Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Seperate Bristol Palin page discussion?

Earlier entries for a separate Bristol Palin page have all been removed. Can anyone please explain why this has been the case? IMO Bristol Palin clearly deserves a separate page of her own. Rather than persisting in just removing these earlier entries and having her search results continue to redirect to Sarah Palin (a page that is widely reported to have been manipulated by people close to the GOP and/or the McCain/Palin campaign team), I think there should at least be a serious discussion as to if or if not Bristol Palin, and the recent events / news surrounding her persona (unmarried pregnancy / non-abstinence), should have a separate page of their own. Mijnlulinjouwkut (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This section addresses your question. Coemgenus 15:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"Just say no" to a separate page. The kid is suffering enough as it is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Bristol Palin

Can anyone confirm the exact date of birth for Bristol Palin? Articles have stated she is either 16 or 17; however, the recent news release of her pregnancy states she is in fact 17. Given the importance of this information, accurate data on her date of birth and pregnancy should be included. 76.119.96.44 (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless her exact date of birth has been widely publicized, in mainstream media, it should not appear in this article, since she is not independently a notable person, to preserve her privacy and reduce the danger of identity theft. The Reuters story said she is presently 17 and that is enough detail for now. Edison2 (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't make an announcement about your own child and misstate her age. Too many local people would know and you'd instantly be in hot water. I think we can safely assume that she is currently 17. Dragons flight (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that mainstream media has most likely stated her accurate age; however, the point raised is to counter-act potential spin. By not stating Bristol's exact date of birth, the article is left to speculation and may be misleading. Speculation should be put to rest as to whether she became pregnant at age 16, rather than 17. JCP (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the age of consent in Alaska is 16, why is it relevant how old she was when she became pregnant? —KCinDC (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is not to raise legal issues rather than confirm proper dates. Seeing as you are correct in regards to the age of consent in Alaska, the information is not critical. But what about the age of the father, Levi? JCP (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If mainstream media make a point that the age of the father is important, then we might consider adding it. It is not, in and of itself, automatically encyclopedic information. Have we noted the age of the partner of every other political candidate's offspring who have children? I do not think so. It would seem point of view and the giving of undue weight to start here. We follow the mainstream press, rather than trying to lead them. Edison2 (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

She's legally a child, she's unmarried, it was clearly an unplanned pregnancy and her mother is said to oppose sex ed in schools. Therefore her age is a relevant part of the story.217.43.168.198 (talk) 06:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

On March 11, 2008 the Anchorage Daily News posted the following correction: "A photo caption on Page A-4 Sunday gave incorrect ages for Gov. Sarah Palin's children. The correct ages are: Piper, 6; Willow, 13; Bristol, 17; and Track, 18 years old." Originally this story said she was 16. This error probably occurred since it was an older stock photo taken in 2006 (note that this is one of the photos from the Daily Kos bullshit attack on the girl). At any rate, she's been 17 since at least March 9. Cool Hand Luke 18:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

According to publicly available court records, Bristol Palin was born 10/18/1990. Plug her name in the 'search' box and you'll get the info. DrippingGoofball (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a news report from Feb. 8th giving her age at that time as 17, not that it should really matter. Dragons flight (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is it considered "a back door way to insert slander" bv stating that the McCain campaign, according to an unnamed aide quoted in the CNN report, released the information to correct slander over the governor's youngest child? To disallow this information would seem to be tailoring the news.Kitchawan (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Because it remains slander. Using today's announcement as a way of sneaking the slander into the article is pretty much the definition of a back door. -- Zsero (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

First it would be libel -- if and only if it were maliciously wrong. Second, do tell how it's libel. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not libel. Politics. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no malicious intent required for libel against a private person, only a "public" one. You idiots are seriously exposing WP to a libel suit.--98.221.28.244 (talk) 05:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Please indent properly. In any case, explain precisely what you mean. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(adding a follow-up here) I was skimming, and misinterpreted the "back door" reference to being about something else in the political context. Proofreader77 (talk) 06:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I was seconding the opinion that it is not libel (yes, a different perspective), for the benefit of the person above, therefore indented for them, not for you -- otherwise I'd have to shout over your head. :) But since this one is a reply to you, I will indent to here. :) (Not kidding, but smiling from exhaustion:) To answer your question (I assume you're talking to me:) political speech is "rhetorically designed" to transmit what you can, within the bounds of civic discourse and law, what you can get away with saying, for the benefit of your side and the detriment of their side. I.E., Politics. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The indent was about the anon. Why did you strike through what was an accurate statement? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I struck through my comment, which, yes, seems accurate to me, BECAUSE I admitted (above) I had posted the note in haste, perhaps/probably misinterpreting the context that I was replying to. :) NOTE: I thought the anon had stuck in their comment after you had asked your question (which I assumed was directed at me) but surely I no longer remember much of anything from the past few days. lol Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Wikipedia can do that to a person. Cheers. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need a +/- column on all the election returns? What do they mean?

Also, can the election charts be a bit smaller? They're way too chunky when space is so valuable in this article. Poggio (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a hideous side effect of the {{election box}} templates, which were apparently originally designed for British elections, where analysis of the "swing" between parties is a normal part of the results. Unfortunately, people have used them for US elections all over Wikipedia rather than making a variant without that column. —KCinDC (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Joe Biden doesn't have that kind of election detail in the Joe Biden article. He has more detail in a separate article, Electoral history of Joe Biden. Any reason to break out an Electoral history of Sarah Palin? Would give more space to her main article.Poggio (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I say remove it or move it, but it doesn't belong at the bottom of the article.Zredsox (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There are "no change" versions of the {{election box}} templates, which don't have that column. I think the tables should be switched to use those unless someone can explain the purpose of having the column. —KCinDC (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I created the article Electoral history of Sarah Palin. Have a look. Poggio (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Needs her picture, references, etc, to be equal in quality to Biden, McCain, Obama.Poggio (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed. There are not as many free images of her as there are of the others. If you can provide images which meet Wikipedia's goal of using only free images, then please do so. Corvus cornix_talk 23:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

First passport?

Why do we have a line that states she obtained her first passport in 2007? Seems like trivia, and I don't see anything similar in the articles of any other politicians. Kelly ^hi! 00:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Some folks might like her all the more for that. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

CNN found it relevant to report this on television. I don't object to it being removed; however, it has validity in regards to her foreign policy experience. JCP 00:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It is valid. We all know why it is there. It should remain. Seriously, this is becoming comical. The PR machine is in full force!Zredsox (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Zredsox, I'll state right now that I don't work for anyone's campaign or belong to anyone's "PR machine". Kelly ^hi! 00:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You are going point by point trying to remove anything you feel shows your candidate in a negative light. You are the primary person whitewashing this article at this juncture.Zredsox (talk) 01:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I just read it in context. I agree, it is very relevant and should remain. JCP 00:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

<-- Can someone provide a reliable source that states this is valid in regards to her foreign policy experience? Believe it or not, we do have people that understand foreign policy that have not left the country. Not saying that applies necessarily applies in this case (I honestly don't know the extent of her expertise), but it seems like synthesis and/or trivia right now. Exactly why is it there? Kelly ^hi! 00:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide proof that it is not? Traveling abroad to visit the Alaska National Guard was for political purposes. Applying for a passport is relevant as it offers factual data on whether or not she had been out of the country -- something that had been contested and covered in mainstream media. You may see this as a negative point, but it is truly neutral. Most American's don't have passports. JCP 00:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it was positive or negative - I said it was trivia. Can you cite a source that says the trip was for "political purposes" or a source that ties the passport acquisition date to her "foreign policy" cred? Kelly ^hi! 00:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you find something that states it isn't relevant to foreign policy experience? How about you remove this from foreign policy experience and just think of it as to measures she took to get to Kuwait? It is just as relevant as her eating moose burgers. JCP 00:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

A visit to Kuwait as Governor to visit the troops is inherently political. As for the passport, it is noteworthy and repeated daily on CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC etc. Zredsox (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I just changed the sentence to "new" passport because the NYT ref didn't specify whether or not this was her first passport. Joshdboz (talk) 01:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it didn't say it wasn't either. To remain objective, merely use "a passport." We cannot speculate as to whether or not it was her first. Saying "new" portrays that she had an old passport. JCP 01:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, either way it's new, but I guess one could be left with that impression. Joshdboz (talk) 02:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

First Passport Cite (ABC) [1]Zredsox (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed the text to "needed to obtain a passport" to match what the NYT says, but the clear implication is that it was her first, certainly not a normal renewal. Why mention it otherwise? —KCinDC (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Zredsox, I just added the ref and changed the wording. KCinDC, despite the implication, it was still an assumption we were making which needed to be verified. Joshdboz (talk) 02:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems like absolute trivia to me--Work permit (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well you're free to present your reasons. It has been mentioned in the MSM as relating to her FP experience (or lack thereof). And unless I'm missing something, it was her biggest trip as governor. Joshdboz (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Passing references in the news don't make something in and of itself noteworthy. If it was her biggest trip as governor, was it extensively covered at the time in the local papers? Views on it's relevance to foreign policy experience seem just that, views.Robert Moses, builder of New Yorks highways, never had a drivers license. I don't see that piece of trivia in his article.--Work permit (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that the ABC ref on the passport[2] also contains a statement by Geraldine Ferraro downplaying concerns about her foreign policy experience. Should that be included? Kelly ^hi! 02:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious? Prominent Obama hater defends Obama opponent — stop the presses! Certainly it doesn't belong in this article. If you're really in love with it, maybe you could stick it with the other reactions. —KCinDC (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This section is about her term as Governor. I think FP experience is irrelevant to this section, as is her passport status--Work permit (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that a Vice Presidential candidate just got a passport in the last year is very relevant. Not to mention it is the context to her first foreign trip which is described there after.Zredsox (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant. It has been mentioned in mainstream media as well. As for the reference to Ferraro, you can edit her own page if you'd like but it has no relevance here since there is no connection with Kuwait, Palin and Ferraro. JCP 03:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamescp (talk • contribs)

The section is about her term as Governor. What makes this trip noteworthy within that context? Perhaps this belongs in the election article, but not here--Work permit (talk) 03:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Not relevant, unless you are trying to prove a political point...which this article should not be. Arzel (talk) 03:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Not relevant at all, unless one is trying to making a political point - like Arzel said. Has as much place in her Bio as does Obama's visit to Pakistan when younger (which isn't in article). Anyone care to list what other bio's of politicians have their first passport listed? Theosis4u (talk) 00:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Search results equal none. Theosis4u (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Search results of sources discussing the very real relevance of Sarah Palin not receiving her first passport until last year and having only taken one trip overseas in an official capacity (in her life) are plentiful. Foreign policy, aka international relations, credentials are very relevant to any individual seeking to run for the highest offices in our land. Sarah Palin only receiving her passport last year for the first time is very relevant to her biography because the primary source of her notability is that she is running for office. This information absolutely should be included in the article unless readers come away with a false impression of Sarah Palin. Digitalmandolin (talk) 06:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand, my comment about search results was how many other politicians (USA) within wikipedia reference their passport details. So, how relevant is it now? Does having a passport give that person credentials for foreign policy? Travel might help one with their foreign policies but it is not a requirement for knowledge about foreign policy. Theosis4u (talk) 06:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. Sarah Palin is running for an office that requires foreign policy credentials. Thus, the information she received her passport for the first time in 2007 and only travelled overseas officially once in her life is relevant. What is included for other politicians does not inform this matter unless you know of another politician who only received their passport last year and is running for the V.P. position today. Digitalmandolin (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Bristol Palin's pregnancy was an open secret back home

I think this should definitely be added from the Daily News: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/republican_race/2008/09/01/2008-09-01_bristol_palins_pregnancy_was_an_open_sec.html bigware (talk) 05:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Cover the event, not the person. Assuming they get married and he gets more coverage, it may be appropriate to include something, but as of now it's undue weight in an article that is about Sarah Palin, not her daughter's boyfriend for whom there is a single article.--chaser - t 06:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't apply. We are not asking to make a separate article on Bristol Palin or Levi Johnston. There are now plenty of reliable sources publishing information about the whole Palin family, including the boyfriend/[son-in-law|future son-in-law], all as they relate to Sarah Palin. Some of this information can be included in this article. Digitalmandolin (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If we can have an article dedicated to a pokemon character, we can have an article on the daughter of a vice presidential candidate. That's just my 2 cents. --kizzle (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia has special concerns for living persons outlined in WP:BLP which it does not have for Pokemon characters. 21:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Spot on, moreover WP:WAX. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is Wikipedia's article on Mary Cheney, the daughter of the current Vice President, Dick Cheney. As of today, thousands of published articles back the notability (and public interest) in the biography of Bristol Palin. Digitalmandolin (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Bristol Palin section 2

Bristol Palin is no doubt a fairly large search term at the moment, and the page just sat as a sub-stub for over 20 minutes. She's obviously not notable in her own right, but the redirect is valid. Can we have a few more people watchlisting the page in case someone else decides to expand it? J Milburn (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In case? How long have you been here? :-D It almost always happens with big stories like this. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't dream of debating merit/demerit of Bristol Palin's notability for separate article. However, the redirect is somewhat confusing. It redirects to mother's (Sarah) and automatically dumps one into middle of a section. I would have expected an interim page (not a stub...but i'm far from expert on wiki page structures) with statement "see Sarah Palin- "Personal Life and Family" much as an index to a printed encyclopedia might list Briston Palin. Conversely, wiki could just (as it seems to do) rely on the search feature as an index to the world of wikipedia).

As it currently stands, it's somewhat messy to me. 68.173.2.68 (talk) 12:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Bristol should obviously have her own page, just as Amy Carter, Jenna Bush, and Chelsea Clinton do. Bristol's pregnancy is a top news story, establishing her notability. If Palin loses the election and drops back into obscurity, obviously Bristol's article will be of minor interest, but her notability is unquestionable.--Appraiser (talk) 13:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No she should not. One event does not make someone notable, and this is not a newspaper or the tabloid it appears to be turning into. Arzel (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; there isn't individual notability that isn't directly related to her mother or the campaign. That may change at some point, but not today. I agree that it's a little jarring to be redirected to a section of this article, so I added the {{redirect8}} template to add the line "Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston redirect here." , which might save some confusion. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor housekeeping, I moved the redirect8 template to the #Family section, where the redirects go, instead of the #Personal life and family section. Cheers! Keeper ǀ 76 14:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem; looks like the Bristol Palin redirect got moved on me. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This is another blatant example of double standards and how this page has been hijacked by GOP spin doctors and their orwellian agents. This kind of practices is unacceptable. We can not have the GOP hijack and/or groom and/or censor the entries surrounding their VP candidate and/or anyone she is related to.
Bristol Palin deserves a 'Bristol Palin' page of her own indeed, if not a separate page to be called 'Bristol Palin incident' or 'Bristol Palin controversy'. Bristol Palin IS notable.Mijnlulinjouwkut (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

As I noted above, Mary Cheney, the daughter of the current Vice President, Dick Cheney has her own page. Digitalmandolin (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Better redirect; still not ideal. Would more expect an interstitial page (not a stub, not a disambiguation). As it is now, one still lands in the middle of an article about another person. The italic ""Bristol Palin" and "Levi Johnston" redirect here." is a start, but easily missed (at least by my eyes).--68.173.2.68 (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This kind of redirect is used in thousands of Wikipedia articles of all types. There is nothing wrong about using it here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If Bristol and the others become children of a serving Vice-President or President, they will likely be covered on their own for their own activities. Children of heads of state actually get to do things, go places, meet people, have interesting jobs, etc. These are no more notable now than they were a week ago. No more notable than most other people of their own ages around the country. Palin's sons and daughters would not have gotten articles 2 weeks ago. Mention of them as offspring of their mother in news articles is not enough to satisfy WP:BIO because notability is not inherited. Jenna Bush, Amy Carter, Robert Todd Lincoln and James Roosevelt have had countless news stories about their own activities, not just mentions in the Presidential parents' articles. Stephanie Miller has an article because of her success as a comedian and radio talk show host, not because her father ran unsuccessfully in 1964 for Vice President on the Republican ticket. Her brother has no article, nor do the offspring of most other Vice Presidential candidates, however many times they got passing reference in news articles about the parent. Edison2 (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Bristol "needs" her own page until after Sarah is elected. That said, I think this article does need to include a section about Bristol. Is this her first pregnancy or her second? And yes, it is relevant as it speaks to Sarah's ability to lead, govern, parent, educate and her commitment to family values, abortion, abstinence education, and choice. 72.222.182.123 (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

While it may be true that VP candidate's children have hitherto not had Wikipedia articles, it is also true that none of them has been an unwed mother. In fact, I cannot remember a candidate's child becoming a campaign issue... I just remembered Mary Cheney. Turns out she got a Wikipedia page in the midst of the 2004 campaign, and the page was entirely about her status as a gay woman and the fact that it had become a campaign issue. We really cannot pretend that this pregnancy is not becoming an issue.160.39.35.45 (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26

You appear to claim that not one of the major party presidential or vice-presidential candidates in the nation's history has had a child who parented a child out of wedlock. Is there a source for the incidence of out-of wedlock pregnancy being so much lower among that class than in the general population? Or did it happen but not get vast publicity? Edison2 (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't be tendentious. My point is that most young people have done nothing to draw independent notice. When their otherwise mundane behavior draws attention, it is because their parents are politicians. (Mary Cheney and Ron Reagan are examples. This girl's life has become a major campaign issue, and that makes her a public figure. This is unfortunate, but it is a fact.Elan26 (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26

Meghan McCain has a wikipedia page. And she has done nothing notable except be a candidate's daughter.Elan26 (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26

Meghan McCain is a notable blogger. Corvus cornix_talk 23:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

She is not a major blogger, she is a blogger who is noticed because her Dad is a candidate for President. There is a difference. It seems to me that we are trying a little too hard to deny that Bristol is aat the center of a truly major political storm.Elan26 (talk) 23:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26

Meghan McCain has a wikipedia page indeed. Anyone claiming that Meghan McCain is more notable than Bristol Palin is out of their mind. Seriously, you got to be kidding me!!
Please people, let's bring these obstruction tactics, filibustering, censorship and outright manipulation to an end. Bristol Palin deserves a page of her own.Mijnlulinjouwkut (talk) 03:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that the 17-year-old's situation really is a campaign issue? It's been discussed a lot, but is there any evidence of impact on the polls? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is a campaign issue. yes she needs her own page. Whatever happens in the fall election, her getting knocked up while "underage" and inhigh school will be an issue. Bristol Palin is the poster child for (a) abstinence only birth control doesn't work; (b) absent fathers do affect young girls self-esteem; (c) wrapping up anyone over the age of puberty in a swaddling-cloth of laws that denies them the opportunity to take responsibility for their actions is bad public policy ... take your choice. If nothing else, she is likely the world's most famous pregnant teen-aged unwed mother (sorry about that Jamie Spears). And before all the R's start screaming, I'm a registered Libertarian, so I'm on your side here.Lowellt (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Family section (last two paragraphs)

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you for editing out the libelous, Non NPOV nonsense which Kos operators have been inserting and rationalizing on the thinnest of pretenses. The sections relating to the bridge to nowhere and other political references have been considerable cleared up.

I would still strongly suggest removing the last two paragraphs of the family section. (I'm not sure how the timing of her first Son 8mo's after the marraige is relevant either) Surely the details of a plane trip before the birth of Trigg, or veiled references to the "surprising" 7th mo. announcement are only important to rumor injecting partisans who want to further an unsustainable smear on Bristol. (i.e., she's an insatiable, incredibly fertile slut who gave birth to a DS child 4.5 months ago (April 18th, 2008) jumped in the Bush/Rove/Cheney/Haliburton time machine, got knocked up again in March of '08, and is currently working on inbred #2.)--98.221.28.244 (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You're making a lot of invalid assumptions. The issue is fraud not sex, the subject is Sarah, not Bristol, the allegation is a well-substantiated inference, not a rumor, and those of us who find the evidence presented by ArcXIX compelling are attempting to resist a partisan whitewash and partisan mischaracterizations. This argument has more than just a D side and an R side. Although the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability based on WP:RS, an encyclopedia needs to be concerned as well about factuality and truth, if it is to maintain credibility over time. That is the side I'm asserting here. The allegations need to be handled in a careful honest non-dismissive way. -- NonZionist (talk) 18:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

NZ, just so I can be sure I understand, you find the evidence to be compelling of what fraud? Are you still harping on the "Trig is her grandson" conspiracy? Fcreid (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the foregoing comments by 98.221.28.244 and NonZionist. The "Trig's her grandson" inference is unworthy of inclusion. That said, however, Palin's decision to fly back to Alaska under these circumstances was not one that every pregnant woman would have made. The combination of the speech and the long flight was an unusual lead-in to a birth and attracted press notice at the time, unrelated to the subsequent speculation about Trig's parents. JamesMLane t c 21:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

James, I agreed with and appreciated you toning down the tripe somewhat in last night's edit of her Trig birth section. I figured if this were medically questionable activity, we would at least be presenting the salient facts only. However, no one is labeling her flight as questionable behavior, except by our inference here. Certainly no one should be suggesting it impacted the medical welfare of her son. Yes, her late-term flight was not one not every pregnant woman would make, but not every pregnant woman would be jetting around the country giving keynote speeches, either. Not every pregnant woman is the Governor of Alaska. Unless there is credible evidence that this flight endangered her child, it really needs to be axed. Remember, this whole paragraph had its genesis in nonsensical "Trig's her grandson" conspiracies. It serves no useful purpose any longer without any relevant context, as it now stands. Fcreid (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Distinguish three issues: (1) The information should be included because it's relevant to the "grandson" speculation. You and I agree this argument doesn't work because the speculation itself doesn't merit coverage. (2) The information should be included because Palin's behavior was medically questionable. You say that "no one is labeling her flight as questionable behavior, except by our inference here". That's not accurate, given the comments by Dr. Gregg in the ADN article. Nevertheless, the current compromise version omits this entire issue in the hope that the public dialog on it will develop further and give us some solid pro-and-con discussion to mine. Therefore, you and I agree that, for now at least, this argument for inclusion also doesn't work. (3) The information should be included because it was a significant event in Palin's life. It clearly was significant. Yes, she's more likely to have such an experience because she's a governor and travels more than the average person, but that doesn't affect its objective importance. It would be important if it happened to a traveling saleswoman. You apparently answer this third point by asserting that the paragraph "had its genesis in" the grandson aspect. In terms of how it first got into Wikipedia originally, that may or may not be true. In the real world, though, it's not true. The story was reported contemporaneously in the Anchorage and Fairbanks papers, and probably others, at a time when there was no public talk about "grandsongate". Furthermore, even if there had never been a grandsongate, someone would've added the flight story sooner or later in the course of the intense attention to the Palin article this week. If you put the whole "grandson" trash out of your mind, you'll see that this cross-country trek stands on its own merits. JamesMLane t c 04:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your rationalization and see your points, but I still see the facts as trivia without context. My problem remains that its lack of an impact *leads* one to conclude it was medically questionable. Perhaps we should balance it with the caveats that she checked with her doctor first and follow that Trig was delivered without complications. Both details are in the source article. Thanks. Fcreid (talk) 06:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I think your reaction has been colored by the criticisms. You're aware of them. Most readers won't be. To the average reader it's just a brief account of an interesting and unusual event in her life. If we get into her checking with the doctor then we'd also have to include the doctor's statement that Palin didn't ask if it was OK to fly. I'll add that Trig was born "without further complications" because I think circumstances that prompt an induction of delivery constitute complications. JamesMLane t c 09:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Most readers won't come here to learn the trivial but rather to seek out the controversial. I'm sure that won't be the case in six months, no matter how the election goes. Today, however, they're looking for scandal, and we're providing the raw materials. There is just no good reason to provide such full coverage of Trig's birth. Induction is not a complication... in fact, coupled with the month prematurity, it lends credence that her "spotting" did not indicate she was ready to deliver. I guarantee she did not let loose the remainder of her amniotic sac while standing at the podium or sitting on an Alaska Airlines flight with a stopover in Seattle! Very likely, because of the spotting, her doctor moved the delivery forward by inducing. But here we go again speculating for no apparent purpose, which goes back to my original point about its inclusion in the first place. Fcreid (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I note you've modified the paragraph to say "her water broke". I've reviewed the source and am not questioning its motivation, but rather its knowledge of facts. There is insufficient medical evidence to substantiate that it was, in fact, amniotic fluid that leaked, and I provided a link yesterday listing a multitude of more common reasons for spotting/bleeding late during pregnancy. Unless we have medical confirmation from someone who actually examined her, every source on this I've seen is purely speculative. That question aside, your insistence on including these facts obviously leads you somewhere. For my own edification, beyond the rationalization above, what do you see as the importance of retaining this trivia about her son's birth? In what way is it truly significant? Fcreid (talk) 11:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, in the interest of disclosure, I am not an operative for any campaign or affiliated in any way with either candidate. I am just one of a million other schmucks who came to WP last week to learn who Sarah Palin was. I was not oblivious to WP's existence beforehand, but this is my first inspection of its underpinnings. I am simultaneously fascinated and frustrated by the model. Frankly, Palin's social views could not be more polar opposite of my own, but I am a husband and father of 30 years. I have not contributed to the discussion or article outside the bounds of the family section. That is because I do not believe "all's fair" in politics. While I'm also not oblivious to the irony of these issues given her positions, it still appalls and embarrasses me (as a father and an American) that we would expose our politicians in such a manner. It seems there must be more substantive things where the back-and-forth would yield greater understanding of this candidate. Anyway, I know the discussion is not a soapbox, but I did want to make my interests clearer for you. Fcreid (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

James, I'll infer your unwillingness to yield further on this point, so let's at least clean it up a bit. The introductory statement "Palin's announcement in March 2008 that she was seven months pregnant generated publicity and surprise, as did the circumstances of Trig's birth." seems to imply that the revelation of her pregnancy and Trig's birth were coincidental (in essence, substantiating the earlier "not Trig's mother" conspiracy). Would you please modify that to:

"Palin's announcement in March 2008 that she was seven months pregnant generated publicity and surprise, as did the circumstances of Trig's birth six weeks later." Fcreid (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Responses on a few points:

• "Today, however, they're looking for scandal, and we're providing the raw materials." Irrelevant. We provide the information. We don't censor it on the basis that some people might misuse it. I continue to believe very strongly that if there had never been a hint of scandal, this story would still be of interest to many readers, probably more than would care that she was a point guard.
• "But here we go again speculating for no apparent purpose...." The version I favor wouldn't include any of the speculation that you denounce. What I keep coming back to is that she was quite far from home when something happened at 4am that caused her to phone her ob/gyn, that she was in touch with the ob/gyn during the day as she flew thousands of miles before giving birth, and that the whole story was unusual and interesting. If there had never been a supposed "scandal" this would be obvious.
• I didn't modify the paragraph to say "her water broke". Someone else modified it to say that, and I changed it back to saying that she was leaking amniotic fluid, which is what the source says. When you say, "There is insufficient medical evidence to substantiate that it was, in fact, amniotic fluid that leaked...." you're the one who's speculating. I reported what the source (ADN article) said. If there's a WP:RS that says otherwise, we could include that, too, if there were any importance to getting into these medical details.
• "For my own edification, beyond the rationalization above, what do you see as the importance of retaining this trivia about her son's birth?" For one thing, my judgment is that it's an interesting story. For another thing, I've had casual conversations or email exchanges with non-Wikipedians, and I've found a lot of interest in this incident (some related to "grandsongate" but quite a bit that's not).
• Your "six weeks later" modification would be fine with me but I see now the whole thing has been deleted. That she first announced her pregnancy in her seventh month, which to my mind is manifestly an interesting and unusual fact that belongs in the story, has been deleted. This is a symptom of the rampant overreaction going on here. Somebody said something about Trig's birth (speculation that he's not Palin's child) that people tried to put into Wikipedia although it doesn't belong. Therefore, anything remotely relating to Trig's birth must be expunged.

I will place further comments below in #Blow-by-blow account of youngest son's birth. JamesMLane t c 18:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

James, I won't belabor the point, but please understand I respect your sensible dialog and reasoning on this issue. It is indeed an interesting story--one I'd like to hear in greater detail--but it really can only be told by her. There are so many personal details needed to make it accurate that anything we do here with our limited information leads only to speculation and innuendo. Was she actually in labor or was it some other issue with her pregnancy? What did she and her doctor talk about? What was decided? Was there a concern about getting stranded in Texas and why? Why (and, more amazingly, how) did she drag herself into the office just three days after delivery? Her notoriety as a public figure does not mandate she tell us the story, and questions like these may never be answered for our inquiring minds, but that's her prerogative. Maybe in her autobiography. Fcreid (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know why the section about photographs of daughter Bristol's underage drinking were deleted. They're noteworthy and were referenced. Bricology (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I find the inclusion of the eight-month elapsed between marriage and the first son's birthdate to be offensive and misleading. The obvious intent is to imply the couple had premarital coitus; however, there is absolutely no evidence (and never will be) to conclude that. Can someone explain to me what that's there, please? Fcreid (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasilla

It seems to be going back and forth how Wasilla is actually classified. Does the state of Alaska actually consider it a "city"? In a less populated State 5,000 to 6,000 people would be a town. But it seems like Alaska refers to all of its towns as cities for administrative purposes.Khanaris (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

State law (AS 29.05.011) requires that a community must have at least 400 permanent residents to incorporate as a home rule or first class city. A petition to incorporate a home rule or first class city must be signed by at least 50 resident voters, or 15% of the number of voters who voted in the area during the last general election, whichever is greater. There is no minimum population requirement for incorporation of a second class city; however, the incorporation petition must be signed by at least 25 resident voters, or 15% of the number of voters who voted in the area during the last general election, whichever is greater. [3] In other words, everything is a city in Alaska and classified in one of three ways, which are all cities (even though I have run across "Town of Wasilla" being used frequently ( 45,900 Google results.) Zredsox (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that's irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia article, not an Alaska statute, and it should use language the way speakers of English normally do. A place with 9,000 residents isn't normally called a city. Saying Alaska legally classifies it as a city and mentioning its population would be okay, I guess, but just saying "city" would be misleading. —KCinDC (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd add the caveat, though, that if the jurisdiction is chartered or incorporated as "The City of Wasilla, Alaska" rather than "Wasilla, Alaska", then the "The City of" is technically part of its name, whatever its population. This lets the city specify whether it is "Wasilla City" or "The City of Wasilla", for example, and would be important if there were also a "Wasilla County" from which the city would need to be distinguished. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Alaska doesn't have counties. Corvus cornix_talk 23:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

We need a better source on contraception

Okay, the Anchorage Daily News is a reliable source, but it has exactly one line and exactly no detail on Palin's support for contraception. We also know that she has at least one anti-contraception position: she's against teaching it in schools. Does anyone know what actions Palin has taken to support contraception? Until then, I think just calling her "pro-contraception" is misleading. At most, her record is mixed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Is being against teaching sex education in public schools the same as being anti-contraception? A person can be against teaching religion in the public schools; does this mean the person is anti-religion? I'd say we have no evidence of her position on contraception, only some evidence of her opinion of its place in public schools. It should stay out until some evidence in a reliable source surfaces. Coemgenus 16:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

When you have a 44-year-old and 17-year-old pregnant in the same family, their personal position on contraception is pretty clear. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It is one kind of being anti-contraception, Coemgenus, though it does not always mean that the person is also anti-contraception in other ways. Look at it this way: one source says she's pro-contraception. Other sources show that she has one anti-contraception position. I'd call that a mixed record. Just calling her an unqualified "pro-contraception" is out.67.81.69.0 (talk) 16:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC) (That was me; just forgot to log in.)Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Political Positions Section

This section keeps expanding defeating the purpose of it being a SUMMARY section. Would anyone object to removing ALL specifics from this section and changing it to a couple well sourced summaries of her political ideology? (This sort of practice seems typical for other well known politicians). --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't object. I think that was the point of the separate article. Judging by the action at some of the other candidates' articles, much of our job until November will be telling people that X is fully covered in the X sub-article. Coemgenus 16:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you think this part,"raising oil taxes" should be re-written to specifically state that it's the oil companies taxes that are raised? I believe she either spoke about or did, lower the gas tax at a consumer level. Theosis4u (talk) 02:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little troubled by how blandly this section reads now. For instance, there's no longer any reference to her energy and environmental positions. It also seems disingenuous to start out with a quote of hers championing "individual freedom and independence" when, according to the political positions article, she strongly opposed health and retiree benefits for gay couples. Personally, I prefer the state this section was in on the 1st, before it turned into a list of boldface items. Murmurer (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Physical Appearance

I think there should be a section regarding the attractiveness of the subject as it surely played a part in being elected Governor. Faethon Ghost (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have an undisputable source for that? GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Since when did Wikipedia go from reliable sources to undisputable sources? 12.10.248.51 (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

To play the Devil's Advocate (in regards to he being considered attractive, not that it played a role in her election) - maybe the fact that she was runner up in a beauty pageant?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 06:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree -- if there was a couple of images of her as a beauty queen, that could be republished under free liscences, it would improve the article if they illustrated the section about her entering beauty pageants. Wonkette published the hottest looking photo of her that I have seen so far. Of course it was not under a free liscense.

Regarding her attractiveness today, and the role it played in her political career -- it is legitimate for the article to specifically address this if reputable authoritative sources addressed it. Have they?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 07:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it sexist to note the attractiveness of a female political candidate, but not of a male candidate? Surely Obama's attractiveness is a factor in his popularity, but I don't recall reading about that on his Wikipedia entry. Catonow (talk) 08:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

How is it sexist? She was a model and entered beauty contests, correct? As far as I know, Obama wasn't a male model and hasn't entered any male beauty contests. In any case, if you can find a reliable source that says that Obama's attractiveness is a factor in his popularity, then consult the editors who are working on the Obama article and lobby for its inclusion. 12.10.248.51 (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh's page has, or had, a photo of a perky-looking Palin and an unflattering photo of Hillary right next to it. Luckily, there's nothing sexist about Rush. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama is attractive?! I've never heard that said before. Not that I'm saying that Sarah Palin is particularly attractive, to my mind, but I think if Obama's "attractiveness" hasn't been mentioned its because he isn't very attractive. I think if there were any really goodlooking male politicians it would be mentioned. It does sound sexist, but I think things are changing. Here in the UK it's a very big deal that David Cameron is considered to be rather handsome (he's certainly better than average). Nick Clegg's alright looking too, and, though I hate to say it, Tony Blair was ok looking. Now, actually, I think Gordon Brown is rather handsome, but then I'm the only person in Britain who actually likes him. But it's also widely talked about that Brown is generally considered far less attractive than Tony Blair. In Britain MPs have several times found their way into polls of "The 100 Sexiest Men" etc. I've heard David Miliband spoken of as "beautiful". Increasingly it's considered fair game to discuss the attractiveness of male politicians. Anyway, I'm sure Sarah Palin wasn't chosen because she's reasonably goodlooking, and if she becomes VP it won't be for that reason. Indeed, if she becomes VP is will mostly be because McCain becomes president. From what I've read the VP choice doesn't make or break the election. I believe she's generally thought to have been chosen because her right-wing policies balance out McCain's slight liberal tendencies (that is, slight by European standards). Apparently being potentially the first woman VP somehow mirrors Obama's being potentially the first black President. I'm sure her appearance is fairly unimportant. It's an added extra at most.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Of the four, Sarah is by far the cutest. But she also looks like your typical yuppy anyway, like someone I would expect see at a corporate sales meeting. Nothing out of the ordinary in that world, but a tad unusual for a VP nominee. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Oxonian2006, if you don't live in the states, you would not understand it. Americans are more likely to vote for the more attractive person. I am not saying she got the VP bid because of her looks, but I am pretty sure her beauty had a LOT to do with her becoming governor. Anyone with half a brain can see she is hot. Faethon Ghost (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think Obama did apply to be a male model in some calendar at some point, I can try and find a source for that and put it on his article, if people are worried about sexism in that way. I'm not sure its really relevant for Obama because he didn't get the job. More so I don't think that it is relevant for Sarah Palin as its impossible to find an undisputed source that she is attractive. Just put in that she was a in beauty pageants, put in a picture of her in a beauty pageant and that seems like enough to me.

Never heard it said that Obama is attractive? Just off the top of my head, I can cite hIs own vice presidential nominee, Joe Biden, who attributes Obama's popularity, at least in part, to his appearance: "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." CNN And one of the most popular YouTube videos of all time is called "I Got a Crush... On Obama." YouTube One more point: Please cite a source for Palin being a model. I've never read or heard that anywhere. Entering a beauty contest is not the same thing.Catonow (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

To assert that it is sexist to cover the reputable, verfiable, authoritative sources that comment on her attractiveness, because male candidate's attractiveness is not a subject for comment, ignores that there is a long tradition of commenting on, and using male candidates' attractiveness in their favor. Look back at the JFK v. Nixon debates for an example. IIRC these were the first televised Presidential debates. Nixon's advisors didn't realize the camera would show he should have shaved just prior to the broadcast. And he either went without makeup, or it was inexpertly applied, making him look sweaty -- and dishonest. Decades later cartoonists still portrayed nixon as a guy with a five o'clock shadow.

More recently look at the mockery Denis Kucinich endured over his appearance. He was called a leprechaun. Commentators felt entitled to dream up wild speculation over the mismatch between his attractiveness and that of his wife.

Wasn't John Edwards called "the Breck Girl" when it became known he paid $400 for a haircut?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Edit: Early Political Career, Paragraph 2

The current paragraph shows bias in it's framing of the Alaska Independence Party, in that it references only portion of the platform and is inconsistent in presentation with the information available elsewhere in Wikipedia about the AIP. If characterization of the AIP is to take place in the Sarah Palin article, it should be consistent with the current Wikipedia entry for the AIP. I suggest that the current opening paragraph for the AIP be used instead. Therefore:

Remove:
A portion of the party's platform "challenges the legality of the Alaskan statehood vote ... [under] international law" and calls for a referendum on whether Alaska should secede from the United States to become an independent nation, remain a state, or become a U.S. territory or commonwealth.

Replace with: The Alaskan Independence Party is a political party in the U.S. state of Alaska. Its best-known policy is its call for a United Nations vote, which they claim should have been offered as an option in the plebiscite on statehood under international law. Ideologically a constitutional foundation, the party also calls for increased Alaskan control of Alaskan land, gun rights, privatization, home schooling, and reduction of governmental intrusion in the private lives of its citizens with adherence to the founding documents of the United States. The party has appeared on the ballot in Alaska in all state elections since 1970.

Alternatively, the commentary on the AIP could be eliminated entirely, thus changing:

Remove:
According to officials of the Alaska Independence Party, Sarah Palin was a member in 1994. A portion of the party's platform "challenges the legality of the Alaskan statehood vote ... [under] international law" and calls for a referendum on whether Alaska should secede from the United States to become an independent nation, remain a state, or become a U.S. territory or commonwealth.

Replace with:
According to officials of the Alaska Independence Party, Sarah Palin was a member in 1994.

No new references are needed for these edits. Existing references in the Sarah Palin article, or the corresponding AIP article should be used.

I did the second one, as it seemed most useful/relevant. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 18:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Undone. This needs to be discussed; see the above section. rootology (C)(T) 18:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the AIP article does not properly summarize the main goals of the organization. That being said, I'd be fine with using this straight from the AIP History section, "During the 1970s, Joe Vogler founded Alaskans For Independence to actively pursue secession for Alaska from the United States." if that is the preferred route. Zredsox (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Then the AIP article needs to be changed. However, this Editing Talk is about the Sarah Palin article, which I am proposing should match the AIP article when referring to the AIP. If the AIP article changes, then this should change accordingly -- however this is not the place to discuss the merits of the AIP article in general.--Ready242 (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

We've been over this many times and the discussion goes in circles. At one point, I had a whole paragraph fully and accurately describing the AIP and it was considered too long. When it's shortened, there are conflicts, with Palin supporters wanting to downplay the fact that the AIP is a secessionist party. I don't care if the paragraph on AIP is long or short, but if you take out the word "secession", you are not being accurate as to the purpose and goals of the Alaskan Independence Party. "Independence" means independence from the United States, and that is their "ultimate goal" as stated by all its leaders, in its platform, and in its history, even though in the short term, they are simply pushing for an independence vote. If you do not include the word "secession" in any short account, I fear the edit war will continue. However, I don't mind a more complete longer account.GreekParadise (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

My proposal does nothing to affirm or deny Mrs. Palin's political positions. I believe there should simply be consistency between the articles. If this article is correct, than the lead for the AIP is wrong. However, I believe the full text of the AIP article (as proposed by my first suggestion) is the most unbiased method for dealing with the subject. It does not deny or downplay the AIP's intentions at all, as it is merely a copy of the text currently used to describe the AIP in Wikipedia, which is precisely what we are trying to do here.--Ready242 (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you folks read WP:OR or WP:Synth? You can go to reliable sources that discuss Palin's connection with the AIP, and grab notable stuff, but you are not to go to extraneous sources that do not discuss Palin.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

McCain's campaign is disputing the allegation Sarah ever belonged to the AIP. Perhaps a short entry noting the controversy would be appropriate and perhaps not. If we decide to include this dispute, I suggest something like this:

A dispute has arisen regarding an allegation Palin was once a member of the Alaska Independence Party (AIP), a party that advocates secession from the United States. The claim was first made by XXX. The McCain campaign has provided reporters with documents claiming to show Palin has been a Republican since first registering to vote in 1982.[4] RonCram (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I just edited out the party plank, leaving in the stuff about membership, before I saw this discussion (I'd read the sections that mention AIP in the heading). After reading here, I still maintain that people who wonder what the AIP is can click through to its article; any description here is probably POV and definitely unnecessary. (ps. Hi again, Ferrylodge, nice to be on the same side of the issue with you this time.) Homunq (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

random subsection break

Now all context has been stripped from the article against everything we have discussed here. Zredsox (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The name "Alaska Independence Party" pretty much says it all. No need to rub it in.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Weren't you saying earlier that if readers want more information they can click through to the main AIP article? A.J.A. (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess the main question we have to answer is if any explanation of AIP platform belongs in this article. On the one hand, it seems inevitably POV driven and is already included in the linked AIP article. On the other hand, the event seems rather pointless without the background info. I lean toward leaving it out, but I can see both arguments.--ThaddeusB (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I can see both, but I think Ferrylodge is right about this being WP:OR and WP:Synth. These are policies, so that decides it. (Zredsox - as to our opinions of Palin, I suspect we are on the same side, but I think it is a little one-sided to say my edit went "against everything we have discussed here"). (Ferrylodge is also right about the name.) Homunq (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The four of you have only made Pro Palin edits since I have been watching this page and Ferrylodge is even mentioned in the New York Times as being a conservative, so it is obvious what spin you want to place on the article and it looks like for now you have succeeded.Zredsox (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Zredsox, do you think that there is such a thing as an article without spin? Can we please work toward that? Democrats, Republicans, and even AIP members are capable of writing neutrally, no?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That is factually inaccurate. The some of edits have been "pro-Palin" I suppose, but they have all been to reduce things to their proper weight. However, the majority of my edits have been unquestionable neutral. (I have also made a few "anti-Palin" edits to restore negative material others removed.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think many of us have been working toward neutrality using this talk page. The problem is that no matter what is discussed here, the article always gets the "republican party headquarters" edit in a quick brash move without anything close to a consensus reached. Isn't there a "don't ask don't tell policy" on Wikipedia? You know, if you don't say anything it is fine but if you are cited as having a conflict of interest in a national newspaper such as the Times, you should gracefully bow out from making direct edits to the article? It would seem only fair.Zredsox (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Zredsox, the NY Times does not like being distorted. They have special teams that will come and get you for that.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The current version now reads "Palin has been close to the Alaska Independence Party whose platform advocates secession..." That is factually inaccurate, as the party actually calls for (among many other things) a majority vote on the issue. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Zredsox, assume good faith. That's what I do. But if you want to talk about biased editing your history here won't help your cause. ThaddeusB, the sentence is also inaccurate claiming that "Palin has been close to the the AIP." My opinion on the AIP paragraph is that it should go. There are NO reliable sources proving she was ever a member, and there evidently are records showing she has been a registered republican since 1982. The AIP stuff in this article is not encyclopedic, it is tabloid.--Paul (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Zredsox, I am as left wing as you could possibly wish (if you cared to, you could find me supporting universal free abortions under the same username elsewhere on the net), and among my many anti-Palin edits is the recent addition of the sports complex budget overrun. Take off the tinfoil. Yes, there are biased editors here, but not everybody who disagrees with you is one. Homunq (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC) (after about 7 edit conflicts. I do not think the section should go, there is dispute of whether she was a member but plenty of evidence to tie her to the party at some level.)

I have only made a handful of edits. I spend the majority of my time trying to work toward consensus on this talk page (although 99.99% of the time a "Staffer" will just go in an make the changes against what is on the talk page.) As for editing history Paul, there is no question you are biased. ThaddeusB, the way it is formatted now is acceptable. Edit: And now it is no longer acceptable. Zredsox (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Careful, leaders and former leaders of a political party would generally be considered reliable sources. In this case their claims have been challenged, which is not the same thing as saying their are no sources on the issue. I'd say a short statement of the dispute is warranted but one that for now makes no assumption about whether she was or was not a member and did or did not support them. Dragons flight (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The campaign has posted Palin's voter registration documents here. Coemgenus 19:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Which addresses registration, but not neccesarily whether she supported AIP or participated in their events, hence why I think it is better to avoid making a definitive statement either way at this time. Dragons flight (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"Since the 1990s, Palin has been close to the Alaska Independence Party.[17][18][19]" The first reference is a blog entry which is not a reliable source and it only talks about her address to the party in 2008 as Governor. The second reference is members of the party claiming she was a member, which is hearsay, and it has been disputed; the third reference is another link to the video where she addresses the 2008 convention as Governor. There NO RELIABLE SOURCE here that backs up the claim that Palin has been close to the AIP since the 1990s. This is very shoddy work. --Paul (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Zredsox, I think that this edit was rather hotheaded of you, given the discussion here. WP:Synth had already been mentioned. Homunq (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually that is the way it should read (although I needed to make another edit to add a ref to the AIP homepage which clearly states that position on the front page.) That was a major compromise from how it did read just a few hours ago. But, instead of compromise we now have it as the McCain campaign feels the section should read.Zredsox (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Dude, read the fucking wikipedia policy. Here's the link again: WP:Synth Homunq (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Dude, YOU READ WIKIPEDIA POLICY. Beyond you violating wikipedia rules with your uncalled for profanity, it is not WP:Synth and just because you say it is doesn't make it so. Zredsox (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Given the availability of Palin's registration records and the unreliability of the single source used for this claim, why does anyone want to retain this paragraph at all?--Paul (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

At least two party officials have come forward to say she participated in their 1994 convention. Even McCain's campaign seems to have backpedalled on that. One of their statements said she was never there and a later statement said she attended as a representative of the local community but wasn't a member of AIP. Dragons flight (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

PS. That's not an endorsement of the current paragraph, just a statement that there does appear to be a persistent AIP issue. Dragons flight (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you find a link for the two statements? All I can find is http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/members-of-frin.html which says Clark claims she attended in 94 but McCain's spox says she only "dropped in as a mayoral courtesy" in 2000. Homunq (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

OK I give up. The current version of the paragraph is true but the references are FUBAR, and I can't get past edit conflicts on my slow connection to fix them. Let the record state that I support some mention of the AIP, but no discussion of its nature. Homunq (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Someone has now removed the entire paragraph from the article as unsourced and not complying with WP::BLP. I agree with this, and we should be watchful to make certain it does not return.--Paul (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record (and to save some of us some time picking through the history), that "someone" was editor Hobartimus. Not that anyone asked, but this page should really be locked until the end of the election. Never did Robert McHenry's public toilets metaphor ring truer.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what the article says about AIP, I strongly suspect that our article is miles ahead of anything that Britannica is currently offering its readers on this subject. Eat our dust, McHenry. JamesMLane t c 22:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

While no defender of the EB am I, the sheer volume of edits to this article in the narrow time-frame casts serious doubts on the veracity of this information - and is rightly parodied in the media over the past several days. Too bad.--63.236.113.134 (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Whitewash is complete. Where to next? Should we clean up the Bridge to Nowhere so that it doesn't state her initial support? Maybe we should include the countries she flew over (being she was in their airspace) as countries she has visited? Oh, I am sure we can find a place where the light from the heavens is not shining bright enough. Zredsox (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Please Stop Buchanan Edit War

I believe that the early political philosophy of a candidate for vice president IS relevant to her biography, and this includes her support for Pat Buchanan. (I also think Reagan's early ties to the Democratic Party are relevant.) See longer discussion by me above.

- Before you delete, you must either claim: Pat Buchanan is an out-and-out liar. Or that political philosophy and support of presidential candidates is irrelevant to the life of a political candidate. I know making that argument is tough. (I think it's ridiculous.) But please make the argument before deleting obviously relevant information. I have included the standard McCain denial even though it is tendentiously parsed. (She didn't "work" for the campaign, McCain says, but she still could have supported it as Buchanan claims.)

So I have cited Buchanan -- who was there -- and the counter-example, someone who wasn't there and had no reason to know. Throw out the McCain counter-assertion if you want, but when a Presidential candidate calls a political candidate a "brigader" in his campaign, it is relevant to her political life story.GreekParadise (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You're editing against consensus and you're well past three reverts. A.J.A. (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I also believe that the early political philosophy of a candidate for vice president is relevant to her biography. Zredsox (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it would be relevant - if it were well-sourced. But Buchanan's word is not good enough. -- Zsero (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)The article currently says she wore a Buchanan button in 1999. People might want to pay attention to the letter to the editor she wrote in 1999:

"As mayor of Wasilla, I am proud to welcome all presidential candidates to our city. This is true regardless of their party, or the latest odds of their winning. When presidential candidates visit our community, I am always happy to meet them. I'll even put on their button when handed one as a polite gesture of respect. Though no reporter interviewed me for the Associated Press article on the recent visit by a presidential candidate, the article may have left your readers with the perception that I am endorsing this candidate, as opposed to welcoming his visit to Wasilla. As mayor, I will welcome all the candidates in Wasilla."

Perhaps Palin's letter to the editor does not say what people want it to say?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The material is not relevant because there is no evidence that it impacted her career (as discussed here). I can't remove it again, however, due to 3RR. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is using a tortured reading of the letter, and we should remove that sentence. Also, that section seems to be cited by Politico blogs. Are they reliable sources? Coemgenus 21:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't remove the Buchanan button-wearing from the article either, due to 3RR. If it does not come out soon, then I'll just have to insert info about the letter to the editor.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Gone -- someone beat me to it. My computer is too slow  :( Coemgenus 21:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Alas, were Palin truly a Buchananite (viz a nativist who's also leery of foreign military interventions), I think Mac would've surely NOT picked her. (Wasn't she said to have supported Forbes in that primary?)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 02:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Would anyone (who can) care to archive some of this Talk-page? Its growth rate is outstanding. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I hesitate to do so. Every single section has a "last post" date of today or yesterday. Even WP:ANI doesn't get archived that quickly. Although I completely understand your sentiment. It will die down in a few days, it always does. Just waiting for the next media flurry, be it hurricane, scandal, kidnapping, or whathaveyou....Keeper ǀ 76 21:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Keeper's sense of this as a veteran of the other political pages - please wait at least until 3 days have passed without comments, or even 5, before archiving. And we ought to consider a bot. Tvoz/talk 22:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Barack Obama has Miszabot archiving at 5 days, automatically. McCain and Biden have no automatic archival. Looking at this page, I'd say 4 days to start off with, then stretch it to 7 as time passes and more of the article becomes stable (knock wood). UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 01:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Todd and AIP

And for the next round of the AIP story (sigh...), it appears that husband Todd was an AIP member from 1995 to 2002. [5] The current source is pretty dodgy, but I assume the major networks will confirm or deny this shortly. Dragons flight (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is not about Todd.--Paul (talk) 21:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

So should we remove him from the article? At the very least we should trim his paragraph bio that has no business being on Sarah's page. Zredsox (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Todd Palin's political persuasions are not a valid subject for this article. Putting them here implies that Sarah Palin has the same persuasions, and there is absolutely no evidence nor any way we can find such evidence.--Paul (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I'm sure that won't stop some user from adding it anyway. Bleh. This talk page is already huge... Coemgenus 21:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Paul. We should focus on Todd's realtionship with Sarah, not Todd's relationship with AIP. Why? Because this article is about Sarah. There will be an article about Todd soon enough (if there isn't already).Ferrylodge (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There is. Already. Keeper ǀ 76 21:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It was already added to (and in some cases removed from) this article, Todd's article, and at least one other article, so I wanted to start a point of discussion. Dragons flight (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

[out] We're not the news, so we can wait until the ink is dry before posting - but if the story pans out that her husband was a member of the AIP -a secessionist party - it may indeed be correct to say so here, especially if this claim can be verified, about her attendance at an AIP convention. (Try this thought experiment: let's say Michelle Obama had been a member of a fringe party and Barack attended a convention, and people were claiming that he too was a member. Or Cindy and John.) Tvoz/talk 22:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz, I might agree with you if we were talking about the KKK or Hamas or the SLA, but we're just talking about the AIP which is the third largest party in Alaska. The Governor from 1990 to 1994 was AIP member Walter Hickel (Hickel later endorsed Palin for governor). Given all that, I just don't see that the husband's membership is notable here in this article, especially since he had no leadership or other official role in the AIP, and has not been a member since 2002.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Ferrylodge's assessment. Keeper ǀ 76 22:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the only source so far is a blog, let's take it out. If a reliable source publishes it, I'd say we should probably include it as a footnote. Coemgenus 22:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

ABC News. I've updated Todd's article, but will let others figure out what (if anything) to say here. Dragons flight (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

A bit more from the Associated Press as well. Dragons flight (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the sources are reliable, I can see including this in a footnote, but probably not in the main text. After all, he has his own article (where it ought to be included in the main text). Coemgenus 23:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Unacceptable format at "Political positions"

The constant bolding must go and the positions must be incorporated into the text, we do articles, not lists here in BLPs. Hobartimus (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is the bolding a big deal? If the section were set up with subheadings they'd be automatically bolded. The only difference here is that the individual topics don't show up in the Table of Contents, and I think it's just as well that they don't. JamesMLane t c 21:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Its actually much more readable than it was when it was previously all prose. Maybe you are a wizard of prose and can generate something wonderful, but for my part, I'm happy the way it is. Dragons flight (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Look at the Obama or Biden articles that's how it should be done. The section already is in breach of WP:SS, (has an own subarticle, only a very brief summary should be here) and WP:UNDUE as compared to the length of the section in the whole biography etc. Hobartimus (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

So fix it. My point though is that simply changing the style for the sake of changing the style isn't necessarily an improvement, and I'd hate to see what is there now simply mashed together into pseudoparagraphs. If you are prepared to really do a good job with it than go right ahead. Also, I'd like to note that Obama has both a seperate article and an even longer positions section than Palin. The length of the current positions section (in an article on a politician!) doesn't seem unreasonable to me by itself. Dragons flight (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have taken a stab at converting this section to an actual summary. I fully acknowledge that it isn't perfect, but I think its a good start. I have done my best to make it relevant and NPOV. Feel free to edit as needed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Great for first try, I'm sure some will feel the need to tweak wording but please leave the format (amount of text in the section, actual summary) as it is now because it's a huge improvement. Hobartimus (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin's highschool or college Ranking? Grade Point Average?

{editsemiprotected)School performance data is available for Both Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama. No specific information yet on Gov. Palin's performance in school and mental performance.

She is applying for a position that requires high mental functioning. She has admitted to not believing in confirmed scientific facts such as the theory of evolution and human contribution to global warming. She also plans to make changes regarding health education and female reproductive freedom. American citizens need objective facts to measure her background and qualifications in these matters.

Thanks so much. Komplete (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You know we're not reporters, right? If information comes up in a reliable source, post it here. Until then, what do you want us to do? Coemgenus 21:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Have WikiNews call her up and ask "How do you spell potato?" WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come now. You can't drag Quayle into this....unless a reliable source somehow connects the two, then egads, WATCH OUT!!!!. Keeper ǀ 76 22:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"Potatoe" is actually an acceptable alternate spelling. It's not like Danny Boy spell it "tater". I'd rather have Barbara Walters ask her what kind of tree she'd like to be. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Completely off-topic, but in what language is "potatoe" an alternate spelling? I looked at Dictionary.com, Webster's, OED and Wiktionary, but could not find it. Nor is it in the Scrabble SOWPODS word list, which is chock-full of obscure and alternate spellings. I think you're spouting nonsense. ;-) -- Yekrats (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

...now, I personally accept the arguments for evolution and global warming...but seriously, can people stop parading around claiming they're "confirmed scientific facts"? Newton's Laws are the closest we get to that. Physics, yes, now there's some good 99%-confirmed facts. Climatology and Genetics? Are you serious? Do you remember how vastly these fields have been and continue to be rewritten just in the last decade?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 06:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Scientific theories are always subject to revision based on new facts. There are plenty of facts supporting evolution. The issue is the mechanism of evolution, and that's where it gets slippery and allows the "intelligent design" promoters to weasel in. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Congenital popularity & general amity

1. WSJ Aug 29: "In 1984, Palin was chosen Miss Wasilla and went on to become the first runner-up in the Miss Alaska Pageant, but she won Miss Congeniality that year."
2. Miss Alaska Scholarship Pageant's website home page: "In 1984, Palin was chosen as Miss Wasilla and went on to become the 1st runner-up in the Miss Alaska Pageant and received the Miss Congeniality award the same year."
3. The Hill: "Palin won the Miss Wasilla contest in 1984, and competed for the Miss Alaska beauty contest, of which she was a runner-up. (She also won Miss Congeniality in that contest and received a scholarship to study journalism at the University of Idaho.)"
4. US Magazine, Aug 31, '08: "Twenty-four years before making history as the first woman on a Republican presidential ticket, Alaska Governor Palin came in second place at the Miss Alaska pageant in 1984 and was voted "Miss Congeniality" by other contestants."
5. Saint Louis Post-Dispatch, Aug 30, '08: Amy Gwin, 43, of University City, grew up in Alaska and competed in the Miss Wasilla, Alaska, competition in 1984 against GOP vice presidential choice Sarah Palin. Gwin was a year behind Palin, now 44, at Wasilla High School, which had about 800 students. Gwin said Palin was "a high school star in a good way," a beauty who got good grades and excelled at athletics. Gwin, who was president of her class, does not recall Palin holding school office. The Wikipedia entry on Palin said she was head of the school's Fellowship of Christian Athletes and captain of the basketball team. Gwin said she was not surprised when Palin became the governor of Alaska, but is astonished that she got the GOP nod for vice president. Asked whether she would support Palin because she knows her, Gwin said: "I wouldn't support her if she was my very best friend. I support Obama and don't share any of her (Palin's) politics." Gwin is the director of agency relations for the Rodgers Townsend advertising firm.

 $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 23:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

AIP Convention in 1994

This article now says that Palin attended an AIP convention in 1994, following this recent edit. Specifically, this article now says:

While serving on the city council, Palin attended the 1994 convention of the Alaskan Independence Party, a party which argues Alaskans have a right to vote on whether to secede from the United States. Lynnette Clark, the party's current chairwoman, claimed Palin was actually a member of the party at the time. However, as mentioned above, Palin has officially been a registered Republican since 1982.

The cited source is this ABC News article. However, the cited source says: "Rogers [a McCain-Palin spokesperson] says that Palin didn’t attend the AIP convention in 1994, 'but she visited them when they had their convention in Wasilla in 2000 as a courtesy since she was mayor.'" So, Palin is denying that she attended the convention in 1994. Our article should therefore not insist that she did.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I updated it to be more accurate ... didn't see ABC had put this new info in. Blueboy96 22:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

WHY IS THE PART ABOUT SARAH PALEN BELONGING TO THE ALASKA INDEPENDENCE PARTY BEEN REMOVED WITH NO COMMENT. HERE IS THE REMOVED PART. THIS MUST BE PLACED BACK INTO THIS ARTICLE.--- According to officials of the Alaska Independence Party, Sarah Palin was a member in 1994.[3] A portion of the party's platform "challenges the legality of the Alaskan statehood vote ... [under] international law" and calls for a referendum on whether Alaska should secede from the United States to become an independent nation, remain a state, or become a U.S. territory or commonwealth.[3][18] The Alaskan Independence Party is Alaska's third largest party.[19][20] Palin remained on good terms with the AIP,[21][3][22] and would later give a "welcome" speech to the 2008 AIP Convention.[23] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.23.4 (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone better versed in Wikipedia ins and outs needs to correct this article. It's now "semi-protected," and I have no doubt this was done to make it harder to offer criticism of Palin.

Take, for instance, the short-and-sweet statement that she'd been accused of associating with the Alaskan Independence Party, followed by a misleading claim that a "Mother Jones" article had revealed that it wasn't true and that people making the claims had "backed off." That's completely false. The article actually maintains that Palin's husband is, indeed, a long-time AIP member. It also says that one of the vice chairmen of AIP, Dexter Clark, (referred to as a "key source" for the story) backed off his claims in an interview with "Mother Jones," saying that their information was based upon information provided by Mark Chryson, the regional chair for Wasilla, Palin's hometown. Chryson was not interviewed for the story, and has not backed down from his claims.

The article goes on to state:

Not being registered as an AIP member did not keep some Alaskans from being supporters of the party and its aims. Jack Coghill, the lieutenant governor of Alaska from 1990 to 1994 and a candidate for governor in 1994 on the AIP ticket, told Mother Jones that being friendly with the AIP and a registered Republican was "common" in the 1990s. Might Palin had had a similar relationship with the party? Given her husband's long-time membership in the group, Palin was likely aware of the group's tenets. And in 2008, as governor, she submitted a welcoming video to the AIP convention in Fairbanks. "Your party plays an important role in our state's politics," she said. "I've always said that competition is so good, and that applies to political parties as well… We have a great promise: to be a self-sufficient state." She closed by saying, "Good luck on a successful and inspiring convention. Keep up the good work, and God bless you."

To read the article for yourself, use this link: http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/09/9535_palin_alaskan_independence_party_connection.html

(Would have been a lot shorter, but some genius decided to blacklist ALL "tiny URL" addresses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.206.143 (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected to keep drive by shootings like the comment above from happening. 1) Todd Palin's association with AIP is not sufficient grounds to deduce anything about Sarah's relationship. 2) Saying things like "Might Palin had had a similar relationship with the party?" is argumentative but not a "reliable source." Palin has denied that she was ever an AIP member and has provided voter registration records to prove it. There are no reliable 2nd party sources that validate a claim she was involved with AIP. We cannot put slanderous material in a biography article about a living person, and without a reliable source for these claims, that is all this is: slander.--Paul (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

24.4.206.143, you write "Chryson was not interviewed for the story." Then why does the Mother Jones article (cited in our article) say, "Chyrson, in an interview with Mother Jones, backed off his account"?[6]Ferrylodge (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Paul.h wrote: "There are no reliable 2nd party sources that validate a claim she was involved with AIP." This is demonstrably incorrect, since Palin sent a video to the 2008 AIP convention stating that she agreed with some of its party platform and that she wished it well. She wouldn't have done that if she hadn't been an unofficial supporter or sympathizer. Others have correctly noted that it would be ludicrous for Geo. Bush to have sent such a video to the Democratic Convention, for the Dems to have presented it, and for the Dems to prominently display it on their website. That is reason enough to consider her associated with AIP. --Zeamays (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Corn, you are drawing a conclusion of what someone would or would not do, based on no evidence. There are any number of reasons she could have sent a video to that group. The most obvious is not to "support or sympathize", i.e. to agree with them, but rather to "schmooze and get votes". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a source that says:

Ms. Palin attended the party’s 1994 and 2006 conventions and provided a video-taped address as governor to the 2008 convention.

That makes it seem like she was a lot more involved with the party of Alaskan secession from the United States, especially knowing her husband has admitted to being a member of the Alaska Indepdence Party for seven years. Digitalmandolin (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and from above, the McCain spokesperson Rogers says she attended in 2000 as well. So now we have sources stating Sarah Palin attended the AIP conventions in 1994, 2000, 2006, and gave an address in 2008. I would say this is persuasive evidence of apparent Palin's support of the AIP party and belongs in the article as an important part of her biography. Digitalmandolin (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Kopp being appointed to replace Monegan

This was discussed yesterday and I thought there was agreement, but it keeps being reinserted, so perhaps I was wrong. For clarity, I certainly think the detail belongs in the main article, just not the summary. Here is what I said yesterday:

"I think these detail is too trivial to include in the summary and is being included only because it potentially embarrasses Palin. I sight as evidence that it is: 1) not related to why the matter is important; 2) It is covered in one short paragragh in the main article; 3) Kopp's name is not mentioned in the vast majority of the MSM articles covering the story. (All of which are longer than our summary); Other opinions?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaddeusB (talk • contribs) 22:35, 2 September 2008

As I pointed out to you above, the discussion yesterday was that you and one anon wanted it out, and two registered editors thought it should stay in. Here are the reasons I gave yesterday:

Suppose there had never been a Troopergate re Monegan -- he uneventfully retired for health reasons, for example. The Governor appointed a new Public Safety Commissioner who, after two weeks, resigned under circumstances like these (i.e., criticism based on prior events that were available on any minimal background check, $10k severance payment). Would such an event be notable in reporting on the administration of a governor? Of course it would be. Your point 3 arises only because the circumstances of Monegan's departure were even more notable, so naturally there were some stories written about Monegan that didn't mention Kopp. There was lots of stuff about Palin's administration that wasn't in those MSM stories, because they were focused on the issue of Palin's dismissal of Monegan. The bigger story (about Monegan) creates a subsection in our article that's the most obvious place for reporting on Kopp, but if there were no Monegan story, we'd still have to find a home for a short (two sentences) description of the high-profile resignation of a cabinet member. JamesMLane t c 23:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I never saw you comments, so sorry about that. I had read the comments as 1 neutral and 1 for the removal plus my vote for removal. Many have regularly complained about the length of the section, so I thought this detail was as good as any to chop since it didn't relate to the case directly. Perhaps you are right and it has enough significance to stay on its own merits, though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, we need a proper consensus on this: Palin and AIP

We don't get to decide which side is right, the McCain party or the AIP party. We can't take sides. We can't say the AIP is right or wrong, we can't say the McCain camp is right or wrong. rootology (C)(T) 22:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• In such cases we usually report both sides. "Source A says that... while source B says...." As Yogi Berra once said, "when you come to a fork in the road, take it." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well if she never actually registered on paper it doesn't matter what the AIP person says, but certainly her relation with the party, be it in 1994, 1996, or 2008 should be mentioned. Joshdboz (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The McCain-Palin people are saying that she did not attend an AIP convention in 1994, and has never been a member of the AIP. If we assume --- for the sake of argument --- that Palin is correct about that, then this has no business being mentioned in this article. However, if there is a dispute about it, then the proper place to put it might be in the section on the 2008 campaign rather than the section on her early political career.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is we have some sources disputing what Palin's people (McCain camp) are saying. We don't favor the Palin/McCain, in that case. We highlight both sides. rootology (C)(T) 23:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

McCain-Palin have produced voter registration records showing she was never a member of AIP. Has anyone asserted that those records are forgeries?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No one has, but it makes AIP's claims no less notable or reliable. If it's one side vs. the other, we report both sides. All that aside, the claim itself is clearly notable, and worthy of inclusion. rootology (C)(T) 23:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. Side I makes an undocumented claim that Palin was an AIP member. Then Side II produces what it claims are official records showing the opposite. Then there is dead silence from Side I. Isn't the debate over? At most this is worth a very brief mention in the 2008 campaign section.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Mark Chryson (AIP party chair from 1995-2002) has reiterated today that the Palins were at the 1994 convention. So Side I isn't silent. I don't think he's saying anything new but it's not the same as silence. Dragons flight (talk) 01:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Chryson says this:[7]

Asked how Palin could have been a member, when state records did not indicate Palin ever registered as an AIP member, Chyrson, in an interview with Mother Jones, backed off his account. "What could have been the confusion—her husband was a member of the party. He was at the convention. She could have been considered—it might have been thought she was a member then." Talking Points Memo has reported that Todd Palin was a member of the AIP from 1995 to 2002, with the exception of a short period in 2000 when he was undeclared. Chyrson said he did not remember seeing Sarah Palin at the 1994 convention: "I don't, no. I was working behind the scenes. Back then I was only vaguely familiar with her. I would not have recognized her. I had just met her. I probably would not have recognized her." He added that Sarah Palin did not play "an active role in the party" or to speak out for its causes.

Ferrylodge (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting how you left out parts of the Mother Jones story that don't make your case for you:

Not being registered as an AIP member did not keep some Alaskans from being supporters of the party and its aims. Jack Coghill, the lieutenant governor of Alaska from 1990 to 1994 and a candidate for governor in 1994 on the AIP ticket, told Mother Jones that being friendly with the AIP and a registered Republican was "common" in the 1990s. Might Palin had had a similar relationship with the party? Given her husband's long-time membership in the group, Palin was likely aware of the group's tenets. And in 2008, as governor, she submitted a welcoming video to the AIP convention in Fairbanks. "Your party plays an important role in our state's politics," she said. "I've always said that competition is so good, and that applies to political parties as well… We have a great promise: to be a self-sufficient state." She closed by saying, "Good luck on a successful and inspiring convention. Keep up the good work, and God bless you."

24.4.206.143 (talk)

You're right, it doesn't make my case for me, but the other blockquote (that I presented above) does.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I just saw him on TV saying they were there in 1994. Maybe that was recorded before he gave that statement, but he wasn't vague or equivocal on TV. Dragons flight (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There is also the general problem that they may both be "right". It's possible she did participate in AIP at some level, maybe just by indulging her husband's interest, even though she was never registered and may never have held their beliefs. But right now I suspect we don't really have the full story, so it is hard to frame the issue. Probably we will be hearing more about this for a while yet. For the moment though, any mention of it really does need to reference both sides. Dragons flight (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Will is right. Even if it's a false story, right now, based on the weight of all the information we have about Palin, it's very notable. We can always expand it out more, but it can't be reduced any further right now without bumping up against NPOV. rootology (C)(T) 23:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP doesn't allow this to be added without reliable sources (documents about activities in the party, documentation of membership) simple rumor mongering does not qualify to be added under BLP especially that there is evidence to the effect that she was registered Republican the whole time. The same with the 1994 convention there is no reliable sources documenting that she was there, kook person, or kook party X stating something is not for inclusion per BLP not even considering other policies like WP:UNDUE, WP:SUMMARY STYLE etc etc. Hobartimus (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That right there is a BLP violation by *you*, calling AIP party members kooks. They're the 3rd biggest party in the state--thats not kookery or fringe. Many nations have states that want to secede. You been following the Georgia-Russia war? That doesn't make them crazy. Do we have a reason to believe AIP is unreliable? rootology (C)(T) 23:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

At this point, major news sources are covering this. It's definitely a he said/she said situation, so the best solution (at least until more info is available that clarifies) is to just state what both sides are saying. But it's unacceptable to not mention the situation at all, it's definitely notable and reliable sources are available. --Minderbinder (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"Major news sources" stated that "Obama is friends with unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers" yet you won't find it in the Obama BLP. Coverage by news sources is enough for exactly nothing when it comes to biographies of living persons which aim to cover the whole life of a person. Also Wikipedia is WP:NOT NEWS. Hobartimus (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that there's an entire ARTICLE about Obama–Ayers controversy? If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. That's WP policy. --Minderbinder (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is this so hard? 1) Palin sent a video to the 2008 AIP convention in her role as Governor. 2) Palin attended the 2000 AIP convention in her role as Mayor. 3) Palin claims she has never been an AIP member, and produces 26 years of voter registration documents to prove it. Someone in the AIP claims that Palin was in the party 14 years ago, but has no proof. This is a non-story. Wikipedia must use reliable sources. Though it must retain a neutral point of view, it can't spread falsehoods. Folks that want to include this are saying party A can claim something which is a lie, and then party B disagrees calling it a lie and providing documentary proof but still Wikipedia must include this information? This is no better than tabloid journalism, except that they have real reporters!--Paul (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. The Governor of my state doesn't send videos to the conventions of the other political parties... Zredsox (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe your governor is more partisan? You can watch the video if you're interested. You'll see it is quite non-partisan, and starts off with a sentence about "your party".--Paul (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my Governor is more partisan, if you mean only being associated with one party's ideology. Zredsox (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think he means rejecting people from other parties to a degree of not talking to them in video message or otherwise. A Governor (like the President) is supposed to lead all citizens of his State, not just those who elected them. Hobartimus (talk) 03:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

So why didn't I see Bush's Address at the Democratic National Convention? Seriously, give it up. No one is buying it. Zredsox (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The controversy should be covered under the 2008 campaign. Saying for sure she was a involved is blatant POV. Her history of being a registered Republican should be included. A.J.A. (talk) 03:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Not saying there is anything "wrong" with being a member of the AIP, but there is no evidence she ever was, only unsubstantiated claims by other which are relayed as such in the media.--Work permit (talk) 04:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's an AP article that states she was never an AIP member, but her husband was.--JayJasper (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Given the relative strength of the AIP, maybe it's not surprising she would send a video to that group. Good politicians know how to get votes vs. how to repel votes. Alaska is a pretty "independent" state in any case. Like Oregon, only a lot more so. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not see any consensus here. Please see my comments above under AIP Convention in 1994 --Zeamays (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin, AIP, and BLP

I see no BLP concerns here. People keep citing BLP, that AIP affiliation is some Bad Thing. It's the 3rd largest party in Alaska. Whats the BLP worry? rootology (C)(T) 23:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You should really read BLP. BLP is not about "Bad Thing"s or "Good Thing"s its about unsourced or poorly sourced controversial information which should be summarily removed without discussion. It's pretty clear that a statement without any supporting documents cannot be added to any BLP. The communist party tommorow says that Obama was a member, Obama denies, you would present the statement and the denial "not taking sides" or favouring one or the other? That would be utter nonsense. Hobartimus (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What on earth is controversial about AIP? It's the 3rd largest party in the state. I contest affiliation there is a controversial thing. Politically undesirable on the national stage? Maybe, maybe not, but that doesn't matter to us. rootology (C)(T) 23:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Yes, there's only controversy in the AIP's statement (because their positions are considered unusual, at least in the lower 48), so BLP requires it be sourced. I say leave it all out until and unless such a source is found. Coemgenus 23:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You are clearly inserting a POV as to how you feel about this political party and that is not relevant here.

(ec) Please don't compare the largest minor party in Alaska to communists. They aren't. The AIP has more members than the whole USA Communist Party for one thing. For another, AIP has placed candidates in high office. Lastly, we know her husband was a member via public records, which adds credibility to the claims by their leaders that she also participated (though the nature of that involvement is highly controversial). Dragons flight (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The point of the comparsion is not AIP-Communist party, the point is that Palin denies she was ever a member. The example simply shows that in these cases including the statement and denial with equal weight is a non-starter. Only true and reliable info should be in BLP-s as verified by reliable sources it doesn't matter if the statement is positive or negative. Similarly if some random person stated that "in the 1990s Palin worked as a heart surgeon and saved hundreds of babies form certain death" it would still be a BLP vio to include that poorly sourced statement. Random persons or random persons even when members of random parties are NOT reliable sources. Hobartimus (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If a hospital administrator stood up and said Palin had performed surgery at his hospital, it would be taken seriously. Likewise, these are not random people. Party officials are reliable sources for their party affairs. They may be wrong but they nonetheless are reliable sources. Dragons flight (talk) 00:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Her association with AIP was part of the lead story on the CBS evening news tonight. The network of Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow. This is as mainstream as it gets. This is as relevant as it gets. In all honesty, the discussion here should be about how extensively this should be written about in her biography, not if it should be included. Zredsox (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything about it at the CBS website.[8] What did they say? That network has been going downhill since Murrow, by the way.  :) Ferrylodge (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You're sounding a bit desperate, Ferrylodge. Shall we debate if CBS is RS? Sheesh. Tvoz/talk 02:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It was a joke, Tvoz. Hence the smiley face.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Here you go [9]. It was basically 6 minutes of pure terror for the McCain Campaign. Zredsox (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Murrow and Cronkite are long gone. Dan Rather has turned CBS the network of the Killian documents. —Travis^talk 00:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure McCain is terrified of Katie Couric. However, if Palin builds up enough negatives, it puts him in an awkward position. If someone can prove that she was with a separatist party, that could spell trouble. Although it might get the GOP the Confederate vote. So is the evidence there, or is it just another rumor? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the NYT source, Palin was at the 1994 and 2006 conventions. According to McCain spokesperson Rogers, she also attended the 2000 convention. And she gave the address to the 2008 convention. So now we know Sarah Palin attended the 1994, 2000, 2006, and, via video address, the 2008 convention. I think there is enough here to warrant inclusion in the article (a clear political association with the Alaska Independence Party). The AIP party wants the state of Alaska to secede from the United States and form its own country. Digitalmandolin (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Annie Oakley/"gilf"/dragon slayer (or Palin's cultural lifestyle/political image)

1. Vogue magazine, Feb '08: Besides being telegenic, she had a tough-girl Alaskan résumé that most politicians could only dream of—the protein her family eats comes from fish she has pulled out of the ocean with her own hands and caribou she has shot. "It's never bothered me," she says. "That caribou has had a good life. It's been free out there on the tundra, not caged up on a farm with no place to move." During the summer, she and her husband spend time commercial-fishing thanks to a permit that has been passed down on the native side of his family from generation to generation. It's the kind of brutal work that most Americans stopped doing generations ago, but Palin relishes the challenge. "I look forward to it every year," she says.
   [... ...]
   On the back of the Heaths' 4x4 a bumper sticker read, VEGETARIAN—OLD INDIAN WORD FOR "BAD HUNTER."
   [... ...]
   Developing a thick skin when it comes to comments about her looks has been part of the learning process. "I've been taken aback by the nasty criticism about my appearance," she says. "I wish they'd stick with the issues instead of discussing my black go-go boots. A reporter once asked me about it during the campaign, and I assured him I was trying to be as frumpy as I could by wearing my hair on top of my head and these schoolmarm glasses, but he said, 'No, that's not what I mean.' I guess I was naive, but when I hear people talk about it I just want to escort them back to the Neanderthal cave while we get down to business."  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 23:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
2. The New Republic, Sep 2, '08: [Palin is a...]"political savant; a candidate with a knack for identifying the key gripes of the populace and packaging herself as the solution."  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 02:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Your point, Just? Tvoz/talk 02:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Am assembling cites for a cultural and political image section is all! :^)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 02:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Telegenic? Like, yo, dude, does that mean she can read people's minds? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

And there's no mention of her support for the aerial gunning down of wolves, presumably because they eat 'her' caribou. <<Peter Simmons>> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.7.25 (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

National guard

There is current a long section which basically says 1) Palin is in charge of AK national guard (talking point) and 2) the head general doesn't think it qualifies as national defense experience. (I removed a huge quote about the general's day-to-day duties, as completely non-relevant).

I don't think any of this belongs. Should we really be reporting on talking points and counter talking points?--ThaddeusB (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Something needs to be said however, I'm not sure what. Being head of the AK National Guard and appointing the Generals to command it is important on some level as Alaska was the only part of North America invaded during World War II, or since for that matter. People, especially young people tend to forget their history.Lowellt (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be removed. There's three errors to it. 1. Mentions talking points without any source - there is none in regards to the National Guard angle. 2. Governor's are a part of the chain of command for the national guard 2. The quote is only in the context of national security but is used to obscure the relationship the governor still have with the guard for state activities. In other words, the quote is out of context. Theosis4u (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have these paragraphs in their entirety since they don't add anything of value to the "2008 vice-presidential campaign" section. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama: She has no experience in National Defense. McCain: She does too... from the AK National Guard. AK National Guard General: Um, no, I run that she doesn't have any influence here. Its a noteworthy talking point because its complete BS and the McCain campaign is standing in/on it. 76.181.77.18 (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Quote out of context, notice the the specifics , "he said he and Palin play no role in national defense activities, even when they involve the Alaska National Guard." The comments that frame this quote don't mention "national defense". The National Guard isn't ONLY about national defense activities. And now that you pissed me off with your politics. This whole issue is fruitless. And let's put his full title in there for the quote; Maj. Gen. Craig Campbell Commissioner and Adjutant General Department of Military and Veterans’ Affair". Theosis4u (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• 2008-2012_DMVA_Strategic_Plan.pdf
• The AlaskaState Defense Force
• How about from the Air National Guard Page
  • "Air National Guard units, under order of the Governor, provide protection of life and property, and preserve peace, order and public safety. State missions, funded by the individual states, include disaster relief in times of earthquakes, hurricanes, floods and forest fires, search and rescue, protection of vital public services, and support to civil defense."
• How about from the Alaska Army National Guard
  • "The governor commands AKNG while it is not in active federal service. The principal executive officer of DMVA, the adjutant general, is an appointee of the governor. The Army National Guard component and the Air National Guard components are each commanded by an assistant adjutant general appointed by the adjutant general with the concurrence of the governor. "
• How about from the Alaska constitution
  • Section 19. Military Authority - The governor is commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the State. He may call out these forces to execute the laws, suppress or prevent insurrection or lawless violence, or repel invasion. The governor, as provided by law, shall appoint all general and flag officers of the armed forces of the State, subject to confirmation by a majority of the members of the legislature in joint session. He shall appoint and commission all other officers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grayghost531 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Now we have people sourcing data without even reading it and then falsify what it says. Source that is used in the new edit on this issue actually says, "In that segment, Ms. Brown had sharply questioned Tucker Bounds, a campaign spokesman, after he said that the role of Mr. McCain’s running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, as commander in chief of the Alaska National Guard was an example of executive experience that Senator Barack Obama of Illinois did not have." NOT "spokesman Tucker Bounds,[102] have pointed to Palin's role as as Commander in Chief of the Alaska National Guard as an example of foreign policy experience." as the editor Superm401 wrote. Notice the source says "executive experience". Theosis4u (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

In the video segment I linked to (linked within the NY Times piece), Bounds clearly says, "She's been the commander of the National Guard-- of the Alaska National Guard-- that's been deployed overseas. That's foreign policy experience." Did you actually watch the video before saying I had misstated the source? Superm401 - Talk 07:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Whitewashing and bias

I do not want to get involved with this back and forth BS, but I was looking at the history of this page, and came upon some of the first versions.

Compare this statement:

"Gov. Palin received widespread criticism for her handling of Matanuska Maid Dairy, a state owned business. When the State Dairy Board recommended closing the unprofitable business, Palin fired the board and appointed long-time Mat-Su Borough associates to run the board, including influential real estate businesswoman Kristan Cole.[22] The new board quickly approved raising the price of milk offered by the dairy in a vain attempt to control hemorrhaging fiscal losses, despite the fact that milk from the state of Washington was already offered in Alaska stores for much less then Mat Maid milk.[23] In the end the dairy was forced to close and the state tried to sell the assets to pay off its debts, but no bids were received.[24][25]

to this current version:

In 2007, the Alaska Creamery Board recommended closing Matanuska Maid Dairy, an unprofitable state-owned business. Palin objected, citing concern for dairy farmers and a recent infusion of $600,000 in state money. Palin subsequently replaced the entire membership of the Board of Agriculture and Conservation.[71] The new board reversed the decision to close the dairy. Later in 2007, the unprofitable business was put up for sale. No offers met the minimum bid of $3.35 million,[72][73] and the dairy was closed. In August 2008, the Anchorage plant was purchased for $1.5 million, the new minimum bid. The purchaser plans to convert it into heated storage units.[74]

Pure whitewash. Tell it like it is, people. Don't log on anonymously and edit facts with euphemisms just because of you political affiliations. People screw up all the time, some more than others, but trying to cover it up just makes you look biased and her look deceitful.

BTW: Do you think a black candidate wouldn't catch some heat for having an unmarried, minor pregnant daughter, not to mention 5 children? t1n023:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hemorrhaging fiscal losses versus unprofitable. Do you have a reliable source that says the former is more accurate than the latter? Which sounds more neutral to you? How about if we instead say catastrophically stupendous financial hemorrhaging --- would that be better? Seriously, we're supposed to try to sound encyclopedic here, and we're supposed to use a neutral tone. It may not always be exciting, but those are the rules. See WP:NPOV.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

How about if we instead say catastrophically stupendous financial hemorrhaging - I agree. Would you like me to make the change? Zredsox (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

LMAO..here's to you Ferry. But seriously, you'd think this chic has learned to walk on water in the last week. I know we are supposed to be unbiased, but that does not bar descriptive language. There's death, and then there's horrific death. They are different levels to everything, and it is obvious that this whole article has been whitewashed, no pun intended.t1n0 00:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Why just pick out this change? I mean all the overly positive ones have been edited out too? Remember "eye-popping integrity"? Truth is, the article is closer to neutral now than ever before. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Because I thought I had heard about her troubles, and then noticed the incredible history log, and thought I would compare, and it's the first one I saw, went to get something to eat, and upon return decided this article has a life of it own right now, has been thrust into spotlight right along with Mrs. Palin, so BS and lies will not survive here anyway, and this drama will play itself out in a few days, and the point is to play fair and try our best to be neutral...that's why.

I will try to look over for bias as best I can, but I am new to this. .t1n0

I'm removing the line, "Also during her first term, state Republican leaders began grooming her for higher office." The source simply mentions she appeared in in tv ads with prominent republicans as evidence of her "grooming". I think if this statement is to be kept, it should be reworded to include what actually happened. A potential POV statement that should also be included (if any mention of appearing in the tv spots is left) for sake of completeness, is that the mayoral race is intended to be nonpartisan, but by appearing in these spots, she infused the race with partisan view points and endorsements. As is, this is clearly trying to spin this individual in a positive light. Benajnim (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The other point was "appointed long-time Mat-Su Borough associates to run the board" which has been eliminated, to somehow obfuscate any indication of cronyism. As we all know, the articles from news organisation that are available on the Internet may 'disappear' over the course of this week. I was looking at a forum two days ago, and the next day it disappeared. Now, we all know forums are not news sources, I'm just saying that we should prepare for some of the citations in this article to become dead ends in the next few days, as the sources are taken down. .t1n0

I would consider that 'replacing' and entire board of people that don't agree with you, and 'replacing' them with people you are associated with so you can reverse a decision is pretty f'ed up. Doesn't that sound similar to what the Attorney General's office was pulling last year? Replace dissenting people with people who agree with you in order to reverse decisions. The section paints her actions in a favorable light by stating that she 'had concerns for dairy farmers' [sic]. .t1n0

Here's a dead link for you, concerning the sale of the plant.. http://www.matmaid.com/pages/news_letter.html but now, its gone...

Since we can't edit the page, and I hadn't touched it yet, this little fact is locked in to its current 'unimportant' stance as a minor blurb. It may seem unimportant, but to me it is far more important than her kid's pregnancy. (Her kid is doing exactly the same as her mom did...that's not news.) However, multiple instances of using her position and office for gains, is news. Troopergate, and I guess this is "Dairy-gate". The current administration has abused its power by replacing people who dissent, and selecting attorneys based on political affiliation, and here we have someone in BFE that is cut from the same cloth that they pick as a 'maverick'. I hope someone can find some more news on this before it is all swept under the carpet and off of her hometown newstation's website. t1n0

Palin

There is now a discussion of ordering of the Palins at Talk:Palin. Hobit (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Faye Palin

Time Magazine, Sep 2, '08: "...I]n 2002, her [Palin's] husband Todd's stepmother Faye Palin ran for mayor. She did not, however, get Sarah Palin's endorsement. A couple of people told me that they thought abortion was the reason for Palin not supporting her family member — Faye, they say, is pro-choice, not to mention a Democrat."  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 23:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipepedia is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit." Please feel free to add well referenced information such as this to the article, with a citation to the supporting reference. Edison2 (talk) 00:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've decided this belongs moreso in the Todd Palin article?  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 02:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Weird

Something about this talk page keeps crashing the NVIDIA graphics card on my office mate's machine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.4.83.52 (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Levi Johnston

Is 18 and will attend the Nat'l Republican Convention.[10]  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 00:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've (re?) added to the short description of him the kind-of sourced fact that his MySpace page says/said "He warns, 'Ya fuck with me I'll kick [your] ass.'" This is my own interpretation of "He warns, 'Ya f - - - [sic] with me I'll kick [your] ass'", the version provided by the nervous usmagazine.com. I'm unfamiliar with usmagazine.com, and it looks like complete crap but also the kind of thing that "source" a huge percentage of mediocre WP articles about slebs. An article in the (London) Guardian, which I take a bit more seriously, tells us that "In a Myspace entry, which has now been blocked, Johnston describes himself a 'fuckin' redneck'". Clearly Mr Johnson likes the verb fuck, from which I tentatively infer that he is an utterly normal US teenager (a fact that might reassure the ever-nervous US electorate). -- Hoary (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Expletives in the Myspace page of a nonnotable highschool student do not belong in Wikipedia and should be deleted per WP:BLP1E. One of our rules is "Do no harm."Edison2 (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the cited MySpace comment attributed to Johnston that he doesn't want kids, on the grounds that it is not encyclopedic, and under WP:BLP1E. Edison2 (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit clash.

My edit above was reverted with the edit summary "Family: really. what is the relevance of that to Sarah Palin?"

Not a bad question. I think I could give a fairly convincing answer (around the fact that Palin has decided to make "Family" [capital F] a big issue), but I'll skip it for now, instead pointing out that what with the occupation of Iraq, the "war against terrorism", the collapse of the US economy, and various other things that I'd have thought would be hugely more important than "who porked who in the veep candidate's family", (i) the mass media seem moderately interested in the latter, and (ii) Levi Johnston is now a redirect to Palin's article, which says nothing about him.

Personally I'd scrap all these articles about and (here) redirects from the names of nonentities who are merely related to slebs, royles, veep/prez candidates, etc. How about deleting and (at least for now) salting Levi Johnston? -- Hoary (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Lends new meaning to "pork barrel". As to the F-word stuff, obviously young Levi is quite familiar with the concept. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed for the second time the alleged MySpace comment of Johnston that he "doesn't want kids" per WP:BLP1E and because it has naught to do with Sarah Palin, the subject of this article. Please do not edit war by mindlessly restoring it, without a consensus here that it belongs in this article. Edison2 (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This whole MySpace quote of his needs to be just removed. It has no use for us here. rootology (C)(T) 00:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The MySpace stuff has to go ASAP. Zredsox (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little puzzled. First, I'd half-agree with Edison2 that Mr Johnston is "a nonnotable highschool student". That is, he's nonnotable. (I'm not sure about the "highschool" bit, as apparently he only goes to school for sports and skips the classes, though then again he does get education at home. Or so I'm informed by the goofy "usmagazine.com".)

But now two questions.

First, if he's not notable, is a redirect from Levi Johnston merited, and if so, why?

Secondly, we're told by some lowbrow magazine that he wrote on his MySpace page "Ya fuck with me I'll kick [your] ass." The same article has another, similar quote that's repeated in an article in the Guardian, so perhaps it's credible. It's not something he said once, but instead something that he wrote publicly and could have deleted. Of course it's utterly banal. Still, it's not the sort of thing that, oh, perhaps 40% of fellows his age would write publicly, so it gives our readers some tiny insight into him (so far as he's notable).

As it is, I'm puzzled by the combination of (i) a redirect from Levi Johnston to Sarah Palin and (ii) the vigorous deletion from Sarah Palin of anything about Johnston himself (let alone any hint that he might not be an obvious poster boy for "Focus on the Family").

My own suggestion is that virtually all mention of the kiddies (let alone their "partners") of both candidates for veep and both candidates for prez should be zapped (unless any are notable in their own right), and that all redirects from their names should be deleted and salted. How does that grab you? -- Hoary (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

With respect to the redirects, the names and their association with this "event" is already everywhere in the press. So we couldn't hide it even if we wanted. Hence I support the existence of the redirects (I don't think they can do any harm). That said, the teens aren't notable, so the details of the event should be limited to the ways that it affects Sarah Palin. In particular Levi's thoughts on fatherhood don't seem relevant, etc. Dragons flight (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The only way that any teen angst can make its way into this article is because the McCain and Palin campaigns have issued press releases about the pregnancy and suposedly impending marriage, and because major newspapers around the world have devoted substantial coverage to it. Otherwise it would be slice-of-Jerry-Springer non-notable family life. Edison2 (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it is because it directly contradicts and makes a mockery of Sarah's political positions on sex ed and morality. --mboverload@ 04:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What's relevant for the Palin bio article is that her unmarried teenage daughter is pregnant, and the family has announced that she will marry the father, who's a friend of hers. That information has some connection to Palin, especially given her politics. Beyond that much, however, it's irrelevant. Our article doesn't need to mention the father's name, let alone go delving into his MySpace page. JamesMLane t c 04:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Her politics are consistent with keeping the babies (both her own and her daughter's). To her beliefs, the lack of abstinence is a "sin", whereas killing either unborn would be a "greater sin". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JamesMLane. The fact that Levi is 17, homeschooled and plays hockey is irrelevant to Sarah Palin. What is relevant is that her daughter is pregnant, and that she is planning on marrying the father. But I also wonder, what relevance the paragraph about Trig's birth has. We already mentioned that he has down syndrome, what more needs to be said? Also what relevance do her husband's and her son's voting history have? Mr.Vanker 13:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)