there weren't any threads that hadn't had any activity for 48 hours. -- Zsero (talk) 07:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, he wasn't through here last night, and it would be helpful to reduce the size of the page as much as possible, but it would probably be better if someone familiar with the discussions did that. Risker (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've done some manual archiving, but really the biggest threads are the two rape-kit ones, and while you've arbitrarily closed the second one, the first is still open and takes up half the page, and has edits that are well under 48 hours old. Do you think it would be OK to archive them anyway? -- Zsero (talk) 08:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say go for it Zsero, there won't be a lot of editing done on the subject in the next 24 hours. If necessary they can be unarchived or reviewed again in the future. Risker (talk) 08:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on that section.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to assist you with that, Factchecker. Fcreid (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

There was a vandal about an hour ago who was adding a vulgar word to the article, in a prominent red font. It was reverted and reinstated several times, which explains why some people were seeing it and some weren't. It's gone now and the vandal has been blocked. -- Zsero (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Popular culture, CKOI interview:

http://news.google.ca/news?q=sarah+palin+CKOI&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&hl=en&sa=X&oi=news_result&resnum=1&ct=title

Not notable. The doofus did the same thing to Microsoft's Bill Gates, and to Sarkozy himself (by impersonating Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper).Ferrylodge (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Insert at Public image of Sarah Palin. It belongs there, not here. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Should we include this? It's the AP...thus, it's a reliable source. miranda 02:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Not notable. The doofus did the same thing to Microsoft's Bill Gates, and to Sarkozy himself (by impersonating Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper).Ferrylodge (talk) 02:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Concur, but very funny! Here is the audio and transcript:[[3]] IP75 (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it is notable. I heard the recording and read the AP report on it. The conversation included some telling moments, regardless of Democrats v. Republicans. You should consider including it.69.86.56.126 (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

See WP:Recentism. If people remember this after a week, then we can reconsider.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I can be moved to the campaign page, where it belongs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Meh. Palin is one of many pranked by the duo. We don't mention it in their articles, we don't need to mention it in hers or the campaign article. AniMate 04:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't notable (even though it is picked up by the Associated Press) yet somehow we seem to find room for "in popular culture" sections spanning across thousands of articles, almost all of which contain at least one reference to The Simpsons TV show. So sad. JBsupreme (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The Simpsons is a notable show. This prank isn't. (Oh, and WP:TRIVIA) -- Zsero (talk) 07:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Thanks for playing. JBsupreme (talk) 08:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I added a brief description of the prank. [4] The notability seems undeniable, since I've cited references from the Times of Malta, the Times of India, and China Daily as some of the many news outlets beyond the U.S. and Canada that have run the story. Merely her statement that she hopes to assume the presidency in eight years would be sufficient to make the story relevant. The story documents not only the ability of the team to trick her, but an apparent willingness to agree to statements and actions that she does not understand during a conversation with a presumed head of state. Mike Serfas (talk) 07:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

We're kidding, right? Fcreid (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not. Mike Serfas seems determined to add this. I say no way. I don't care how many newspapers thought it an amusing story to report — it is exactly that, but that doesn't make it in any way a significant incident in the campaign, let alone in Palin's life. It's an "odd spot" kind of story, good for a chuckle in the daily paper, and forgotten tomorrow. Contra Mike Serfas, it doesn't "document" anything; if Sarkozy were to call you you'd also be reluctant to ask him what the hell he was talking about, even if you didn't quite recognise some of the things he was saying. You'd take notes and look them up later, if you were really interested. -- Zsero (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Zsero, your claim is that this story is "not notable".[5] I have provided media references demonstrating that it is now a top news story on six continents.[6] If all the news media in the world aren't enough to make a story notable, what do you believe would be? Wikipedia is here to describe events, not to cover them up. Mike Serfas (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability is not established merely by being reported. The incident must be significant, which this isn't. The newspaper count interests me not at all, so you may as well save your time and stop counting them. If it turns out to have a documented impact on the campaign, then it will be significant enough to include. So far it's just an "odd spot" story. -- Zsero (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The clowns are out again. Not notable. Not news. Not BLP. About as meaningful as finding where Madonna buys ribbons from. Collect (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yet I added this sentence immediately after descriptions of her impersonation by Tina Fey and her appearance on Saturday Night Live. Can anyone point to the Wikipedia policy that explains why those two facts are "significant", while this third fact is not? I think its significance is hard to dispute: for example, Palin could just as easily have accepted a call from Chen Shui-bian and gone along cheerfully with statements about the importance of Taiwan's independence. As with the e-mail hacking incident, this story shows that Palin's gates are unguarded. But arguing significance in this way reduces Wikipedia to a political censorship contest. It has nothing to do with the proper reporting of events in the campaign as a neutral reflection of the news of the day. Mike Serfas (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be under a fundamental misconception. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. And you can't compare SNL to some obscure radio show in Montreal or wherever. -- Zsero (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not the number of listeners at the original meeting that determines notability, but the breadth of subsequent coverage. Otherwise, Obama's brief meeting over coffee with Ayers, which was not the subject of a radio broadcast at all, would not be mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Mike Serfas (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Not that it's relevant to this thread, but "brief meeting over coffee"? You're talking about a close political alliance over the course of more than a decade, not some brief meeting. But back to the current thread: you keep missing the point that this is an "odd spot" piece. Not everything that newspapers report is significant. If it keeps dogging Palin's career from here on, then it will be worth reporting on WP. Otherwise not. -- Zsero (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thankfully, just 2-days to go. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Mr Serfas, fyi: your efforts to add information that qualifies for inclusion, though admirable, are futile, given the longstanding tactics of the McCain campaign supporters. (These were addressed in my previous edit here, deleted as a "personal attack" by Zsero.) There is nothing in WP rules or guidelines that requires events in the life of a BLP subject to have "kept dogging their career" before they qualify for inclusion. The argument is bogus. Contrary to Zsero's personal attack on you for "missing the point" you actually appear to grasp it rather better than he/she does. Now then. Did someone say "clowns"? Oh yes--it was Collect. — Writegeist (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The CKOI stuff is clowns. Literally and figuratively. And not of any relevance to much of anything at all. Probably of less significance that the pie throwing at Mr. Gates. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to present factual information on a topic, not every anecdote which falls into it. Collect (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems that Republicans have come out in full force hereto discourage anything that may make her look bad. NorthernThunder (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. This is just a prank call. It's really not important enough to include in a short biography. Nobody got hurt or arrested, and in a couple of months no one will even remember it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Which is the point. Wikipedia should not try to be a news paper but a record of pertinent information. This information may stay in the article for a few weeks but ultimately it will get removed based on the fact that such trivial information about public appearances do not appear in the personal articles of other guest on the show. 74.183.38.88 (talk) 08:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Whatever is decided, what's in there now has serious WP:UNDUE weight problems (an entire paragraph?), serious WP:NPOV issues (how do we know they convinced her of anything?) and introduces potential WP:BLP concerns (wiki-linking to a pornographic video satire?) People need to be a bit more responsible, I think. Fcreid (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It was a pretty funny interview - especially the things they said in French - one of the translations, "We could also kill some baby seals" was over the top. Can't expect her to understand that since it was spoken in a language that's not spoken by "real Americans" like her. I do think it's bit fluffy for Wikipedia, for now, while people have their hackles up. It will be fine in a popular culture section after the election - just like the SNL parodies are OK now. Mattnad (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this "material" per the discussion above. --Tom 15:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thankfully, just 1-day to go. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I think it's pretty clear that there is no consensus to insert this material into this article. Anyone disagree that there is no consensus? The proper place for it would be in the sub-article about the 2008 campaign, if indeed it's significant enough for that article.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I see no consensus to delete these two sentences. There are at least six other users supporting my view here or by edits that this material should be added. I have used some of their new text to modify my previous version,[7] but did not add the link that Fcreid mentioned. I believe that Tom is mistaken when he suggests on his user page that Wikipedia edits should not have an "agenda". I believe that all verifiable, relevant additions have and should have an agenda of some kind, because no one edits Wikipedia without some underlying reason. I believe that an agenda is a problem only when it leads to the deletion of verifiable, relevant material. This is because our goal should be to build up a highly detailed, accurate account of the subject matter, but not to conceal, distort, or destroy information. Mike Serfas (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mike_serfas, my point on my user page, is that editors with an agenda to push usually will not help to improve an article but rather they will try to advance whatever agenda it is that they have. I didn't count six editors that wanted this "material" added, but Wikipedia does not work by votes thankfully anyways. If this "material" is truely relevant and noteworthy enough for inclusion, it will stand the test of time. Wikipedia is not the news nor a collection of every bit of material about a bio subject. Anyways, it seems that others have argued this point better than myself. --Tom 19:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, how do we know it was Palin on the other end of the phone? It might've been Tina Fey playing a prank on the radio guys. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Like all the facts properly included in Wikipedia, we know it because that is what the reliable sources like this one] say. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Evb-wiki, do you see consensus to include this crap in the article? And does anyone care how many times Canadiandebauchee edit-wars it back into this article?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless it becomes something more than it is now, it carries unde weight for this article, IMO. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) So I'll remove it again per concensus. --Tom 21:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I personally think this is worth a mention--the NYTimes just mentioned it in an article describing the growing tensions between the McCain and Palin camps. The prank call contributed a great deal to that tension, since she never even informed McCain she would be speaking with Sarkozy. Maybe this could be mentioned in the context of the growing tensions between McCain and Palin towards the end of the campaign? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/us/politics/06mccain.html?pagewanted=1&hp Slystoneisback (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC).

Maybe include this "material" in the campaign sub article if at all. Again, over time hopefully this bio can be "improved" by figuring out what is really relevant to the main bio and what belongs in the sub articles. --Tom 14:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability

My time in the brig did not go to waste: I learned, for instance, that Notability, WP's grand old warhorse, has been wrongly deployed both here and at McCain.

Notability is a criterion for inclusion of the topic or person in WP, not the content of the article. All arguments and negotiations re content that are predicated on notability are irrelevant. Had I known this sooner, what has looked to me like multiple suppressions and subversions might have been prevented, with considerable benefit to the encyclopedic depth and reliability of the articles in question. See WP:NOTABILITY and WP:Notability (persons). Let's, er, take note.

Surprisingly the food was OK, thank you for asking; and on a clear day, if I stood on tippytoe on my bunk-buddy's head, I could see Russia under that "little tent of blue which prisoners call the sky", so I have volunteered as Secretary of State in the Obama administration. — Writegeist (talk) 05:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. For there to be an article, there are strict rules about the notability of the subject. Once there is an article, though, we still don't just jam in any random facts. Every fact in the article must be in some way notable, but will generally not be notable enough to have an article all to itself.

The standards are different, and the particular policies you referred to don't apply to content, but there are some standards. In particular, WP:NNC says: "However, because of the nature of an encyclopedia, the concept of notability nonetheless affects article content. Treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." "Significance" and "notability" are pretty much synonymous. -- Zsero (talk) 08:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Operative word is "affects". NNC states: Notability guidelines do not regulate the content of articles, except for lists of people. Instead, various content policies govern article content. (Emphasis added.) Furthermore: Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. (Emphasis added.) Notability is not a criterion for inclusion or exclusion of content; the criterion for that is compliance with WP content policy etc. Notability affects only the weight given to content. The fact remains: "notability" has been misused here as a means of limiting, removing and suppressing content that fully complies with WP content policies. — Writegeist (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

To me, the operative sentence of NNC is the last one: "Keep in mind that an encyclopedia article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, not a complete exposition of all possible details." When people say that an individual fact is not notable, they're generally referring to some combination of this, WP:WEIGHT, and/or WP:IINFO. Oren0 (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The word "notability" is used informally as a shorthand for whether material is significant and relevant enough, as evidenced by the weight of reliable sources, for inclusion in the article. So you are right that the notability guidelines do not rule. But they do share some features - the requirement that things be sourced, the notion that things be of due WP:WEIGHT, etc. Various guidelines have been proposed for content inclusion within an article but they have all been rejected and nobody has come up with a complete formulation for editor discretion here. The closest I've seen is that content proposed for an article should bear some significant relevance to the notability of the subject of the article. If you propose to add a Tina Fey joke and people say "that's not notable", they do have a point - they're just using the word in a different sense. Hope that helps. Wikidemon (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Informed and insightful. Danke, Wikidemon. — Writegeist (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Future political career

 Done

This section is a crystal ball. As governor of Alaska, she will serve out her term? Really? Mostly unsourced and a magnet for further speculation. IMO, it should be removed. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed. Though the thought of her as a presidential candidate (which, btw, is sourced to an op-ed piece) did make me laugh really hard. The section should be removed. GlassCobra 17:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

In agreement, remove the section. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it adds nothing to the article. Coemgenus 17:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Section removed. GlassCobra 17:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I would not be so quick to remove the section. Discussion and prediction of future events by reliable sources is not excludable as "crystall ball" material. Newsweek (Nov. 5, 2008) [8] calls her the "new potential standard bearer" and says conservatives they surveyed say she has "at least an even shot for 2012." Canberra Times (Australia) Nov. 5. says she is "one of the strongest brands the Republicans have got," and that she has "clearly indicated the 2008 run wasn't an end-all to her national political ambitions." They cite a Newsweek survey showing her at the"front of the field of 2012 hopefuls." The Evening Standard (London) Nov. 5 ran an article[9] "Palin already tipped as 2012 candidate." Many conservative Republicans and in fact many Democrats (though for different reasons) hope she is the Republican nominee in 2012. We could have such a section now based on these sources. If Palin takes material steps toward such a campaign, as by having a fundraising committee and helping candidates nationally with fundraising as Newsweek suggested, that would be yet more substance to add.Edison (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like Public image and reception of Sarah Palin may be a good place for that. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Could be so. The articles I cited are about perceptions of her. In this biographical article, action of Palin which receive substantial coverage in reliable and independent sources should be covered. These would include if, in the future, she travels around the U.S. building up a political network by fundraising for like-minded Republicans, as Reagan did in the four years before his nomination. If she does things which reliable sources say look like the early phases of a 2012 run, then the polling data and the comments cited above should be added here to provide context. Right now she may be busy catching up on being Governor and getting ready for the upcoming wedding and grandkid. Edison (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep. And certainly if she starts a campaign. :') But then those won't fall into a "future" section either. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If she has done something, then I agree it is "present" but mainstream commentators may say her present actions are intended to promote a future run. One source said that if Stevens manages to get reelected, the Senate is likely to remove him, and when Palin looks around for a replacement, she may decide to appoint herself to the Senate to gain a brief Obama-like Senatorial seasoning before a 2012 presidential run. Edison (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought Alaska law prevented governors from appointing Senators to fill unexpired terms. Coemgenus 21:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

They do prevent it (thanks to Frank Murkowski). Besides, a Governor can't appoint him/herself (breach of seperation of powers). If Stevens got re-elected & later resigned, Palin would have to resign as Governor & hope her successor (Pernell) would appoint her to Stevens unexpired term. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Governors certainly can appoint themselves to the senate; it's happened nine times in the past 80 years or so. And she may very well have the power to appoint a senator to replace Stevens — but that senator would only serve until a special election, which would have to be held within 90 days. Politically, though, it would be stupid of her to appoint herself. The record on such appointments is not good; only one self-appointed senator has ever won the next election. And if she wants to run for president in 2012 she's far better off doing so as a governor. -- Zsero (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I referenced the National Review.com article that you linked and looked up the governors cited there. It makes it look kind of frequent for a governor to take a senator's place in case of a vacancy. But the governor can't appoint themselves, as was noted already. According to the 17th ammendment of the US Constitution, the governor has the power to appoint the senator. The governors in this list all seem to have arranged with their lieutenant-governors to appoint them after they resign. When they resign, the lieutenant-governor becomes governor, then appoints the senator. The state of Alaska passed a law in '04 saying governors no longer can appoint senators: "appointed his daughter, Lisa Murkowski, the Majority Leader-designate of the Alaska House of Representatives, in his place. This led his opponents to accuse him of nepotism; as a result, a ballot measure passed in 2004 stripped governors of the power to appoint U.S. Senators, making Alaska one of only three states to do so." It looks like she's not legally able to appoint herself, can't resign and have her lieutenant governor appoint her, Alaska law prevents it. I guess I'm just restating pretty much what has already been posted here. VictorC (talk) 11:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Such a section could be appropriate, if it restricts itself to well-sourced speculation, and is phrased in appropriately speculative terms. What is not appropriate is bold declarations about what will happen, which is what the section seems to have originally contained. -- Zsero (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I didn't know Governors could appoint themselves. In the case of Alaska, I believe that power was stripped after Governor Frank Murkowski appointed his daughter. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to look into it, but I believe the only power that was stripped was the power to appoint a relative.Zaereth (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it needs to specified that it is speculation. It is possible, depending on the situation, that Palin could replace Ted Stevens. IP75 (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I don't think the law says anything about a relative. The way it works in most states is that the governor appoints a replacement senator, who serves until the next general election, which in this case would be in 2010. But the reform that was passed after the Murkowsky appointment was that a special election has to be held within 90 days. But the reform was passed in two different versions, and under one of them the governor still appoints a temporary replacement (who can be a relative or even herself), to serve until the special election can be held, i.e. for a term of no longer than 90 days. The other version says that the post remains vacant until the special election. It's not clear which version rules. -- Zsero (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. If you don't mind me asking, where did you find this info?Zaereth (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose, concerning Sarah Palin, Ted Stevens & his Senate seat's future. We'll cross that bridge when we get to it (no, not that bridge). GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I referenced it above. And no, definitely not that bridge. -- Zsero (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Alaskan Law requires a special election to replace Steven's.......--Buster7 (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Stevens has not won yet. He is currently leading by about 3,400 votes with more then 55,000 ballots left to count.IP75 (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Palin is still getting considerable coverage on CNN and other national news sources as a popular and important figure in the conservatie and evangelical branches of the Republican Party, and is getting considerable discussion as to her chances of and interest in a 2012 nomination, right up there with Huckabee and Romney. Edison (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

POV and propaganda

I'd like to quote Oshaughnessey's book, Politics and Propaganda: Weapons of Mass Seduction: the “empirical” scientific request for “'proof' is often an argument deployed to conceal the sins of government”p.121 “Propaganda is the denial, as well as the provision, of information...propagandists seek a truth rather than the truth”p.204 I have restored the public image section (deleted without explanation or any attempt at editing, prior to the elections), as such a section is featured in other articles. Feel free to add pro-Palin balance as you see fit, but do not deny this well-sourced data. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want to rewrite all the WP standards, try promoting your view to the admins. Until then, live with the existing standards -- like wanting facts in BLPs. Collect (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, here's an idea. Let's make this propganda quote you've cited the first sentence in the lede. It's a perfect way to start off this article. I don't know why some feel that any bad thing about Palin must have a good thing also to cancel it out, or the article's not balanced, (and visa versa). As I've said before, I would not expect an article about the Pope to have a bad statement to counter every good statement. Likewise, an article about Hitler does not need a statement of good to balance out all of the bad he did. We should report the facts with a neutral delivery, and let the article take the slant, good or bad, that it will. I have a feeling this is going to bring on a slurry of policy quotations, but really, fact presented with true NPOV are naturally going to put a good slant on the article, judging by the fact that the only really bad statements that anyone can seem to find about her are so damn laughable I can't believe there is anyone who could take them seriously. Zaereth (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought this wanting to add negative stuff, would've eased off after Tuesday. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sighhhhhh. I did too. Oh well .. the best laid plans of mice and men ... Zaereth (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I get disgusted every time I refresh my watchlist. I'm about to pack it up and let this article become a lampoon. Fcreid (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean. There's nothing like the mis-information super highway. I'm just glad that thousands of people clicked on the link I provided to the fully unedited interview, and actually got to hear the real Sarah Palin. That radio station apparently had tons of approving emails from all over the world this morning from people who checked it out. Just imagine how many people are watching this petty squabbling right now.Zaereth (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

now that it's over

Now that the election is over, can we make this an actual biography instead of a dumping ground fro POV attacks? My more specific recommendations would be to shorten or eliminate the campaign related attacks that have not been long controversies (rape kits (delete), public safety commisioner firing (make 1/3 current size).LedRush (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope so. It's probably better for the article that she lost. Extremists of both stripes might move on to more relevant targets for their hate/love. I'd like to fix the book citations, too, since they got lost in the shuffle. Coemgenus 14:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Attacks during elections occur in a vacuum; there are either attack speeches or non-attack speeches. Within the Palin article are commendable statistics on her paving roads and building up city infrastructure; if competitor's speeches included facts amenable to their target, they would be perfectly at liberty, as are we, to also include the rest of the facts, including the unpleasant ones. Anarchangel (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why you would think there should be "pre-election" and "post-election" standards for the article. Material isn't going to become less relevant just because there are fewer eyes on this article watching for unwarranted deletion. This idea, and the idea that this article is a "dumping ground for POV attacks", are both fantasies. You simply don't like the widespread criticism targeting Palin and would prefer to remove it all from the article, contrary to policy.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No one said there are different standards. What was said, is that hopefully the agenda pushers will slow down. Are you in for the long haul with your agenda pushing, or will you leave soon? --Tom 16:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? And I assume you folks intend to push your agenda indefinitely, no?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No. Just like I still beat agenda pushers where I find them. --Tom 18:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

News flash: you are an agenda-pusher. Self-flagellate immediately. Thanks. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Either the article was a good one before the election or it wasn't. If the former, there is no problem. If the latter, then we proceed in working to improve it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Just for fun, and a little perspective, I suggest editors read the article as it was on August 28 (b4 YoungTrigg appeared). My how we have grown. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The article was not a good one before the election. Editors with agendas congregated here and ensured that wikipedia standards would not be followed on this article as they were on others of it's kind (c.f., Obama, which was well written and avoided all of the silly campaign "controversies" that plague this article).LedRush (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The simple truth is that you'd like this article to go back to the good old days when a few editors including Ferrylodge and YoungTrigg used this article as a platform to push a deceitful pro-Palin article letting everyone know how she killed that awful bridge pork project, leading the prayer before softball games, Todd's "iron man" snowmobile titles, and tantalizing details posted on August 29th about the secretive flight and OMG COULD SHE BE NAMED VEEP CANDIDATE?? and so forth. Total promotion, pure PR -- not the purpose of Wikipedia. Five editors trying to make the article a press release don't make the article a press release.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you'd call your opinion fact, why you would engage in libelous accusations about me, or why you think that I have an agenda that I don't. Please see my work on other articles, including the Obama one, in which we've successfully fought off the right wing mirror images of you who come in with hate, prejudice, and misinformation and try to hijack the article. Your petulance and unwillingness to engage in honest dialog is sad.LedRush (talk) 06:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Your comments are complete fiction. The archives are plastered by substantive argument on my part met with innuendo and total lack of substantive argument in response. You sit and accuse without basis of some agenda I have and launch personal attacks against me and others whose opinions you dislike. I don't call my opinion fact, nor do I call any source's opinion fact. One of the reasons my name is "Factchecker" is that I make an explicit point of making my Wiki material make clear who said what about what subject and who cited it before we included it here. I don't try to make sweeping generalizations based on my own view of a subject plus some narrowly interpreted quote or paraphrase. On the contrary, I try to ensure that the most persuasive arguments on each side of a controversy are reflected so that the reader has an actual basis to form an opinion. Controversy is supposed to be reflected neutrally and factually -- and I'd like to point out that this means attributing controversial opinions to their sources, not just omitting them -- this is directly stated in policy. And if you want to compare me with right wing ideologues on the Obama article, I'd like to point out that it's absolutely ridiculous that the main Obama article has no mention of William Ayers. I have repeatedly tried to engage in honest dialog here. When I have met a compromise, it has been reneged upon. Little if any good faith has been shown. If you have some honest dialog, I'd like to hear the actual dialog and not just talking about some theoretical dialog.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 06:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Factchecker, you and I had this discussion before. Your edit history is clear here; you have never attempted to introduce any material into this article which didn't forward your POV on Palin. (And you've made that POV know without qualification.) The best you could counter in our discussions was that you kept out the most outrageous material, although your edit history doesn't even support that. To say your opinion is "balanced" and that you limit yourself to "facts" reflects intellectual dishonesty. In fact, much of what you've been pushing for the past six weeks borders on WP:SYNTH because of your attempts to rearrange disparate facts into the shapes that lead only to the conclusion that enforces your opinion. I've been frustrated constantly by you in our cooperative editing. Frankly, I hoped you'd have gone away after your candidate won the election. Fcreid (talk) 10:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You created an account just to POV push on this article. I created an account long ago to fight POV pushing articles on Wikipedia. You obviously don't even understand NPOV and you still think it means "No Point of View". Intellectually dishonesty is you ignoring the entire substance of the discussion we had and then coming here trying to say misleading things about it. I am not bothered by your opinion of me; it is not well-founded. Nor do I ascribe any great quantity of good faith to you or your intentions here. Nor are you alone in feeling intense frustration at the conversations we've had.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not sure how she became such a magnet for undue abuse. Some of the crap that made it in here is amazing. Contrast it with any number of other articles on politicians, and it's an embarrassment of mincing words and insidious POV shots. I stand ready to assist however I can. I actually put together a much briefer synopsis of the Stambaugh firing paragraph a few days ago, but it never got traction. Fcreid (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree whole heartedly. I came here just to make sure that my state, Alaska, was being treated fairly, but had not the time nor the lawyering skills to compete with the endless arguements over clearly written policy. I've never seen anything like it. I'll be glad to help out in anyway I can, but in the meantime I have to go speak in tounges, handle some snakes, and roll down the hill before we all go to the big book burning at the local liabrary. :-) Zaereth (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, a typical Alaskan evening, eh? :) Fcreid (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Haven't you heard? Right now I think I'll go over tho the Hilary Clinton article and find out what is the deal with her accent. And maybe Bush too. And Harrison Ford. This is important stuff. ;-)Zaereth (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Something you guys just don't get is that all this emphasis in the media on her clothes, accent, etc., is due to the fact that she had nothing to say. However, here at this article the emphasis has not been on her clothes, etc - it has been on substantive issues such as her abuse of power, her wacko religious views on public life, her place in the women's rights spectrum, her duplicitous public statements about pork-barrel spending, as well as her total lack of understanding of foreign policy issues.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Lx4, It's gratifying to see that you have a such a genuinely Neutral Point of View on the subject of this article. --Paul (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you heard Harrison Ford's accent? And what about Bush? I mean, I know he's from Texas, but what's this accent he's speaking with? Everybody has an accent, only we can't hear our own. But all kidding aside, to me, tabloid journalism is tabloid journalism no matter where you find it, whether it's the National Enquirer, or the New York Times, or Wikipedia, or Bill Allen's company, the Anchorage Daily News. Religious views, if those in fact are her religious views, (the next time I pass her on the street I'll ask her), are only wacko in your opinion.Zaereth (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with LamaLoLeshLa that there wasn't a lot of substance to Sarah Palin's candidacy. And with the rightwingers that this article too often turned attack-addish. Overall, this article was way too contentious, and I personally grew to hate thinking about it. We didn't get along very well at all and a few of us were banned in the process. Maybe we should try to learn from this experience. There should be at least a brief pause to the divisiveness but I think we should remain wary. Palin is being touted as the next Republican candidate in 2012.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Also agree. Unfortunately, particularly under the conditions of a presidential campaign, we could never get beyond the divergent objectives of the user community here. The prank call is a perfect example. I sensed there was a measurable impact of that event as soon as I read the story. However, in our WP World, we had some editors with an apparent stake in "marketing" the show itself by touting the significance of the accomplishing the prank. We had another group sounding like adolescents after watching Jackass and crowing "did you see how she got punk'd?". Finally, we had yet another group of editors injecting essentially their Op-Ed material on how the prank clearly demonstrated why their candidate was a better choice. In all of that, no one forwarded an edit on the prank that actually spoke to its significance as it related to the biographical subject. Fcreid (talk) 11:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I, and I believe everybody else, can agree with that point. Palin herself expressed some of her frustrations with the way the campaign was handled on a local talk show just this morning. I apologize LamaLoLeshLa if my jokes came off as rude or directed at you personally. When I read some of the crazy stuff that comes up here it just makes me laugh, but then when its actually taken seriously, I, and many other Alaskans, begin to take it rather personally. Case in point, the notion brought forward that Alaskans are so removed that we don't even know what Achille's Heel means. The silly statements of political commentary brought about as proof; "she didn't appear to know ...", "either she doesn't know or she was avoiding the question", "maybe she ...". And the dinosaur thing, wow. Believe it or not, some of us Alaskans actually got us a little book learnin'. But, now I'm starting to rant again. In the future I'll try to keep my comments constructive. I'd like to see Wikipedia be something we can all look upon a serious source of information, and not, how did Carson Daily say it, "the world's biggest collection of rumors ... written down."Zaereth (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Fcreid (1): "we had some editors with an apparent stake in "marketing" the show itself by touting the significance of the accomplishing the prank. We had another group sounding like adolescents after watching Jackass and crowing "did you see how she got punk'd?". Finally, we had yet another group of editors injecting essentially their Op-Ed material on how the prank clearly demonstrated why their candidate was a better choice." Looks like a personal attack on all the editors who tried to contribute to this section. Fortunately the vigilant Risker is sleeping after her exertions.

Fcreid (2) "[N]o one forwarded an edit on the prank that actually spoke to its significance as it related to the biographical subject." Incorrect. I made an edit, and posted here the reason for the prank's significance:

"[T]he prank call was more significant [than the SNL appearance cited by Ferrylodge] in relation to the BLP of a candidate for the second-highest office in the most powerful nation on earth as it casts light on her grasp of foreign affairs.

"See the WP:WELLKNOWN policy on material about Well-known public figures:

" 'If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.'

"IMO the incident as documented in the full, unmolested sentence is notable, relevant, well-documented by reliable public sources, and belongs in the article."

— Writegeist (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall your specific edit for the prank, Writegeist. There was such a flurry of them, and the ones that stand out to my recollection fell pretty clearly into the three categories I described above. Given that the incident is well-documented and put in context now with multiple sources, I'm sure there's something we can agree upon (if such hasn't been included already... been traveling and haven't checked the history). Fcreid (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is that most editors did not believe it was notable or relevant to her life to such an extent that it would not be granting this event undue weight.LedRush (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there was an ebb and flow of editor contributions and editor POV's. The list of editors that provided leadership and instruction without a political POV is very short. The list of editors that were staunch supporters of Gov Palin (or staunch adversaries) is quite a bit longer. Of the 50 or so of editors that responded regularly in the talk, I'd say only 2 or 3 could present their comments without their own political desires from being obvious. For myself, I'm glad I participated. It was a great learning experience for a novice editor. I dare say that this article and the related talk is wikihistoric and will be discussed/used as a barometer (or will it be a "Palin-o-meter) for BLP/Candidates.--Buster7 (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh? I might point out that not only did I not get paid by anyone, I did not contribute to any campaign. Care to see how many editors can make that statement? This BLP is a farce. It is time that all concerned prune out all the political stuff, and make it a genuine biography. Collect (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't work for or volunteer for any campaign, although I have in the past, nor did I make any political contributions. But once again, I will say that BLPs are primarily articles about the subject's notability, not the subject's life. For months various people have been pushing this idea that a BLP is supposed to be "a biography" in the traditional sense of a book published about the person's life. This is simply not the case. Palin is notable as a politician, hence her BLP is largely about her political career.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The word here is "Biography." If you wish to redefine that word, buy a dictionary company. In WP, it has a specific meaning, and not that which you assert. Biographies are about notable persons, but that does not mean that they conform to your outre definition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. " "These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel." In short, the policies are exceedingly clear. Collect (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm... So why is there nothing in the article about Palin's favorite color? Her first love? Cherished memories from her childhood days? Details of her snowmobiling exploits? In-depth coverage of her high school basketball career? Stories about her mentors and role models? A narrative of her journeys through college? Here's a hint: because they are not remotely relevant to her notability, and hence this article is not plastered with all kinds of trivia from that published biography of Palin. The policy is what I said it is: BLPs are articles about notable people which contain biographical information, not articles full of trivial information about people who just happen to be notable. All your huffing and puffing and attempting to rewrite Wikipedia policy doesn't change that. And by the way, the burden of evidence has been met for everything I've tried to add. If you think otherwise then you misunderstand what "burden of evidence" means.. in fact you seem to have completely, and conveniently, ignored key passages of the BLP policy which point out that sourced contentious material should be included and that a BLP should simply document what reliable secondary sources say about the subject.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

This part seems relevant. I believe it is the passage that Fchecker makes reference to...Collect seems to have left it out...In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

BTW...The "butchery" that is taking place with this article is a complete disregard and arbitrary dismissal of months of collaberation and agreement. No discussion, no negotiation, no consideration, no give and take, no compromise. Just "take it or leave it"....not friendly, not neighborly, not community-building. I will wait till we get to the "white bread" version. It should be as interesting as the Pikipsee Telephone book.--Buster7 (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Lede

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

As it currently stands, the lede has three paragraphs. The first gives the two reasons why she's so notable. The second lists the other important positions she's held, and gives a tiny snippet of what made her race for governor so notable. The third gives her "firsts", which also make her notable. We then go into the main article. -- Zsero (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, then the outcome of the election need to accompany that statement to provide the necessary context: Palin is notable for running as well as for losing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No, she's notable for running. If she won she'd be notable for winning. When you say someone was a candidate for something you can infer that they didn't win. The lede is supposed to cover the highlights, not all the details. -- Zsero (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Zsero. She is not notable for being on a losing ticket. People are not notable for what they fail to accomplish. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Guy Faulks. Manticore55 (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Being a candidate for VPOTUS is the most notable event in Palin's political career. Per WP:SS, the lede must mention 1. McCain and 2. The result of the election. I have no preference as to where it is placed, but it would be less obtrusive in the 2nd or 3rd paragraph. IP75 (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: Below is the last paragraph of the lede from FA John McCain:

"McCain unsuccessfully sought the Republican presidential nomination in the 2000. Eight years later he was the Republican nominee in the 2008 presidential election, but lost to Democratic candidate Barack Obama." IP75 (talk) 06:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You missed the point. The lede should be kept as short as we reasonably can, and should only mention things that are significant to her notability. She is notable, among other things, for being a candidate. She is not notable for having lost. That is to say, losing did not make her more notable than she had been; it merely prevented her (temporarily, I hope) from being even more notable. Therefore I see no need for the lede to explicitly mention that she lost, or who she was running with or against; merely saying that she was a candidate in a past election implies that she lost, and the full details are available in the body of the article, and at the wikilink for the election. -- Zsero (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That argument does not hold any water. The outcome of the election needs to be on the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I Agree w/ Zsero...mention of candidancy without mention of victory implies a defeat. If she had won, we might add "successful" or change to VP-elect.--Buster7 (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey you guys, don't you understand Zsero's argument? Surely you're not seriously arguing that her failed 2008 candidacy for vice president of the United States is as much--let alone more--of a highlight than her failed 2002 candidacy for lieutenant governor of Alaska? — Writegeist (talk) 01:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? VP versus Governor? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Kidding? Yes. VP failure should go in the lead. Writegeist (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The leads for John Edwards and Joe Lieberman both mention that they lost. Why bury this fact? I don't think it's a big deal, but it seems harmless to include in the lead.LedRush (talk) 02:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

All of the following articles mention the unsuccessful outcome of an election, running mate or both in the lead: John McCain, John Kerry, John Edwards, Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, Walter Mondale, Lloyd Bentson, Geraldine Ferraro, Richard Nixon. I do not see why Palin should be treated differently. As the current lead is very short, adding one sentence is not an issue. See: WP:LEAD. IP75 (talk) 04:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

A lot of energy is spent here trying to give the appearance of a rational argument to positions that are simply based on emotion, personal feelings and really nothing else.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If other prominent political bios mention defeat(s), as pointed out above, the same should go for this bio. --Tom 16:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Concur. I'm not sure what the big deal is on this one. Fcreid (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The consensus of this discussion was to include the result of the election and running mate (John McCain) in the lead of the article. IP75 (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Parodies

As at present there is a separate article on the Tina Fey parodies, I adjusted the link accordingly and added a little bit about Fey's resemblence (which is supported by the cited source that was already there). I also added a sentence to link to the main parodies article, but I didn't feel it necessary to add a source to support that there were other parodies as the linked article has ample sourcing in this regard. 23skidoo (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Relevance of "other parodies" to a BLP? Collect (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Editing requests

Someone changed her last name to Parasailin'. I can't edit it currently because of the protection. Someone want to change it? Hydrokinetic (talk) 07:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done IP75 (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Palin's Churches and Associated Controversy

The controversial nature of Palin's churches have been noted in Newsweek, the New York Times, MS-NBC, and other news sources. I have included this information, with sources, under the VEEP campaign section. Some have protested that this information is not relevant. Apparently, they just want to accept Palin's self-description as a "Bible-believing Christian" without noting that Palin's churches held to a very extreme interpretation of the Bible that creeped out many people, including evangelical Christians. I disagree.

--ManicBrit (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest a different approach? Instead of being creeped out by her religious views, and trying to explain why they creep you out, why not provide reliably sourced information on how those views have demonstrably impacted her personal and professional life? Of particular interest would be examples where those views have directly impacted her governance. I mean, after all, lots of people are creeped out by the religious views of others that differ from their own. That's largely why we have wars (well, that and greed). Fcreid (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Its really funny, but religion never once came up as a factor when she was running for governor. Never once during her term as governor. Everything brought forth since the campaign appears to be nothing more than blind speculation. But I guess if people take enough potshots in the dark eventually they'll hit something.Zaereth (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%, just as I agree that "Obama is a Muslim" (i.e., terrorist) and "Obama is defined by his radical ex-pastor" were potshots. No, make that cannon blasts. Ward3001 (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I always thought that Obama stuff was way over the top as well. All I want is real information presented in an unbiased way so that I can make truely informed decisions. After this election I am truely disheartened with the American media.Zaereth (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There is certainly speculation about what Sarah Palin personally believes - but this speculation exists because Palin refused to answer questions about it. We have video of Palin being anointed by an African "apostle" known to have incited violence against women he accused of witchcraft. Before he anointed her, he gave a sermon calling for Pentecostals to take over government and banking. Such things should have prompted the media to inquire about Palin's personal beliefs. Obama addressed the issues surrounding his pastor. Palin just tried to dodge the whole issue. This is notable not only because of what it suggests about Palin, but because it is an example of how the Internet and new media played an integral role in this election. Because of YouTube and the Internet, Palin's religious associations couldn't be buried, and her attempts to avoid the whole topic worked against her, even though the traditional print and TV media largely capitulated to her wish not to discuss it until the Internet buzz got to big for them to ignore it. If she had given a speech about what it would mean to be the first Pentecostal in the White House, she probably would've turned her background into an asset rather than a liability.

--ManicBrit (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The withchunter thing again? Listen, I once had a rabbi tell me,"Bless you son.", but I certainly don't think that makes me jewish. Ask me my religious beliefs and I'll tell you its none of your business. Alaskans tend to be different that way, I guess, but up here we sort of have a "don't push your religion on me and I won't push mine on you" type of mentallity, and it has worked pretty well for us if you ask me. If Palin chooses to keep her views private, (whether for her reasons or the campaign's), that is her right. Since that is the only real fact we have, then the only statement we can credibly make is that she chooses to keep her views private. (And that should go for Obama too, and any other article tas well).Zaereth (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Zaereth, might I suggest that your Alaskan views are myopic? There are several issues that make the Muthee affair relevant to Palin biopic. Pentecostalism is exploding in the global south, and it will be increasingly impossible to ignore its political influence in the coming years. The fact that a woman associated with the most politically-inclined and ambitious strain of the movement nearly became one 72-year-old's heartbeat from the White House is surely relevant to discussions of Pentecostalism's place in the world. Pentecostals have a right to look to Palin as a John F. Kennedy - or in their own words, Queen Esther - figure for their movement, and many did. By excluding this part of Palin's life from her biopic, you're preventing Palin from becoming an appropriate part of a discussion about Pentecostalism and its growing influence, and how this growing influence is not without controversy. Also, it isn't just that Palin sat in the pews as Muthee delivered a theocratic screed, or whether Palin was fully aware of Muthee's violent activities. Palin was physically anointed, by laying on of hands, by Muthee. She also credited his prayers with helping her win her governorship. I see no reason why Jeremiah Wright should be relevant to Barack Obama's history when Muthee and the Wasilla Assembly of God are not relevant to Palin's. Ted Haggard was also associated with the New Apostolic Reformation's chief apostle, C. Peter Wagner, and his politics regarding global warming and poverty were closer to the Democrats than the Republicans, so we should hesitate to draw conclusions about what type of policies Palin might have supported as vice president if she had been elected just because of where she went to church. But that doesn't mean her religion is something that should be ignored. When you put yourself forward as a public figure in the United States - don't know about Alaska - you don't get to decide which parts of your life are private. Also, what should be added to the article isn't a theological discussion about whether or not God is really anointing new apostles for the end times, or whether spiritual gifts are real - what should be added is simply the fact that videos caused controversy, which is plainly true.--ManicBrit (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Traditional print & TV media had other Palin stories to run with. GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The very idea that any politician believe there's an invisable something living among the clouds, is unsettleing. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither candidate for President showed any sign of disbelief in the interview with a church leader on tv. Collect (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Scary, ain't it? GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Off topic for sure. Not scary. Countries ruled by avowed atheists have a very poor track record, to be sure. Collect (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Not all atheist are rulers. But, you're correct, we're off topic. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

While we're off topic, are you including Helen Clark or David Miliband in that description, Collect? There are several more here. You're entitled to your opinion, but are you sure you want to make a blanket statement like that? Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 01:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It's Ok FangedFaerie. I'll take the blame for this one, as it was I who started this side-discussion. GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

In regards to Palin, it isn't just that her theology might be considered odd by non-Pentecostals. The controversy stems from video that shows her being anointed as governor by Thomas Muthee, an "apostle" in the New Apostolic Reformation movement. Prior to anointing Palin, Muthee delivered a sermon in which he outlined the need for his brand of Christians to take over government and business. The NAR movement is openly theocratic, seeking to take over society's institutions and impose their views on others. It is also considered heretical by most

Again, and even presuming your perspective on Muthee is correct, what is the significance of this to Palin? In her years of governance, there aren't any examples where any religious beliefs (never mind those that might fall outside the mainstream) have influenced her decisions. She's made that statement directly, and there are examples where it's true, e.g. teaching contraception in schools. In addition, there are multiple well-sourced reports from both friends and enemies that state unequivocably that Palin does not even discuss religious matters in normal conversation. Are you suggesting that she's somehow feigning that until she finds herself in a position where should could turn the U.S. into a theocracy? Fcreid (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank You Fcreid. I couldn't have said it better.Zaereth (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

"there aren't any examples where any religious beliefs ... have influenced her decisions" .... This made me laugh. Let's see what's on record... helped enforce a private abortion ban, check; thinks abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape or incest, check; inquiry about banning a gay-themed book, check; advocating creationism in public schools, check; shrewdly pandering to a growing conservative Christian majority in Wasilla to make a battleground of a previously friendly, low-key mayoral election, check. You freaks sit here with your fingers in your ears whining at the top of your lungs about the "biased media", etc etc, until people get tired of refuting the same nonsense over and over. It's the "temper tantrum method of Wikipedia consensus" also known as "if we get enough people to scream loudly enough we can ignore all the rules". I promise you it will not last.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Beyond your typical distortions of the facts involved, Factchecker, not a single one of these ever manifested in her execution of her public duties. Tell me. Is it just your belief that politicians aren't entitled to have personal religious beliefs, or is it actually your desire that we rid our nation completely of this scourge of religion? Perhaps the books we should be banning are the Bible and the Koran? That would make things much better, eh? Fcreid (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No distortions of fact whatsoever... just the mention of facts which you would rather suppress. And I just object to politicians trying to use the government (or any other means, really) to try to force their personal religious beliefs on other people. But since you like tossing out ridiculous straw men and beating-your-wife comments, I'll respond in kind: Tell me, Fcreid, is it your belief that US citizens aren't entitled to be free from religious oppression, or do you actually desire to exterminate all non-Christians in America? Perhaps we should tattoo several verses of Genesis on every newborn child? That would make things much better, eh?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems your particular feared "oppression" is the availability of abortion. Is that what this is about for you? Are you a single-issue person? To answer your direct question... while I don't share Palin's religious views, I do respect them, and more importantly, I deeply cherish that form of government that gave her the right to hold them. I trust in democracy, and I take comfort in our national history that demonstrates that societal change on issues of morality reflect not the whims of a single person, but the sea-change reflected in the aggregate of Americans. Some things take more time than we want, e.g. abolition, suffrage and gay rights, but I am confident that democracy helps us get it right more quickly than any other model of government in history. As far as national elections, I believe that deciding upon a leader based on how closely his morality mirrors my own is silly, and to do so at the expense of far more important qualifications is suicidal. The impact of that is less relevant than the ballot you cast for your local dogcatcher. Fcreid (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Er... nice speech? I like freedom and democracy too. I also dig the whole "representative democracy" thing and the nifty "republic of federated states" we've got going on. And most of all, I dig how the founding fathers recognized that popular sentiment was a fickle thing and that it was necessary to safeguard the rights of the few against the tyranny of the majority. And anyway, if you're suggesting I voted strictly based on my own "moral code", or that anybody should vote without consideration of their own "moral code", you're quite mad. So... are you a single issue person? When you're done answering you can explain what that means, for my benefit.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You know... a single-issue voter... one of the herd driven to the polls by marketing prods that prey upon innate fear and ignorance, like "if Person X wins, there will be gay sex in kindergarten" and "if Person Y wins, women will lose their right to choose". After all, they account for the majority of Americans, and every campaign realizes they're a force to be reckoned with. As for your other point, we are a nation of laws, and our current record of ensuring every American is equally protected is pretty damn good in the scheme of things. After all, we have a black president-elect! Fcreid (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You think the majority of Americans are suggestible sheep who base their political support on a single hot-button issue? That's an awfully low opinion to have of an entire country of 300 million.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Now you're just pulling my leg... Fcreid (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I feel that most people have a highly emotional and often knee-jerk response to certain issues but I also think most people carefully consider a broad range of issues when making their decision.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You are more of an idealist than I originally suspected. That's a good thing. Fcreid (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Still fighting I see

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

Sad. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 00:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Imagine what this talk-page will be like in 2012, if Palin decides to seek the Republican presidential nomination? GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

OMG! I hadn't considered that. We're not gonna have to keep this up in here for four more years are we? :-< Zaereth (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are just a couple of editors who have returned to this page (probably after being banned for some period) to run roughshod over the opinions of all others. A true spirit of community editing. Wipe out the article and cut/paste in what you think it should say. Yes, sad indeed. Fcreid (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Let the record show that both Fcreid and I are speechless at the ongoing abusiveness and agenda pushing. Irony ain't just something de wife does to de shirts after dinner.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Fcreid: "Unfortunately, there are just a couple of editors who have returned to this page (probably after being banned for some period) to run roughshod over the opinions of all others. The only editor who has recently returned to this page after a block is me. As for the other editor who, you say, has also "returned...to run roughshod over the opinions of others", I think you'll find that he/she, whoever he/she may be, did not return from a block. Nevertheless, please cite instances of our having "run roughshod" etc. Thank you. — Writegeist (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No, actually I wasn't referring to you, Writegeist. You need to be less paranoid. Fcreid (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at the edit history on the article, Writegeist. It's pretty clear which editors were intent on making the article read like they wanted. On one issue, an editor merrily added new disputed (and BLP-violating) content while we were in the middle discussing it here in talk. "Be bold" does not mean be an asshole. Fcreid (talk) 10:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it is pretty clear which editors were intent on disregarding policy in order to get the article looking the way they wanted. Shall I name them?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Fcreid, but I can't find the "merrily added", "new disputed", "BLP-violating" edit. Please provide the diff. Assuming--by your reference to these returning editors having been "being banned for some period"--that the other editor in your "couple of editors" is me, please provide diff(s) for the "roughshod" behaviour. And if you were referring to another editor, please also provide the diff(s). Obviously editors "running roughshod" over others is of serious concern where the NPOV of the article is concerned. Thank you. — Writegeist (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No, actually I wasn't referring to you, Writegeist. You need to be less paranoid. I actually kind of enjoy your company. Fcreid (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Examples please. This "couple of editors" who "returned probably after being banned"--show me where they have "run roughshod over the opinions of all others". Thanks. — Writegeist (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

First, I had no idea you were banned. Second, there were two editors primarily active on this article yesterday. One of them was participating in a discussion here regarding the unnamed source rumors about Palin. In the middle of those discussions among several others, that editor disappeared and merrily added a contentious paragraph (in an obvious POV manner) to the article. The editor also dredged up a litany of crap that had been relegated to unmonitored sub-articles for weeks and also brought that into the main article. If you want to file a report with the WP Police, I'm sure you can derive that editor's identity from the clues I've provided. Fortunately, more conscientious editors came along and corrected most of the problems later in the day. Otherwise, really, you don't bother me at all. You make me laugh. Fcreid (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't be evasive. Be specific. Either name the editors or at least, if you want to remain coy, name the section. There are three sections that could be described as discussions of "unnamed source" rumours. If you won't name the editors, please name the section. Incidentally none of the other editors in those sections, as far as I know, have returned after what you call "being banned." I'm bemused by your invitation to "file a report with the WP Police". A report about what, exactly? — Writegeist (talk) 23:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I said probably after being banned to connote their extended absences from this page. You're welcome to mangle Palin, but at least quote properly was I said here just a while ago. As far as being banned, I did not know nor do I care that you were, aside from the fact that I typically don't associate with those who live their lives on the wrong side of the law. Fcreid (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I was already at pains to quote you fully. Sorry to upset you by omitting to repeat the somewhat arch qualifier in the repetitions. No offence intended. Twice already you have volunteered ignorance of what you call my "ban". "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Again, please don't be evasive; be specific. Either name the editors or at least, if you want to remain coy, name the section. There are three sections that could be described as discussions of "unnamed source" rumours. If you won't name the editors, please name the section. I'm bemused by your invitation to "file a report with the WP Police". A report about what, exactly? And equally bemused by the bitchy tone and accusatory content of "you're welcome to mangle Palin". Perhaps you can explain when you name the editors and/or sections. Thank you. — Writegeist (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least we had this contructive contribution yesterday: [[10]] :) IP75 (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably backordered! :) Fcreid (talk) 11:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Four more years of this? Bah. The odds of Palin winning the nomination are about the same as the odds of Dubya admitting that there are strong parallels between the 1939 invasion of Poland andthe US invasion of Iraq.

But seriously: Palin really isn't that interesting. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Closing off-topic, unproductive discussion. IP75 (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Public Safety Commissioner Dismissal

The part of the article under title "Public Safety Commissioner Dismissal" seems unnecessarily long and detailed, considering there already exists a link to the very comprehensive article, "Main article: Alaska Public Safety Commissioner Dismissal." I'm new enough to Wikipedia that I don't feel comfortable making such a radical edit, but does anyone else feel that we could cut the discussion to one summary paragraph in the main Sarah Palin article, and leave the link for those interested in further reading on the subject? I know the subject was kept alive in the press for weeks on end, but it is really a pretty minor part of her life, all things considered. DoctorEric (talk) 05:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Concur and great suggestion. We actually discussed that a couple weeks ago, but the aggregate of editors who had spent so much time tracking that "in the news" wanted their respective pieces preserved. Now that we've come to a conclusion on the incident, the entire thing should (as you say) be summarized into a single paragraph. Fcreid (talk) 10:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Question...

I heard rumors that one time she totally flipped out in a diner because some kid dropped his spoon. Is there any truth to that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youdontownme (talk • contribs) 14:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Who cares? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Source? If none, forget it. And BTW, I've seen many normal parents get upset with their kids for goofing around in a restaurant. If it has a shred of truth, there may be more than simply "dropping his spoon". Ward3001 (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And I heard rumours that Barack Obama is a secret scientologist and Sasha's name is really Xenu. Is there any truth to that? Oh, and John McCain was really born on board a naval vessel docked in Mombasa. Honest, I heard it, so it might be true. -- Zsero (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You are being trolled, the bit about the diner and the spoon is from Real Ultimate Power. Mike R (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Suggestion for Public Perception: Ninety-one percent (91%) of Republicans have a favorable view of Palin, including 65% who say their view is Very Favorable. Source: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2012/69_of_gop_voters_say_palin_helped_mccain

Well done, whoever spotted this poll. It should be included. In Public Perception or maybe in the 2008 VP campaign section? It's significant and relevant. (And hilarious.) — Writegeist (talk) 06:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone think the new controversy should be added to this article ? I am talking about the in-fighting that was recently released between the Palin and Mccain campaign and claims about how she didn't know africa was a continent and didn't know the members of NAFTA. Wether is true or not I think it is worth mention in a controversy section either here or in the 2008 campaign page with a mention that they are just claims by the Mccain campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.183.205 (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a topic above on this, IP69, and at the moment it appears consensus would be no. Fcreid (talk) 10:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Closed the editsemiprotected request. No consensus for this change. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Johnston. Are you referring to the editsemiprotected request re. the Rasmussen poll? If so, why the unseemly haste to close it? Don't you know that consensus takes time? The poll is significant and relevant IMO, as I have already stated. So far, mine is the only comment on the proposed edit. You should give time for other editors to weigh in, for discussion to take place--for consensus to form. Therefore if you have closed the Ramussen poll edit request, kindly reopen it. — Writegeist (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with EdJohnston on this. Collect (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Forgive my terseness. As a registered editor, Writegeist can make any change that he or she feels has consensus. It is only IPs who have to wait for someone to close the request. Anyway, any registered account can close an 'editsemiprotected' themselves; it doesn't require an admin. EdJohnston (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

Dave Collect: do you think the Rasmussen poll violates content policy in some way? It indicates SP's tremendous popularity in her own party after losing the election, which I would have thought significant in the biography of any politician who runs for VP and loses, and particularly so in the case of SP, who is now being blamed for the failure of the Republican ticket. — Writegeist (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Writegeist: There are several hundred thousand polls taken each year. WP has not the capacity to hold them all, so unless a poll somehow makes a fact real or not (thus allowing election polls as a maybe in WP, and pretty much unavoidable in actual election articles even though WP is "not news") most polls are joyfully irrelevant. I happen to belong to the van der Rohe school that "Less is more." Collect (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I appear to have made a mistake. You sign yourself "Dave Collect" on my talk page. I assumed that's how you like to be addressed. I realize that by christening me with the odious name "Jimmy" you intend to cause offence, and that therefore I must have offended you. To save any risk of being addressed as "Dave Collect" by other editors, I respectfully suggest you don't sign it. And I'm pretty sure an intelligent person like Mies van der Rohe would have been of the "less is less" school where encyclopedic content is concerned. — Writegeist (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, Collect, I cannot find your unless a poll somehow makes a fact real or not quote in either WP policy nor guidelines. And you seem to think a fact is something that may or may not be "made real". One of a fact's intrinsic qualities is that of being real. A poll is a factual record of information/opinions. Indeed, and counter to your outré argument, a Gallup Poll is prominently displayed in the McCain article. As for your "joyful irrelevance", I have already demonstrated the Rasmussen poll's relevance. Your argument is without merit. — Writegeist (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Palin rumors

This is not the place for the rumors circulated by the anonymous McCain staffers. If they belong anywhere, it might be in the campaign article. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 20:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say that if she didn't know Africa was a continent, that's kind of a big point. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 20:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

And I would say that there's no evidence she actually didn't know it was a continent, other than the rumors circulated by the anon McCain staffers. This article should be a biographical piece, not a newsdump for rumors. For the record, I voted -- and proudly so -- for Obama. Sad that this diclaimer needs added, but it does. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 20:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; the fact that the McCain aides remain hidden (identiy wise), makes them un-reliable sources. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

See WP:Acceptable_sources, specifically "Exceptions exists for anonymous sources when interviewed or studied by a reliable source who vouches for the anonymous source..." It later states that authenticity is established when "The source is given in a reputable publication in a matter which vouches for its authenticity". If you look, for example, at the CNN article here you'll see the language "Several McCain advisers have suggested to CNN ..." CNN is clearly vouching that they are actually McCain advisers, and not just random nitwits off the street.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

"Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject."

Rumors, perforce, fall into that category. Try inserting anonymous sources here. Collect (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It was a rumor up until the point where newspapers began publishing it. Now it's an allegation by anonymous sources. Oh, and I'm not taking a position on this material. You may notice that I have stayed out of numerous topics entirely. I was simply saying that an anonymous source isn't a dealbreaker all by itself.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't address the fact that it's been anonymous. Obviously there is no reliable source yet, but in the future it may be different. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 22:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's W. Mark Felt spreading the rumours. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I've no sources for this, but I wonder if Palin is the first veep nominee of a major party, to be attacked within her own party, after the election. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

There are multiple people here who seem to think it perfectly legitimate to include, and even one of the people who previously objected has accepted it as legitimate. PALIN obviously feels enough concern to address it to the point that it becomes the dominant story in several sources for quite a while in the news article. Manticore55 (talk) 05:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

See thread above about "Carl Cameron leaks". My initial comment stands: we don't yet know what the story is, and there is no rush to include it. WP is not a newspaper, and we can wait to find out what the real story is. Eventually we will be able to write a brief, coherent, and well-sourced paragraphs about tensions within the campaign, and this may or may not include her preparations for the Couric interview. Claims that she didn't know what Africa was are simply not credible, and will not be part of that paragraph. For now all the sources are echoing each other, and are all based on the same anonymous source who may or may not be a campaign insider. For extraordinary claims, solid sourcing is essential, and a reporter's claim that "a campaign insider" said something is not enough. MSM reporters no longer have the credibility people once foolishly assumed they had. -- Zsero (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Zsero's personal opinion about mainstream media and its reporters it is irrelevant here. MSM complies with WP:RS: Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed. A read of WP:REDFLAG will show that "exceptional claims" (if that is what Zsero meant by "extraordinary claims") does not apply in this instance. I'm not saying that these guidelines qualify this item for inclusion; just that they clearly do not provide grounds for its exclusion. But if there is some other policy or guideline relevant to Zsero's "extraordinary" claims I'd be grateful for direction to it. — Writegeist (talk) 07:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

And anybody who's been following the recent campaign has seen exactly how unreliable the MSM has actually been. Any report based on an anonymous source relies on the reporter's honesty, and I see no reason to assume that. -- Zsero (talk) 08:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• You guys have fun. I'll not descend into this bickering, when it seems patently obvious to me that rumors circulated by anonymous sources don't belong in a BLP. If consensus trumps BLP concerns here, then I'll leave it alone, I guess. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 18:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

And would you say, SDJ, that the "bickering" began with your first or second post in this section? I don't share your pejorative view. All I see is an interesting topic under discussion--a discussion that is neither petty nor bad-tempered. (Although Collect's "Try inserting anonymous sources here" might possibly be seen as a little testy, but only by an editor unfamiliar with C's sweet, nay Obamaesque, nature.)— Writegeist (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• I don't find discussion of anonymous rumors interesting in any way. We're not (or not supposed to be) a newsdump for everything that anyone says about a living person. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 18:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Lisa Ann

Should it be stated that porn star Lisa Ann is currently preforming as Mrs. Palin in her pornos? Y2J RKO (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Troll. And I suspect that this feeling is unanimous. Collect (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Infobox image

Does anyone mind if we revert to the original image of her? I don't even know why it had to be changed; it was a perfectly fine photograph of her. SchutteGod (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Edits by Kmccook

Edits by this user have become unconstructive, and seem to be a clear conflict of interest. What's the policy when dealing with this type of editor? ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 18:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Report them to Wikipedia:AN/3RR which I already did :) Alexnia (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• I was thinking more of the COI side of it, but that'll do I guess. :) ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 01:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Pro-life information, take 2

August 2006: "Palin's campaign also touted older but unreported endorsements from Alaska Right to Life and Alaska Teamsters Local 959. Both endorsements were made at the end of July, according to campaign coordinator Frank Bailey.

Karen Lewis, executive director of Alaska Right to Life, confirmed her group's endorsement. Channel 2 in Anchorage reported on the Teamsters endorsement July 27." [11]

August 2006: "In 2002, when she was running for lieutenant governor, Palin sent an e-mail to the anti-abortion Alaska Right to Life Board saying she was as "pro-life as any candidate can be" and has "adamantly supported our cause since I first understood, as a child, the atrocity of abortion."

Palin said last month that no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child. She is pro-contraception and said she's a member of a pro-woman but anti-abortion group called Feminists for Life.

"I believe in the strength and the power of women, and the potential of every human life," she said." [12]

October 2006: "Whether the governor is anti-abortion makes a difference because he or she can veto legislation, said both Lewis and one of her opponents, Alaska Women's Lobby and Planned Parenthood of Alaska lobbyist Caren Robinson." (Also, full discussion about Palin's pro-life stance during the gubernatorial race.) [13]

November 2007: "It is outrageous that a minor girl can get an abortion without parental consent," she said in a prepared statement. "The State Supreme Court has failed Alaska by separating parents from their children during such a critical decision, moving in the exact opposite direction from the law's intent." [14]

December 2007: Gov. Sarah Palin, a pro-life Republican, asked the state high court for a re-hearing in the case and spokeswoman Sharon Leighow told the newspaper she backs a constitutional amendment.

"She feels parental consent is reasonable because it is required in nearly every aspect of a child's life. It's a parent's right and responsibility to be involved in their child's life," Leighow said. [15]

January 2008: "Governor Sarah Palin, a pro-life stalwart every year since she entered the political scene, gave an encouraging speech for the pro-lifers in attendance at the Hotel Captain Cook for the 2008 “Proudly Pro-Life Banquet”. She asked for public support in her efforts to reshape the judiciary..." [16]

March 2008: "Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin recently appointed Daniel Winfree to the Alaska Supreme Court. When Palin was running for lieutenant governor in 2002, she sent an e-mail to the Alaska Right to Life Board saying she was as “pro-life as any candidate can be.” She is also belongs to the pro-life group Feminists for Life." [17]

August 2008: Family Research Council Action President Tony Perkins: "...She has a record of advancing the culture of life at every opportunity including championing a ban on partial-birth abortion and promoting parental consent for minor abortions." [18]

Oct 11, 2008:

In that same period, she also joined a grass-roots, faith-based movement to stop the local hospital from performing abortions, a fight that ultimately lost before the Alaska Supreme Court.

Palin's former church and other evangelical denominations were instrumental in ousting members of Valley Hospital's board who supported abortion rights — including the governor's mother-in-law, Faye Palin.

Alaska Right to Life Director Karen Lewis, who led the campaign, said Palin wasn't a leader in the movement initially. But by 1997, after she had been elected mayor, Palin joined a hospital board to make sure the abortion ban held while the courts considered whether the ban was legal, Lewis said.

"We kept pro-life people like Sarah on the association board to ensure children of the womb would be protected," Lewis said. "She's made up of this great fiber of high morals and godly character, and yet she's fearless. She's someone you can depend on to carry the water."

In November 2007, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that because the hospital received more than $10 million in public funds it was "quasi-public" and couldn't forbid legal abortions.

Comella said Palin joined the hospital's broader association in the mid-1990s. Records show she was elected to the nonprofit's board in 2000.

Ties among those active at the time still run deep: In November, Palin was a keynote speaker at Lewis' "Proudly Pro-Life Dinner" in Anchorage, and the governor billed taxpayers a $60 per diem fee for her work that day.[19]

Oct. 31, 2008: Follow-up on the Alaska Supreme Court's decision: [20]

Where, and when, has Gov. Palin ever been ashamed of her pro-life stance? Why would mentioning any of the above be considered POV? Not appropriate for her main bio, okay, I get that, put the details into the campaign article. But I recall her frequently saying that her personal position is pro-life, so what's the problem with a summary here? Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 23:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to borrow an asbestos jumpsuit? Because you're about to get flamed.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Did someone suggest she was ashamed of it? It seems to be a cornerstone of her persona and probably a key reason McCain selected her as a running mate (given his more moderate stance on abortion). She does have the right to be pro-life, doesn't she? She certainly seems to "walk the walk" as far as I can see! On the matter of parental consent, as well as late-term abortions, those are different animals and cannot be sprinkled into pro-life discussions just to spice things up. There are many distinct facets to those aspects of abortion that are less or even irrelevant to the broader issue of safe, early term abortions. Anyway, what's the point of this section? I wasn't around today, so I must've missed something. Fcreid (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Not ashamed of it, but I expect others to come challenge all or most of this, anyway. Someone (honestly I'm not going to read through all that again) argued that her being on the hospital board to help enforce a ban ("ban") against abortion is POV, or not relevant because it was a semi-public ("private") hospital, or something, for example. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 01:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It isn't relevant to her political positions, or to her tenure as mayor. It was originally introduced in the context of a claim about mingling church and state. If you want to include a brief mention of it as an example of her personal devotion to the pro-life cause, I see no reason to object; it was that, just as was keeping Trig. -- Zsero (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Feels that abortion should be banned and helped enforce an abortion ban ruled illegal by both superior and supreme courts of Alaska, while serving as mayor.. not a political position? Huh?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

A private hospital declining to offer a procedure is not a political act. What some court ruled later is irrelevant. And she was not on the board in her capacity as mayor, so it has nothing to do with her mayoralty. -- Zsero (talk) 03:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You keep saying "private hospital" as if trying to imply something. It was taxpayer-subsidized. A campaign was mounted to overthrow the abortion-allowing administration of the hospital in order to enact a new prohibition on abortions being provided on its taxpayer-subsidized premises in order to circumvent a legal prohibition on laws banning abortion. The law was struck down in court. The hospital appealed and Palin joined the board to make sure the already-ruled-illegal ban held while the appeal was underway. The decision striking down the law was upheld. Honestly, trying to say it wasn't political just because it wasn't part of her official city business seems like an appalling misrepresentation to me.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 04:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Every hospital is "taxpayer-subsidised" to some extent, because it treats Medicare patients, uninsured walk-ins, etc. That doesn't make it a government entity. For that matter nearly every university is "taxpayer-subsidised", at least to the extent that some of its students pay their tuition with government loans, and the Supreme Court in its infinite wisdom has decreed that that makes it subject to government regulation; that doesn't erase the distinction between public and private universities. The hospital's policy was not in any way a "law". It was the policy of a private entity not to offer a service, just as you or I might decide not to offer some service. Of course once the court ordered it to offer abortions, it had little choice but to do so, but that doesn't make it wrong to have resisted while it had that option, or Palin wrong for having been part of that decision. How would you feel if you were a Jain greengrocer, and on principle did not sell root vegetables, and some court decided that since you take food stamps you must sell all commonly-eaten vegetables? I'm sure you'd fight it as long as you could afford to, before complying, and you'd be right to do so. -- Zsero (talk) 06:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You keep making convoluted and frankly ridiculous arguments that this was not substantially a public hospital, as every court that heard the case ruled. It received free land and nearly $11 million in cash from the government.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 07:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

So what? Lots of private institutions get grants from the government. They're still private. Does any government entity appoint this hospital's board? No? Then it's a private entity. -- Zsero (talk) 09:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion is refuted by both the superior court and Supreme Court of the state of Alaska. But since you apparently know better than everybody else in the world, including the court system, the news media, and other Wikipedia editors, I wouldn't expect that to faze you in the slightest.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why there are these continued attempts to disqualify Palin for public service based on her personal religious beliefs. It is fundamentally wrong and anti-American on every level. Public focus should be on the legislation she enacted or supported while executing her public duties, and not what she believes or does in her personal life. Her political career in leadership roles is expansive enough that there would be examples of how her personal beliefs impact her governance. If there aren't examples of that, it's none of our business, and maybe people are simply persecuting her based on her religious beliefs? Fcreid (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a total sham argument on your part. Nobody is trying to use the article to say she's unfit for political office.. merely mention significant and politically relevant things she has done while in office, well in line with all the pertinent Wikipedia policies including NPOV, Verifiability, and the BLP guidelines.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Now where the heck did I mention her religious beliefs?? Look back over the record. She's said she would support various legislation against abortion, would support overturning Roe v. Wade if I recall correctly, and sources, not just me, have said that her position is significant regarding those issues. During the campaign for VP, the abortion issue was repeatedly brought up in the media, partly in context of her youngest son and how she doesn't just talk the talk, but walks the walk. How you can possibly argue that this isn't relevant to her political position completely dumbfounds and frustrates me. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 15:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, "What some court ruled later is irrelevant." Some court?? The Alaska Supreme Court is some court?? Wow. Just, wow. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 16:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not trying to create any AGF issues, FF. I was only hoping to delineate where private life starts and public life ends. I think the article as it currently stands clearly establishes her "pro-life" positions in both public and private office. However, I just think we need to be cautious in extrapolating her record of public governance of pro-life initiatives from her private participation in a hospital that occurred during her private time. I didn't make the point about "some court" but I think it's important to ensure there's no connotation of inappropriate activity on her part. Fcreid (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no extrapolation going on where we take her pro-life stance and make assumptions about ANYTHING.. It's right there in the source: Palin joined the hospital board to help enforce its abortion ban. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Fcreid. I'm just a little concerned because there are some editors who still think her pro-life stance has nothing to do with her positions as a politician, and I disagree with that. As far as this hospital board thing goes, I'm not sure if it was something appropriate for a mayor or not, but discounting it out of hand because her pro-life stance is allegedly only personal is not an argument I can side with. As I recall, her platform running for mayor was very pro-life based. It was brought up during the governor's race. And there are editorials out there talking about the divided Catholic vote over this issue during this Pres/VP election. It's an issue, and I don't think trying to strip all of it from her articles is valid. If I misunderstood or am overreacting, my apologies. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 16:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been following the discussions on this until this new topic caught my eye, so I apparently missed what was proposed or included earlier. I don't see why this shouldn't be included in a neutral manner. In fact, some would probably consider this a significant personal accomplishment by Palin to have supported the hospital in this regard. We just need to be careful not to lead the reader to conclude that holding a pro-life personal stance is a "Bad Thing", and that this action was not reflective of an "official" position in Wasilla but rather her personal role on the hospital board. Fcreid (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I'm surprised to see you take this position, but.. gift horses and all that. ;) Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Who me? I'm a huge advocate for telling the truth, provided it's done so in an honest manner! :) Fcreid (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Conservatives and Republicans

The problem is that they're overlapping sets. Not all conservatives are Republicans, and definitely not all Republicans are conservatives, though the proportion of non-Republican conservatives is far lower than that of non-conservative Republicans. My problem with the particular sentence we're discussing is that by dividing it into two sections we imply that those in the first part are not Republicans (which many if not all of them are), and that those in the second part are not conservatives (Powell is definitely not, but I don't know why Frum doesn't count). We could just move Frum into the first part and leave Powell isolated in the second part as he so richly deserves, the traitor! but that would make the sentence look awkward, and it still leaves us implying that all those in the first part are not Republicans. That's why I wrote "conservatives and other Republicans" at the top of the sentence, and then just gave the list, leaving it up to the reader to sort out who belongs in which category/ies. But you're right that that sort-of implies they are all Republicans, which might be true, but I don't know it for sure. -- Zsero (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Saying "conservatives and other Republicans" implies that all conservatives are republicans (e.g that there are two sets being discussed: conservative Republicans and "other" Republicans). Consider the following sentence: "Bob and other racists oppose Barack Obama." Wouldn't you agree that that sentence calls Bob a racist? Not to mention that I believe your assertion about the proportion of non-Republican conservatives is false but that's really just conjecture on both of our parts. Oren0 (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Public Image Introductory Paragraph

Now reads:

Before the Republican National Convention (RNC), a Gallup poll found that Sarah Palin had "the lowest rating any running mate has had since then-Indiana Sen. Dan Quayle was selected in 1988 to join George H.W. Bush's team."[210] Over half of the poll respondents had never heard of her.[211] Following the RNC, Palin's image came under close media scrutiny,[212][213] particularly regarding her socially conservative political preferences. Her lack of experience in foreign and domestic politics came under fire[214] from conservative[215][216] columnists Charles Krauthammer,[217] Kathleen Parker[218] and George Will,[219] and Republicans such as former Bush speechwriter David Frum.[220] Former Secretary of State General Colin Powell gave her inexperience in foreign and domastic policy as one reason for his endorsement of Obama.[221][222]

The introductory sentence presents an incomplete idea. If we are to provide pre-convention negative ratings (when she was largely unknown), we also need to provide post-convention ratings that sample the same data. Does such data exist? Unfortunately, that may inevitably lead to non-stop and now irrelevant poll data, which I've opposed in this article from the start, until both sides feel the POV is represented. Despite, it's clearly a POV push to mention only her low rating prior to the convention and not mention her much higher rating after. Fcreid (talk) 11:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the acronym fix, Zsero. I'd always thought of RNC and DNC being the respective committees and hadn't heard the acronym in that context. I also notice that "domastic" is misspelled, so we can fix that when we decide how to treat the imbalanced poll data. Fcreid (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)