Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Background to Traffic-Part II

The following retrieved from Archive. (I assume archiving an ongoing discussion was inadvertant)

What is happening at the discussion is akin to two mighty rivers converging...one is the River Palin, the other, the river Wikipedia. The result is the mud and silt of the current talk page. (I havent read the article in 4 days) True...good soil for the crops of differing ideas, but confusing and difficult to wade thru. A conglomeration of quid pro quo. But, I am VERY MUCH un-concerned about the state of the article during its metemorphasis. It will become whatever we create over the next important weeks. My basic and initial problem was the imprisonment of the article by well-intentioned, but I believe, misguided, administrators. This act of disconnecting the article from the vast array of worthy and good faith editors and holding it in bondage where only the privileged few could sculpt it, goes against everything wiki. Freedom and openness are at the core of where this, Wikipedia, all started. But, I'm afraid that in all the hubbub about the candidate, the REAL problem that occurred will be swept under the rug. Does anyone know where an open discussion about what happened should take place...under what heading...here or elsewhere. Should a seperate thread be started? Is a discussion happening that interested parties should know about? The freedom to edit is dislocated. Has someone called a Doctor?--Buster7 (talk) 01:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

and again at--Buster7 (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Currently the article is semi-protected. You and any other registered users can edit it. What's the current problem?--Appraiser (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Buster7, I apologize if my archiving was overagressive. I had archived the thread as inactive and you were the only contributor in the last 24 hours, and your comment was asking where the discussion threads were about the locking of the article - which is why I posted that info to your talk page. Thanks also, for your contributions. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion sub-page?

I'm wondering if we should create one (or multiple) discussion sub-pages to organize and handle frequently-raised issues. The archiving could be set to persist a little longer than on this page, say 7 days instead of this page's 24 hours, then off to the main archive.

The reason is several-fold. First, it helps organize things so we don't have the same discussion again and again. Second, it makes consensus clearer. If people agree on something that agreement stays visible for a few days and people can comment on it, instead of getting sent off to the archive so quickly. Third, it helps organization. Including this new topic we have 48 open discussions. Half of them are probably duplicates of each other and only a few are truly new proposals.

Does anyone have an objection if I do this on a trial basis to one of the topics, say religion? We'll keep a pointer/link near the top of the page that says discussions regarding Palin's religion goes here. If it works out we can do the same for troopergate, earmarks, and a few other special topics. If it doesn't work out we can always go back to the old way. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Levi's age

I was admonished for added back Levi Johnston's age as 18. Here is proof; [1] but I don't want to put it the article since it is a court record (for a fishing violation). The vast majority of the sources say he is 18. Any probs? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Paritcularly, you were admonished for going against a consensus that you knew about and for marking the edit as minor despite knowing that there had been a consensus to remove his age completely. The archive is at Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 13#Levi Johnston's age. Accuracy was not at issue in the admonishment, nor is it really the issue in the consensus. GRBerry 03:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I missed that consensus, but I agree with it. I've removed the age per that discussion. MastCell ^Talk 03:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Consensus was that if we didn't know his age, we shouldn't get it wrong. If this source had been presented in that discussion, the result would have been different. Accuracy was at the core of that discussion, not any BLP violation, since dozens of media outlets were already saying he was 18. Do you doubt he is 18, MastCell? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, did you read the linked discussion properly? All people in the canvass who said remove said so because it was irrelevant to Sarah Palin. Some also mentioned the discrepancy as a factor although some said the discrepancy wasn't a major issue. No one in the straw poll said to remove based solely on the discrepancy Nil Einne (talk) 06:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• I hereby request that his age be added back, take your time to develop a new consensus. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The detail is irrelevant to Sarah Palin's bio and should stay out. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? You haven't really provided any good reason and you appear to have misread the existing consensus Nil Einne (talk) 06:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Phlegm Rooster, I gather that your reference to "a new consensus" means that you're hoping people will change their minds now that better information is available. Can you explain why we should? I think most bio article don't give the ages of the bio subject's in-laws, let alone prospective in-laws. For that matter, I still think we should delete the guy's name. JamesMLane t c 09:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no need to give his age. But he's not an unknown, he's appeared on TV with John McCain. So I think we can give him a name. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• He's "not an unknown." In fact, he's a bit of a celebrity. One of the British tabloids called him "sex on skates," presumably because he's good looking. So let's give him his own Wikipedia article, perhaps on the order of other minor celebrities. SkyDot (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem with giving his age? He's an adult. And, if you're going to mention the pregnancy of her daughter at all, then it's relevant. I agree with Plegm. Put the age in.GreekParadise (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If you look, the title of this article is not "Levi Johnson" - his age currently is not relevant to Sarah Palin's biography. GRBerry 19:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it may not be relevent in this article. The article on Levi Johnson, unfortunately, already exists and describes a football player. Oh wait. It's Levi Johnston that we're talking about. :) Hey, that link points back to this article, so it is an article on him. I still think he should get his own article. SkyDot (talk) 07:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Not content to let Obama be the lone "celebrity" in the race, the GOP wanted some celebrities of their own. I've got a hunch they didn't have Levi Johnston in mind, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

New (And I believe harmful) Edits to "Bridge to Nowhere" Section

A single wikipedian editor has made several important changes to the Bridge to Nowhere section which I believe delete important information.

1. He has removed five words at the beginning indicating Palin supported the bridges. 2. He has taken out the information about the location of the bridges (where the bridges are). 3. He has removed the name of the second bridge ("Don Young's Way" named for Alaskan Congressman) 4. He removed the amount of the earmark ($454.4 million). 5. He has removed 6 of the original 15 sources to the incident in the reference section. 6. He has removed the fact that Palin changed her stance less than one month after McCain criticized the bridge. 7. He has removed Palin's many references to the "Bridge to Nowhere" on the campaign trail. 8. He has removed Newsweek's comment on Palin's references on the campaign trail.

You've probably guessed I'm not pleased with the changes. I think the section was not very long and that the location and name of the bridges, the amount of the earmarks, and the many references, etc. should remain in the article.

But I want to see if other wikipedians agree before I revert back to the original. And if the editor that I disagree with wants to add his two cents, fine by me.GreekParadise (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You'd have my support to revert. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Supported. 216.215.233.66 (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ditto, let him come to the talk page. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I edited for length only (the section was longer than ANY other in the ENTIRE article). Palin's support is made clear in the next paragraph (objection #1)- no need to mention it twice. I changed the bridge to its correct name not its nick name (#3) and removed excess background info (#2). The section is way too long and somethign had to go. The background info seemed to be the best candidate. The exact timing of the change also seemed unnecessary. (#6) Three commentaries about here comments was quite excessive, I removed 1 and someone else removed a second. (#7-#8) --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Also there was no need to reference every fact 3 times. Once is suffient. (#5) Objection #4 is just plain false - the $ amount is still there. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's now been an hour and a half since I posted to the talk page and an hour since Thaddeus wrote his response. Hearing no further discussion, I will revert with the support of the three wikipedians. However, in deference to Thaddeus' concerns about length, I'll see if after reverting, I can cut some of the fat without losing the bone (content). Still Thaddeus you should know that "Don Young's Way" is the official name of Knik Arm Bridge, not the nickname. The name is in the earmark legislation.GreekParadise (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering others edited the section in the interim, I don't think going back to the old version was justified. You undid my changes and the changes of several other people all at once, to restore the version you wrote. Why not just work with what's there instead of insisting on your version? I have undid your revert. If any details are missing from the current version, by all means add them back in - but I don't see any missing other than the unnecessary background info. In reference to the bridge's name - wikipedia and most news articles call it the Knik Arm Bridge, so that is the name that should be used. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

NO ONE but you Thaddeus edited it in the interim. Don't believe me? Check the history. I undid no one's changes but yours. And, as I explained on my talk page, I can't work with what's there because you've been busy throwing away sources. Do you even know what are the four references you deleted? Can you tell me why you deleted them? If you want to delete a reference, please tell me why, but that's not tightening. I can't add details and references and everything and have you willy-nilly delete them without telling me what you're doing. As for the name of the bridge, I can't help that. In the earmark bill, Congress named it "Don Young's Way." I would explain it further but you wanted the article kept short. However, if you prefer I am happy to use both names, even though the article will be a little longer.GreekParadise (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What relevance does the bridge collapse in Minnesota have to Sarah Palin's biography? Adding that quotation serves solely an incendiary purpose, and was *not* discussed above. Does anyone else agree that it should be removed?JoeyCG (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I also felt it non-relevant and deleted it. GreekParadise, however, had a cow about my edits and undid them all. Please feel free to re-delete it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not autoconfirmed, so I cannot delete it. BTW, as written the quotation appears to be by John McCain. In the source, it is *not* ascribed to John McCain as a quotation.JoeyCG (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The quote is by John McCain and was ascribed to him. Thaddeus thought the section was too long and so I was trying to cut as many words as I could. I have no problem removing it, however. See? All you have to do is ask.GreekParadise (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I would ask that no one remove any more references or content from this subsection on the bridges to nowhere without explaining what and why on the talk page first. If you want to move stuff around, tighten it, edit it, etc., go ahead. But removing detailed references without telling the talk page which onesyou did makes it a real chore to re-create (and messes up subsequent references too). And if you want to remove content, please say why (as Joey did). You'll find I'm quite flexible if you'll just work with me.GreekParadise (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the McCain quote. I left the first half of the line, since I wasn't sure if that was OK to ditch, although I feel it adds nothing and could easily go too. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, changed my mind. Sorry 'bout that. Reason on my talk page. Suffice to say that it's inaccurate without full quote since McCain had condemned bridge prior to 2007.GreekParadise (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Would like to see this:

"The next year, Palin ran for Governor on a "build-the-bridge" platform, attacking "spinmeisters" for insulting local residents by using the term "Bridge to Nowhere."[72][73][74] In October 2006, she said build "sooner rather than later. The window is now - while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."

become:

The next year, Palin ran for Governor and she supported the bridge, but was non-specific about the details. "She told local officials that money appropriated for the bridge "should remain available for a link, an access process as we continue to evaluate the scope and just how best to just get this done." Fact Check: Palin and the Bridge to Nowhere

Any objections to that? Theosis4u (talk) 05:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I object. The original quotation has four Palin quotations in two sentences. It shows her platform, her attacking opponents, her reaching out to locals, her discomfort with the nickname of the bridge, her pressure for time, and her work with the Alaska congressional delegation. So I would be very resistant to deleting these two sentences which convey a lot of information in a small space.

So then there's the question of whether the quotation you wish to add should be added to, rather than substituted in place of, what's there. I read your submitted quote several times and frankly had trouble understanding it. "Access process as we continue to evaluate the scope"???? Huh??? Sounds like bureaucrat-speak to me. So I went to the yahoo article which unfortunately gave no context. Perhaps you know the full context? What's your point of including it? That she was open to changing bridge details? That she was "non-specific about details"? Why is that notable? The project was in early stages, just getting funding. I've been criticized for making this part of Palin's bio too long. So I'm really hesitant to add to it with something that frankly, to me, doesn't seem to say all that much.

On the other hand, if you want to add it to the longer, more detailed Governorship article, I would not fight you on it. But I guess at the end of the day, I don't believe in adding every quotation the subject of a bio makes on a subject unless I feel she's actually saying something important. And in the case of this quotation, I can't quite figure out what it is so important about the quotation.

On the other hand, if you just want to add another reference in the footnotes, fine by me. I like multiple references, although I know ThaddeusB is not as fond of multiple references as I am.GreekParadise (talk) 07:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for complete feedback. My intention behind inclusion of the quote is it shows Palin didn't support the bridge to no-where as a blanket statement. She supported a "link" for the residents of the islands. And that she would "evaluate" the details when it was appropriate. The only reasons I was "removing" the other references was for length. I'm fine with them staying and this new content being included - if everyone else is ok with it. Theosis4u (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me like she said different things at different times. Since I've been urged to keep this section short, why don't you put it in a footnote of this article and/or in the body of the Governorship section where there is a much longer article on the bridge.GreekParadise (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the other's should be footnoted (if any) in favor of this one being in the text. The others imply she supported the full blown POV slant that she endorsed the earmark of the "bridge to no-where" when in fact, she didn't. This quote represents that best because it directly addresses the intent of why people are looking at the section entitled "bridge to nowhere", whereas the other quote doesn't. Theosis4u (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Theos, she DID endorse the earmark of the "bridge". Period. Full-stop. She was 100% for it before she was 50% against it. That's why some news sources are calling her opposition a "naked lie." At best your quote is saying that she wanted all the federal money but she would have considered scaling down the size of the bridge. And that may be true. But it doesn't mean she didn't want every penny of the money. After all, she kept every penny even when she didn't build the bridge. That's the fact. You may not like the facts. But it's not POV to give fact. It is, however, POV to imply something that is not true because it looks good politically. And to say she did not endorse the earmark or she did not want the money is 100% false. In fact she still supports the other bridge (Knik Arm-Don Young's Bridge) to this day, and that's half the earmark and she hasn't given back the other half to the federal government and won't. Now did she change positions? Of course, she did. She switched sides on one bridge and kept the money. That's in the article.

I think you're taking your quote out of context. I can show you 10 quotations of Palin supporting the bridge, more than 100 articles in everything from Anchorage to Ketchikan newspapers, on everything from candidate surveys to several speeches in Southeast Alaska to promises to local leaders to attacks on opponents. You have one amorphous quote. You don't know when she said it. You don't have the original context or the full context. (Yahoo doesn't provide it and neither do you.) And she says some bureaucrat-speak language saying there will be a process. Yet even the exact same Yahoo article you cite says in its second sentence: "In fact, Palin was for the infamous bridge before she was against it." It says "Palin did abandon plans to build the nearly $400 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport. But she made her decision after the project had become an embarrassment to the state, after federal dollars for the project were pulled back and diverted to other uses in Alaska, and after she had appeared to support the bridge during her campaign for governor. McCain and Palin together have told a broader story about the bridge that is misleading." All of this is right there in the very article you cite for your quotation! Now the article does go on to say that at some point, she called the bridge design "grandiose" and said something more modest might be appropriate. But it doesn't say what date or where she made such a statement. Find the original statement in its original context and let's talk about it. She may have contradicted herself during her campaign and said one thing to Alaska voters and another thing to someone else. I don't know. But right now, we have no context. Please find out the original source of the quotation you want to add so we can see its context. But please don't say silly things like "she didn't endorse the earmark of the 'bridge to no-where'." If what she said was not an endorsement of the bridge and her actions (keeping the federal money and even spending $25 million on an unneeded access road rather than giving back the money to federal taxpayers!) do not show she wanted the money, then I have another bridge to sell ya--in Brooklyn.GreekParadise (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the Bridge to Nowhere section is very important, but I also think it's way too long. It is more than 50% of the Budget and Spending section. Can we trim it to a single paragraph, or two at most? Some things like the exact names of the bridges, and who they are named after are unimportant. Focus instead on the controversial issues involved. --JHP (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

To reduce space, I also suggest removing all but the most essential quotes. --JHP (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a proposed trimming of the section. It is still three paragraphs, but I removed stuff I thought was nonessential.

Two proposed Alaska bridges, both supported by Palin in her run for Governor, have been derided as a symbol of pork barrel spending. In 1995, Congress earmarked $454.4 million to build the two bridges but reversed itself under strong criticism. Congress then gave the $454.4 million to Alaska for general transportation instead. The next year, Palin ran for Governor on a "build-the-bridge" platform, attacking "spinmeisters" for insulting local residents by using the term "Bridge to Nowhere."

In September 2007, Governor Palin canceled the Gravina Bridge, saying: "it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island." Palin did, however, continue construction of a $25 million access road on Gravina Island, a road which would have linked to the bridge but now goes only to an empty beach. State officials said if the $25 million had not been spent, it would otherwise have been returned to the federal government. Alaska has not returned any of the $454.4 million in the original earmark to the federal government." To this day, Palin continues to support funding the second bridge, Don Young's Way.

In her nomination acceptance speech and on the campaign trail, Palin has often said: "I told the Congress 'thanks, but no thanks,' for that Bridge to Nowhere." McCain-Palin television advertisements also claim Palin "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere". Given Palin's previous support for the Bridge, these claims have been described as misleading by The Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, The New York Times, Newsweek, and The Washington Post.

--JHP (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

After seeing that User:MastCell did some trimming to the section, I realized that my proposed change would stomp on his edits. To avoid a potential stomping on his edits, I just kept what he changed and did a little more trimming. The edit changes are here. --JHP (talk) 01:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed something. The Bridge to Nowhere section (and my proposed edit) is factually incorrect. The first paragraph suggests she ran for governor in 1996. --JHP (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to do some comparisons to see what you removed. Perhaps you can just tell me. As I recall, I edited it pretty tightly, and I can see you've taken out the bridges' locations and the very reason they were called bridges to nowhere. That doesn't make sense. You (or someone) else also claimed it was "dubious" that the first and both bridges have both been called Bridges to Nowhere. See footnotes 78 and 79 and please remove the dubious tag. Just combine 79 with 78 since one source describes one and one describes both.GreekParadise (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC) I feel the Bridge(s) from Nowhere section is extremely important. It is the single thing most focused on by McCain and Palin and the media about Sarah Palin. And it doesn't make sense to me not to explain simple things like why the bridges got their name. I really don't think this can be justifiably cut much further, but why don't you tell me exactly what facts you want to cut and why. (I have no problem with tightening that doesn't remove content but I don't think that's possible in large measure.) So exactly what content do you propose to remove? GreekParadise (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You didn't answer me, so I found out myself. You removed:

1. That Sarah Palin originally supported these bridges -- important, I think, in first sentence says bio is about her and it explains why they're here and flows better 2. Location of bridges and name of bridges, which I think is basic stuff and important 3. Dubious tag is wrong but I'll fix link to make it a double-link to prove it 4. insulting local residents is more accurate way to describe source 5. removed her demand that it be done sooner while congressional delegation can assist 6. removed that palin made her switch right after mccain criticism 7. removed quote from governor cancelling bridge 8. removed (astonishingly, IMO) fact that palin still supports second bridge 9. removed newsweek quote 10. removed washington post quote

I agree 5, 7, and 10 will make article significantly shorter without taking out valuable content. Because I disagree with most of the changes -- some of which like location are part of consensus above -- I will revert but then proceed to delete 5, 7, and 10 and put the two tags in to fix whoever thought claim was "dubious."

If you have further changes THAT DELETE CONTENT, please come to the talk page and say what content you want to delete and why before making the changes. Thank you.GreekParadise (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

GreekParadise, most of the edits were done by User:MastCell. I didn't disagree with him, so I felt no need to undo his edits. I followed up with these edits. My original proposed edits are above.

Regarding item #3, let me point out that the term is "Bridge to Nowhere", singular, not "Bridges to Nowhere", plural. Almost all sources refer only to the Gravina Island Bridge as the bridge to nowhere. The first New York Times reference, which is being used to claim that the Knik Arm Bridge (Don Young's Way) is also called the bridge to nowhere doesn't mention the Knik Arm Bridge at all. It only mentions the Gravina Island Bridge. The source doesn't back up the claim. In fact, it uses the singular "bridge to Nowhere", thus contradicting the claim. If that's not dubious, then I don't know what is. There is one single source referring to the Knik Arm Bridge as a second bridge to nowhere, but that source defies the common understanding of the nickname and it conflicts with almost all other sources.

Regarding item #5, I didn't feel the quote adds much useful information. It mainly just wastes space.

Regarding item #6, you have not established a cause and effect relationship. This appears to be nothing more than a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Fallacious logic does not belong in Wikipedia articles.

Regarding #9 and #10, these are just quotes. They don't add any more useful information than the sentence that came before them. Please focus less on useless quotes and just stick to the facts. Quotes take up too much space when we are trying to conserve space. The more words you use to get a point across, the less likely people will actually take the time to read what is written. --JHP (talk) 07:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I was just writing up what I'd done when I hit an edit conflict. You beat me to it.

• On #3, there are many sources that use Bridges to Nowhere (referring to Gravina and Knik Arm) and many more that use Bridge to Nowhere (referring to Gravina). I have fixed all refs. But google "bridges to nowhere" and you'll see 38,000 references. This nickname has been used both ways.
• 5, not wedded to it but shortened it so hopefully you're OK with it now
• 6, I didn't say one caused the other, I just noted the time frame. Some of the articles I've researched have speculated that one caused the other but I have not. McCain spoke in August 2007 and Palin's decision was made in September 2007.
• 10, removed
• 9, shortened greatly but would like to keep in shortened quote because it sums up critique nicely. It's always better, I think, to show a critique than to say it's been "critiqued" and I did it in few words
• Also completed mammoth reference review of every reference in the article. Feel free to double-check, but I expect/hope/pray you'll approve. Now it's 4 am Eastern Time. I've been working on this for 6 hours. Need rest. Good night.GreekParadise (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think references 90 and 91 should go immediately after the quote, instead of where they currently are. In general, I prefer references at the end of sentences, rather than in the middle of them. After reference 92, there is a lone comma sitting in between sentences. Don't go to sleep. This is Wikipedia. By the time you wake up, some other editor will have come along and changed everything. ;-) --JHP (talk) 08:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Three days ago--seems like three weeks ago--another wikieditor who will remain nameless (unless you really want his name) told me he hates multiple sources next to each other at the end of a sentence. He said it makes it hard to read. The trouble was, in the interest of both brevity and comprehensiveness, I had crammed four sources in one sentence. (It used to be four sentences, but why say in four what you can say in one?) So where do you put the four sources? If I removed a source, then part of the sentence was unsourced, but I could see how four sources together did make it difficult to read. I also got some complaints that things weren't sourced. (They were sourced, just not in the first source at the end of the sentence.) So last night, I painstakingly reviewed each and every source and put it precisely over the word or words it was sourced to. Actually as an encyclopedia, this makes it easier to use and edit because people can look up exactly what they want to look up in the references.GreekParadise (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. That rant was just prelude. In the case you mention, we have a joint quote from two sources. I can see why you want it at the end. If you really want to put 90 and 91 back together at the end of the sentence, go right ahead. And yes, it's only two sources together, so no biggie. But I warn you. If someone complains again about "multiple sources strung together makes article difficult to read," I'm sicking that editor on you! (Last point. Can't find evil comma. Maybe some other editor removed it.)GreekParadise (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I moved references 90 and 91. I should clarify. I usually prefer references at the ends of sentences, phrases, or quotes, but not within phrases unless it would be unclear what fact the reference is supporting. Whenever there is a quote, the reference should go immediately after it. It is the quote that needs to be backed up with evidence, not where it was said.

Also, I corrected the official names of the newspapers being cited. It is The New York Times, not the New York Times. Same with The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. On the other hand, it is the Associated Press, not The Associated Press, so I kept that as is. I guess the AP just likes to be different. --JHP (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe these three paragraphs should definitely be in the article. It is concise yet provides all the necessary details and is very important in defining Sarah Palin. Anyone objecting to these paragraphs is not being neutral but is rather pushed by political reasons. " Two proposed Alaska bridges, both supported by Palin in her run for Governor, have been derided as a symbol of pork barrel spending. In 1995,[citation needed] Congress earmarked $454.4 million to build the two bridges but reversed itself under strong criticism. Congress then gave the $454.4 million to Alaska for general transportation instead.[4][5][6] The next year,[citation needed] Palin ran for Governor on a "build-the-bridge" platform, attacking "spinmeisters" for insulting local residents by using the term "Bridge to Nowhere."[7][8][9]

In September 2007, Governor Palin canceled the Gravina Bridge, saying: "it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island."[10][8] Palin did, however, continue construction of a $25 million access road on Gravina Island, a road which would have linked to the bridge but now goes only to an empty beach. State officials said if the $25 million had not been spent, it would otherwise have been returned to the federal government.[8] Alaska has not returned any of the $454.4 million in the original earmark to the federal government."[11] To this day, Palin continues to support funding the second bridge, Don Young's Way. [12]

In her nomination acceptance speech and on the campaign trail, Palin has often said: "I told the Congress 'thanks, but no thanks,' for that Bridge to Nowhere."[13][14] McCain-Palin television advertisements also claim Palin "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere".[15] Given Palin's previous support for the Bridge, these claims have been described as misleading by The Wall Street Journal,[16] the Associated Press,[17] The New York Times,[18] Newsweek,[19] and The Washington Post.[20]" Ruick (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Newsweek reports Palin admonished by judge that her disparagement of Wooten constituted child abuse

Warned by the Court Palin and her family continued to disparage Wooten.

Court documents show that Judge Suddock was disturbed by the alleged attacks by Palin and her family members on Wooten's behavior and character. "Disparaging will not be tolerated—it is a form of child abuse," the judge told a settlement hearing in October 2005, according to typed notes of the proceedings. The judge added: "Relatives cannot disparage either. If occurs [sic] the parent needs to set boundaries for their relatives."

It is the mother's [Hackett's] responsibility to set boundaries for her relatives and insure [sic] they respect them, and the disparagement by either parent, or their surrogates is emotional child abuse," Judge Suddock wrote. He added that: "If the court finds it is necessary due to disparagement in the Mat-Su Valley [the area north of Anchorage where Palin and her extended family live], for the children's best interests, it [the court] will not hesitate to order custody to the father and a move into Anchorage."

Do Warnings about Palin behavior characterized by a judge as child abuse belong in the article? I expect they bear on her temperment and becaues of questions about John McCains temperment raise questions about the tickets suitability for a position where remaining cool calm and collected in a crisis is a matter of life and death for thousands and Palins suitability to be McCains pick.Rktect (talk) 09:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not very clear. How would statements made in a court proceeding be child abuse? This is reasonably well reported in quite a few sources but the significance and context is not all that clear. It is not up to us to decide what raises questions about Palin's suitability for office and what does not. We can't take sides there. If a lot of people decide Palin's involvement in the case is important to the election, that sentiment will be reported in the press and it may be worth mentioning in the election article. If they report it as a major event in her life then it might be relevant for this article about her biography, but that's not obvious from the sources I could find. The argument to include something here is not that it tells us something bad about Palin, but rather than a lot of people (as evidenced by the weight of reliable published sources) think it is worth reporting. If it is reported as a campaign issue then it might be good for the campaign article, and if as a life issue for the bio article. But if it is reported as the blog / news tidbit of the day we really have to take a longer view and not report every last rumor or political argument. Wikidemon (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What's more, our own Wikipedia article states "On March 1, 2006, Wooten was notified of the results of an Alaska State Trooper internal investigation. The probe found that Wooten violated internal policy, but not the law, in making the death threat against Heath (the father of Sarah Palin and Molly McCann). Wooten denied having made the threat, but the investigation decided that he had in fact done so. The trooper investigation concluded that the death threat was not a crime because Wooten did not threaten the father directly; therefore, the investigator deemed the threat to be a violation of trooper policy rather than a violation of criminal law. " police investigation found that Wooten did actually make a death threat against Palin's father. So what was called "disparagement" against this trooper at the time may very well have been simple statements of fact. (btw the "disparagement" wasn't done by Palin, she is only included in the "McCann and family" category) Hobartimus (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, my reading of the issue is that the judge warned Palin's sister Molly Hackett that Molly's family and friends should not be demeaning/ridiculing Molly's ex-husband during the course of everyday life because doing so was harmful to the children Molly and he shared. Or put more directly, it is not okay for one parent (or her family) to poison the child against the other parent. What the significance of the judge's statements are with respect to Sarah Palin in particular (as opposed to Molly's family in general) is unclear to me. Dragons flight (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin was one of the people disparaging Wooten's reputation. ;) Starting in August 2005, she sent several strongly worded letters to the head of the Troopers asking why the guy was still employed. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to disparage anyone with factual statements. Police investigation found that Wooten did make a death threat and Wooten did taser his 10 year old stepson. I'd go as far as propose a mention of the death threat against Palin's father in the main article. It gives a lot of context to the case. Hobartimus (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not obvious that those are the specific and only items the judge was referring to. And even if those are the circumstances, I'd imagine that how one expresses those facts make a difference. For example, "that worthless, arrogant, pig thought he could threaten us and get away with it" would be pretty disparaging even if it were just a reaction to the death threat. Dragons flight (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well.. I'm sure telling the guy's boss repeatedly that he was unfit to be a state trooper is fairly disparaging to one's reputation. But then, I added it to the Troopergate article last night (I also added it here, but it was later removed as an unnecessary detail for the summary here), so unless you think it is a necessary detail in this article... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> I don't understand the desire to put Trooper Wooten on trial right here in the court of Wikipedia. His alleged transgressions of years ago are not pertinent to the current abuse-of-power investigationn. The guy ought to be adequately identified and that's it. The only point I can see to argue for including "The life story of Trooper Wooten, according to the Palins" is to convict Wooten on this page of being a reprobate, and imply that regardless whether the investigation finds Palin guilty of misdeeds or not, that she was justified. Spiff1959 (talk) 05:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus added the claim about an alleged "death threat" made by Wooten, which I reverted as he did not add a reference and it is a rather serious charge. Hobartimus then added a note (with a reference) on my talk page. I have not checked the reference (someone should), but regardless the claim is cited or not, I do not think this material is at all suited for the article. Wikipedia is not the place to sort out the claims and counter-claims of this ongoing dispute, and as Wooten is now a public figure to some degree, any portrayal of him or his actions falls under the category of WP:BLP. Leave it out. Arjuna (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus added another note on my talk page to the effect that he was re-posting the "death threat" claim described above from another article. I have not checked this out, but will take him at his word, and so this is to confirm that I am not accusing him of any violation or bad faith edit. The material is still very much inadvisable. Arjuna (talk) 09:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Religion

The personal section needs expanding, in particular about the religion aspects. There are abundant sources on the subject (both national and international media) in which her attitude to religion and beliefs are described. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is already far too big and there is a whole paragraph on her religious views. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

At this point we have thousands of news articles talking about the "glasses" of Sarah Palin other thousands discuss her "hair". As time passes we will have "abundandt sources" on everything regarding Sarah Palin. I checked the Obama article and even though wikipedia has a huge amount of material on religion and related matters relating to Obama not that much is in the Barack Obama main article, his BLP which summarizes his whole life. Hobartimus (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not overly thrilled with everything that's there - a Catholic paper calls her a "post-denominationalist" and that makes it into an encyclopedia article. I'm really not thrilled about having articles where we tell someone else what they believe. If she describes herself that way or her church describes itself that way, ok, fine, but I'm not a big fan of putting words into someone's mouth. --B (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent point. I can see no reason for editorial commentary in a WP:BLP it almost always pushes a POV. Why don't you take it out of the article?--Paul (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper, and if there is substantial material about this, we can alwways spin off a new article and summarize here. Given the extensive coverage on this aspect of Palin's life, I see no reason why not to include it, after all as Obama is concerned we have several spinoff articles about the Wright controversy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The Wright controversy seems different. The media coverage of that was immense, because he was a fiery preacher. In contrast, Palin's pastor for the last several years has been relatively sedate, and 99.999% of Americans could not tell you his name.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

More to the point, even if there were a controversy here, we would hopefully rely on either self-identified beliefs or the mainstream media, rather than on a "rival" denomination, to tell us the story. We wouldn't rely on a newspaper put out by an Islamic religious group to tell us what Obama's religion believes and so I don't think we should rely on a newspaper put out by a Catholic church to tell us what Palin's religion believes. --B (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this video of her addressing her old church in Alasaka should be placed on the External Links: Its pretty much sums up her religious beliefs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG1vPYbRB7k (part 1 of 2)

Monowiki (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it appears that someone has reinserted the characterization from the National Catholic Reporter. The consensus in this section is that such a source doesn't cut the mustard, and I agree, so I'll remove it again.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, this article says, "Although initial press reports said that she was the first Pentecostal ever to appear on a major-party ticket, Palin described herself in an interview with Time magazine on August 29, 2008, as a "Bible-believing" Christian." I think we ought to strike out the stuff up to the first comma, because it's merely discussing an inaccurate initial report from the National Catholic Reporter. Why describe inaccurate initial reports, especially if they're from a religious journal for a religion different from Palin's?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is there no separate section on environmental issues?

A few, quick lines under 'political positions' is not enough. She's the governor of the largest state in the union, which controls vast amounts of natural resources and abundant wildlife. It's also affected by global warming quicker than any other state in this union due to its proximity to melting polar ice caps. Saying she opposes having polar bears listed on the endangered species list when she's suing the federal government over that very thing hardly covers the subject! Since it was in the original article, and all sourced, why was it taken out? To leave it out is to take sides with the McCain campaign, unless that's the point. It is NOT political position to give the facts if they are supported by sources; those were. It makes absolutely no sense. Given that Alaska is the type of state it is, those positions would be mentioned IF she were not McCain's VP choice. I've seen many articles in Wikipedia less sanitized, with fewer sources. Those facts have obviously been dug up by news sources, just not all very often put in one place. Therefore, facts that are good or bad should not be left out. This subject needs its own separate section. Jolly momma (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Because there's a separate article Political positions of Sarah Palin which has a section on her positions on the environment.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the gist of the question. This subject should be discussed in a separate section. Fly-by sentences do not cover the subject. I believe I gave sufficient reasons above. This makes no sense, given Alaska's natural resources, oil companies, wildlife, mining, and the possible effects on the environment. Is this a political position on Wikipedia's part?Jolly momma (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I share your concern that people have access to material to understand her policy positions on environmental issues, but detailed descriptions of those positions are best handled in the separate article as Cube lurker indicates. But...go for it in Political positions of Sarah Palin. Aloha, Arjuna (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Relevance of Alaska Not Returning Money on Bridge to Nowhere

"Alaska will not return any of the original earmark to the federal government." Should sourced statement be included?

Support One wikieditor argues that it is "irrelevant" to the Bridge to Nowhere whether, after Palin canceled the bridge, any of the original federal earmark will be returned to the federal government and has removed this sourced sentence twice. I disagree. I think the whole point of the Bridge to Nowhere was that it was criticized as a wasteful earmark by the federal government. Palin takes credit for canceling the bridge. But I think whether or not that canceling saved federal taxpayers any money is relevant to the discussion of whether or not canceling the bridge was a good decision. In fact, the removed sourced specifically criticized Palin for Alaska's refusal to return the money. (http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSN3125537020080901) At any rate, the article simply stated neutrally (and pithily) the facts, that which is Alaska does not intend to return any of the federal funds originally earmarked for the bridge. I think it's highly relevant. Do I have support for putting back in the deleted sentence (with source)?GreekParadise (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it's relevant if it gets a lot of coverage by neutral reliable sources. What to make of it should be up to the reader. It's actually pretty complicated, and an odd campaign issue. Would anyone expect a governor of either party in any state to say "no thank you" to federal funds, once procured? Who ever gives money back voluntarily to the federal government? That she didn't do so probably tells us nothing about her governorship, it's just an incident that may or may not be notable to her life history.Wikidemon (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

On the surface, it seems applicable if cited properly. One has to wonder, given the nature of politics, if there may be more to it than what is on the surface. States often are victims of unfunded mandates by Congress. If they get money from another source (earmarks) and then won't return it, placing the funding into an area the federal government would not fund, is that legitimate? Where will this money actually go? Do we know for certain? If a statement could accurately be made, such as "Alaska will not return any of the original earmark to the federal government, but will use it to fund ____ instead." then it seems appropriate. Atom (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

$25 million is going to the gravel access road and I put that in. The rest is being held for future needs.

GreekParadise (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the statement is an attempt to strengthen the conversion from "bridge to nowhere" to "no strings attached". I don't see any reason for two sentences on the issue, but rewriting the first sentence to be more clear seems reasonable. Aprock (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think too that the sentence on the funding is crucial and should be included.--Sum (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it's irrelevant and not notable, and also the above statement has factuality problems to say the least. "Alaska will not return any of the original earmark to the federal government." There was no "earmark" to be returned. A proposal for attaching the earmark died back in Congress in 2005, the money that was finally paid to Alaska was a "transportation grant" to be spent by the state of Alaska on transportation projects. By the time Palin cancelled the "bridge the nowhere" project a big chunk of the transportation grant was already spent on well... transportation projects, so there wasn't actually that much left to "give back" and the original money was given to Alaska for them to use as they see fit, building roads and other projects. The story cited in the first post actualy gets away by attributing the half-truths to local Alaska politicians, so the source is not Reuters to this but a local Alaska democrat for example. In reality Alaska never received an "earmark" for the bridge. Hobartimus (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Per this section, I have reincluded the funding (and made it one sentence rather than two). Thanks for your help everyone.GreekParadise (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

What you included even misrepresents the source, you state as a statement of fact a sentence attributed in the article. Your article said exactly, "The state, however, never gave back any of the money that was originally earmarked for the Gravina Island bridge, said Weinstein and Elerding." the people referred are, "Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein, a Democrat, and Mike Elerding, a Republican who was Palin's campaign coordinator in the southeast Alaska city." So two local Alaska politicans, actual political opponents of Palin from the town for which the bridge was proposed (read, when Palin killed the bridge, they and their town got burned). Hobartimus (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that you, GreekParadise outright misrepresented the source, writing "According to Palin's campaign coordinator Mike Elderling", when from the article it is clear that he WAS campaign coordinator (no longer is) in KETCHIKAN ONLY, this was probably in the 2006 campaign before they became politcal opponents because Palin shut the bridge down which was for their town. Hobartimus (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll add "Ketikan" to the reference to the campaign coordinator.GreekParadise (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

And also unless you have a source that he is currently coordinator put in a 'was' also, and don't refer to the money as "earmark" as Alaska never received an "earmark". They received "developement funds for transportation", if you can't help yourself and absolutely must put it back try "federal money" at least that's accurate, earmark is just wrong in any context. Hobartimus (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll add "former" and "$442 million" in place of "earmark". No problem. But please, no more wholesale deletions without discussion.GreekParadise (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The statement, "Alaska will not return any of the original earmark to the federal government[86] and is spending $25 million on Gravina Island for a bridge access road to an empty beach so that none of the money will have to be returned.[81]" is, at best, misleading. It misrepresents what its own sources say by implying that returning it was an option. The first source says, "...but Alaska was still granted an equivalent amount of transportation money to be used at its own discretion." Returning this money is not an option that any state legislature would be expected and certainly not lauded for exercising. They would be soundly criticized by their own citizens if they returned the money which your statement implies was the better choice. This is not an earmark but a grant of an equivalent amount to the state of Alaska.

The second references says "Weinstein noted, the state is continuing to build a road on Gravina Island to an empty beach where the bridge would have gone -- because federal money for the access road, unlike the bridge money, would have otherwise been returned to the federal government." Again, this is not a statement made directly by the source but is a comment by Weinstein. "Empty beach" is an exaggeration intended to imply negativity where there is none. The state would be remiss in its duties and would be criticized by its citizens if it did not use this federal money for that road.

In both cases, these statements are not about Palin and are irrelevant to a biography about her. They are misleading at best. They misrepresent their sources and try to imply negativity where none exists. They should both be removed from this biography about a living person. WTucker (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe arguing whether Alaska's return of the money is a good thing or not is POV. The article simply states Alaska won't return the money. State officials gave the reason on the $25 million (so that no money will not have to be returned) When that was spelled out in two sentences yesterday, the article was said to be too long. (I'm between a rock and a hard place. When I consolidate, people feel it's not fully explained. When I elucidate, people say the article is too long.) As for "empty beach," I originally had the longer version from the link "to the spot where the bridge would have gone", or something like that (quoting article). Asked to consolidate, I used the shorter term empty beach. I'm up for putting back in longer version or even pointing out in refs that "empty beach" was said by the Ketchikan Mayor who's a Democrat (and, I'm sure, disappointed by the bridge decision though I can't include this POV parenthetical). But I can't have it both ways. It will make the article longer.GreekParadise (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the quote from the article that doesn't involve the upset mayor:

Meanwhile, work is under way on a three-mile road on Gravina Island, originally meant to connect the airport and the new bridge. State officials said last year they were going ahead with the $25 million road because the money would otherwise have to be returned to the federal government.

Can we agree on changing "spending $25 million on Gravina Island for a bridge access road to an empty beach" to "spending $25 million on a Gravina Island road to the place where the bridge would have gone"?GreekParadise (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ya know what? It's only maybe two words longer. I'll make the change and eliminate "empty beach."GreekParadise (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Guys, not to be technical, but Palin didn't kill the bridge project: CONGRESS DID. The funds had already been allocated and sent, but the bridge project was over before she had a chance to kill it. The funds were given to Alaska because they'd been allocated, even though the project was done. Saying she killed it is a 'misstatement of fact'. (ref. see Reuters, Bush asks Congress for 'line-item veto' power', March 7, 2006, China Daily News) Jolly momma (talk) 01:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Support As a simple neutral and notable statement of fact. She claimed to turn down the funds, ("I said 'thanks, but no thanks on the Bridge to Nowhere'") when she lobbied for them, and didn't return them once it was given. This issue has gotten an enormous about of press coverage. I've seen copious television broadcasts and news articles investigating the issue and all concluding that her statement has "misleading" written all over it.--Loodog (talk) 02:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If she's misrepresenting herself on this issue, then it's certainly relevant. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Bowdlerization of Bridge to Nowhere

Here we go again. Is it too much to ask someone to discuss it on the talk page before deleting relevant facts on the Bridge to Nowhere? An editor has deleted, among other things 1. Alaska's failure to return federal funds 2. Palin's support for second bridge to nowhere (Knik Arm)

These thing were discussed at length on the talk page and were agreed to. So I will revert back.GreekParadise (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi GP - not deleting - adding that young procured the earmarks in 2005 to the topic sentence. Hope that's ok. Kaisershatner (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem with me. I rarely object to people who add material. As for me, I always want more information  :-) But I should warn you I suspect others might object, in the interest of brevity. I ain't gonna touch it. I only get upset when people cut "bone." Still, you might want to keep this future likelihood in mind and trim as much fat as possible. Isn't there a shorter way to say "financed through Federal budget earmarks in 2005 by Alaska's Rep. Don Young while he was Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee"? Think about it. But no, no objection from me.GreekParadise (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, OK. One teensy thing. Given your changes, the amount of the earmark ($442 million) does not appear until deep into the article in the talk of Alaska not returning the money. I'd like to put it back up front.GreekParadise (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ooops, Sources Problem That's what happens when you move stuff around. LOL. The Congressional reversal was in 2005, not in 2007. Please correct and pay attention to original sources.GreekParadise (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the careless deletions on "hot" articles, are an issue on wikipedia as they discourage to contribute. It should be included in the policy that when one adds an information that is properly referenced, nobody should delete it without a proper discussion.--Sum (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, policy is, and will continue to be, that it is the responsibility of those who want material included to find support, whether that be sources or consensus of other editors. "When in doubt, out" is a sound editorial rule of thumb, especially for a biography of a living person. GRBerry 21:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no such policy. The only case is for libelous material, which is not the case for the Bridge topic.--Sum (talk) 10:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

High Approval Ratings

This section was removed along with this information:

In July 2007, Palin had an approval rating often in the 90s.[45]

A poll published by Hays Research on July 28, 2008 showed Palin's approval rating at 80%. [46]

Why were the actual figures removed and replaced with "her approval ratings remain high"?

The approval ratings are remarkably high, and I believe it is necessary to show this detail. 1platoonabe (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)1platoonabe

I agree that the numbers are remarkable and should be provided; she may well be the most popular Governor in Alaskan history. However, if those references are to the Hays Poll results, that is original research and may be the reason they were removed. We need reliable secondary sources for this data before it can be included.--Paul (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a source that might be useful: Alask's governor tops the approval rating charts. --Paul (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As I am new to this, I don't know what happens next? Paul.h has added this source. Do we now add the approval rating detail or do we need to put this to a vote? 1platoonabe (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)1platoonabe

Be bold. Add it and see what happens.--Paul (talk) 02:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Contridiction..?

"Overall, the choice of Palin was well received by potential voters..."

(A couple paragraph's down)

"In the days following the decision, the choice of Palin generated mixed opinions among potential voters..."

So, was her nomination 'well received' or 'mixed' by potential voters? --98.112.158.127 (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"Mixed opinions" is not supported by any reference... Hmmm... later in the same sentence with "mixed opinions" it also says that McCain's choice "had energized the Republican base. Results from the first few polls after the Republican convention gave indications that the McCain campaign had overcome its deficit and that Palin may have boosted support among white women." - and that statement is supported by three different sources. I'd suggest that the "mixed opinion" - possiby a result of massive edit warring - be deleted from the text. --213.50.111.114 (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The word I'd use is polarising. Some people really love her, because of her views, the same reason for which some people really hate and fear her. Those that strongly agree with her have to date been underwhelmed by McCain (too moderate) so putting her on the ticket has been a big boost; it activated 'the base'. And if they all stay home, McCain loses. So a big spike for McCain, and that means he no longer looks like a certain loser, and Palin gets credit for that, and that makes people love and hate Palin even more than they did before which is circular. The excitement feeds on itself, at least for a while. The question will be how the center behaves. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Bristol Palin

Since it has been a major topic of media coverage ,and as of now Bristol Palin redirects to this article, shouldn't Bristol have her own section? Not that it should be necissary but here are some references: . Sorry to say, I don't have the time or the ability to write up this section myself, and I didn't want to step on anyone's toes, the talk page at Bristol Palin seemed pretty contentious... 76.15.184.122 (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think so - at least not yet. Perhaps she will eventually have the same notability as Mary Cheney or Jenna Bush, but the sources aren't there yet. Kelly ^hi! 03:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Kelly at this time. Bristol only gets mentioned in the news as the daughter of a political candidate. In the future, she might do things (other than getting pregnant) which would support an article or section of her own. The offspring of world leaders often write books, lead charitabl eor cultural efforts, or at least get intereeting job opportunities which lead to substantial news coverage satisfying WP:BIO. Bristol and the other Palin offspring are just not there yet. Edison (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I am the original poster, I am just using a different IP address: I understand that she doesn't qualify under the notability guidelines for biographies but I thought that the intention of the "relationships do not confer notability" rule was that they should deserve a section under that article if they had significant news coverage. six credible news sources really isn't enough for her pregnancy to have at least a sub-section? I can pull up more in seconds if you need me to, I am just not much of a writer nor do I feel I am an experienced enough wikipedian to write up such a contentious section in an NPOV manner. She is notable only as Sarah's daughter, but she is extremely notable for that. I would contend that a poll would show that more people know who Bristol Palin is than Mary Cheney not that google searches are definitive by any means but "Bristol Palin" turns up about 1.2 million more hits than "Mary Cheney." I don't think Mary merits an article under the BIO guidelines either, but she certainly deserves a major section or sub-section under her father's article. Bristol has already had a huge impact on the race, in the rumors that she is trigg's mother and in her newly announced pregnancy. I would point to Willie Horton as someone whose notoriety is due entirely to his relationship to a presidential candidate and yet obviously deserves an extensive bio. Hell I think Levi, the self-proclaimed "redneck" deserves his own sub-section but that's just me. 24.239.177.202 (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin's "Lincoln" answer to Gibson's "task from God" question

Maybe this only would find place in a subarticle, if at all -- but, according to Contentions, in Gibson's interview he asked Palin: "You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war?"

Yet Palen's actual original quote had been: "[P]ray…that our leaders…are sending [American armed services members] out on a task that is from God."

And in her answer to Gibson, Palin alluded to Lincoln's having said: "Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right."  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 03:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me to be the same sentiment as Lincoln's...however, it's not up to our interpretation, but the historical sources. Kelly ^hi! 03:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Second term section

I restored material that was deleted with the edit summary of None of this is reliably sourced. It's from an email written by someone who says Palin hates her. I'll leave it in the sub-article for now, but it needs better sourcing. The email is widely reported in reliable sources. Added The Atlantic and The Washington Independent. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Those are opinion pieces, not straight news stories. Kelly ^hi! 03:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Opinions can be attributed. And the material is notable. Rather than delete, you ought to find ways to incorporate the material and attribute the opinion to those that hold them: NPOV 101. ~~

Jossi, where in this source of yours is there any mention of taxes or expenditures? And your other source is merely an opinion piece that quotes an email from a local Wasilla citizen who says that Palin hates her. (Kilkenny: "she has hated me since back in 1996, when I was one of the 100 or so people who rallied to support the city librarian against Sarah's attempt at censorship.") I have left this material in the sub-article, but I don't see why material that is not reliably sourced belongs in this main article.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The source I added had the content of the email by Kilkenny, but seems to have been removed now. In any case, I do not think that the tax increase and expenditure increase during her second term are disputed. Are they? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems like bland info that ultimately may be confirmed by reliable sources. Or not. Factcheck.org says they're in the process of analyzing Kilkenny's claims.[2] I suggest we just wait until there's a reliable source to cite. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Ferrylodge...in any event, more suited to the spinout article than the main article. Kelly ^hi! 04:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• According to figures provided by the city of Wasilla, the operating budget for Wasilla went from $6,050,160 in fiscal year 1996 to $9,393,768 in 2002. That’s a 55 percent increase. But adjusted for inflation, it’s a 35 percent increase.
• According to a review of Wasilla’s financial reports, the amount of revenue taken in during 1996 was $6,070,806; and rose to $8,710,166 in 2002. That’s a 43 percent increase. Adjusted for inflation, that comes to a 25 percent increase.
• From Politifact @ St. Petersburg Times. "PolitiFact: Palin "inherited a city with zero debt, but left it with indebtedness of over $22-million."". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved 2008-09-11. {{cite web}}: Text "Numbers right, context missing" ignored (help)

Counterpoints can be added as per the source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a very good find, Jossi. I would suggest an extended write-up in the sub-article, including counterpoints, and then a brief summary in this article if it turns out to look okay in the sub-article.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Kelly should give it a go... Are you up to the task, Kelly? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

I'll try to get to it in the next couple days, if no one else does.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

How much did the population change during this time? Saying expenditures rose by X% without further analysis can be very misleading in the case of towns, people can move in, move out at will. Hobartimus (talk) 06:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the poltifact "article" and it contains things like "And if voters okayed the bond issues...", which is pretty embarassing for a purpurted "fact checker", writing a speculative statement instead of researching this simple question if there was a vote on it or not. Or "The U.S. Census does not provide yearly population estimates before 2000..." it seems that there is no actual research and fact checking beyond looking up publicly available data on the net. There is no estimate on the net by the Census bureu? Better to leave the matter alone then, there is no way to get any information from anywhere else. Another article I saw did "investigative journalism" from back home with the reporter never setting foot in Alaska in his "research" I strongly suspect this was the case here, fact checking from Florida without ever being to Alaska. I suggest in light of the above that we treat these articles as any other news article without assigning any extra credibility for their self appointed, self proclaimed "fact checker" status. Hobartimus (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Since about 80–90% of the claims being made recently can be falsified simply by "looking up publicly available data", that's actually a reasonable start. :) It's a review of a claim by a reasonably reputable, non-partisan source. That said, its conclusion is that the email's claim is "mostly true" - that is, its fundamentals are correct but it omits some significant context. If we use this source, we should capture that ambiguity. MastCell ^Talk 20:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and wrote a section for the sub-article using that source. See Mayoralty_of_Sarah_Palin#Taxes.2C_borrowing_and_spending.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggest adding NATO-Russia comments from Gibson interview

Another item from the Gibson interview: I think it's extremely relevant and should be added to her Political Positions section that she supports Georgia and Ukraine's admittance into NATO and that she fully clarified that NATO (and thus the US) should defend those countries even if it means war with Russia. IMHO this is a significantly radical worldview that deserves attention.

Radical? You do realize this is the exact same position as advocated by John McCain, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, right? And that Article V of the NATO treaty requires that members come to defense of each other? Radical how? Kelly ^hi! 03:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a reference to substantiate the claim that Obama and Biden have said they would defend Georgia at the cost of going to war with Russia. Edison (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Georgia and Ukraine aren't in NATO right now, so was she saying they should be admitted? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, Palin never said that either. She said "Perhaps, so" and proceeded to explain the treaty to Gibson, who I guess doesn't understand it. Kelly ^hi! 04:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Supporting Georgia's admission to NATO (which other politicians do) is relevant and probably important enough to include in Wikipedia, but perhaps in the separate political positions article. NATO members have a mutual defense treaty, that's part of the deal. Palin's getting cornered on it and saying something that the media picked up on may be a campaign issue but for her bio article it's just the news of the day, and I doubt it's anything that by itself will rise to notability.Wikidemon (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Cornered? She went to that interview, they didn't ask her while she was getting into a car or something. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong in quoting Palin on her support for Georgia and Ukraine's admittance into NATO. What would be the problem in stating a fact? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing really, but it's probably more suitable for Political positions of Sarah Palin than for her biography, since it's really a pretty unremarkable statement. Kelly ^hi! 04:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not see anything "unremarkable" about the first statement ever made by Palin related to foreign policy in public televison. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to get consensus in the daughter article (since this is really a political position, and actually identical to that of the McCain campaign) and bring a summary here. Kelly ^hi! 04:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as it was the defining moment of her foreign policy position, it's got every right to be stated here. Grsz^talk 04:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

How is restating a talking point of the McCain campaign (and incidentally the Obama campaign) a "defining moment"? Kelly ^hi! 04:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's the only foreign policy statement she's ever made! Grsz^talk 04:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

She said it, and it must be worth including. If she had waxed poetic and stated some positions on Georgia and Ukraine, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Tibet, Cyprus and Burma, we might have to find a secondary source that summarized her philosophy for us. But if this is the only thing she volunteered, we should include it here. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

She did say a lot of other stuff, so I will now opine that there is too much to include here. It may fit in the Political Positions article. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless that is the McCain campaign's only foreign policy postion too. Then I'll change my mind. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"She said it, and it must be worth including." Yes let's include everything she ever said. I propose "Small town mayor is sort of like a communitiy organizer except you have actual responsibilities (huge cheer from the crowd)", but seriously though other statements made by her are 100 times more 'notable' (or rather noted by the media) if you will like the "what's the difference between a hockey-mom and a pitbull" line and others. Hobartimus (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, she said a lot of other foreign policy stuff, I did not watch the interview and so I change my opinion above. As for those quotes above, they weren't written by her, and aren't policies. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Pledge

Tznkai (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC) says: Because of the contentious nature of this article as well as history between the editors, I was hoping that all the content editors would sign up for the following pledge:

"I, being dedicated to the high quality and neutrality of this article,

editing in good faith in cooperation with my fellow editors,

will not in my talk page comments or my edit summaries mention other editors except to complement them.

I will voluntary restrict myself to one revert a day.

I will ask for help during disputes, rather than protect the article alone."

Agree

1. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Support  :) --Hapsala (talk) 04:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Agreed..--Buster7 (talk) 06:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Can we have Felonious Monk or SlimVirgin for a referee instead? Kelly ^hi! 04:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That was really low, Kelly and very unhelpful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Low? How so? Kelly ^hi! 04:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a "no" to line 3 of the pledge, at least. MastCell ^Talk 20:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Those who agree should go ahead and take the pledge. There's no need to make it conditional on other people taking the pledge. As for myself, I am wary of pledges. Fear of commitment maybe.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. There are too many new editors, and editors arriving as a result of off-wiki POV-pushing campaigns[3] for a "pledge" to have any real meaning. Kelly ^hi! 04:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Under God? --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

At least outside the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, I belive... --Hapsala (talk)

A pledge is a personal stand, in front of witnesses...--Buster7 (talk) 06:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't pledge to complement other editors, though I am willing to compliment them when appropriate. Otherwise, I think these are excellent general principles which would probably improve the editing environment. That said, I feel like a "pledge" is a bit... gimmicky? Let's just do our best to set a good example, which includes a) not edit-warring, b) asking for help, and c) avoiding commentary on other editors where possible. MastCell ^Talk 20:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

18 archives in 10 days

Is the Sarah Palin talk possibly one of the most active talkpages in Wikipedia's history? --Hapsala (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Pointless Obama plug in the "Personal life" section...

"Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama declared the subject of candidates' families off limits in the coming campaign.[161]"

Exactly what is the relevance here? I'm sure we can come up with 150 million other people that said the same thing. Levinite (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Those 150 million aren't running for President, though. It's also a hint to the POV-pushers on this article that they should follow his example. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

elope or Marriage

Currently the article states that Sarah and Tom were married. Very true. But, isn't the reader left with the impression that there was a big Church wedding ceremony with a huge cake, and all their friends and family around, presents and dancing afterwards. Is that what happened ...or did Sarah and Tom elope? Elope paints a different picture in the readers mind. Nothing wrong...just different and more accurate than marriage. I have informed the editor that changed to marriage that I would be reverting to "elope"...in about 1 hour--Buster7 (talk) 05:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I may be new to this but, I'm afraid that marriage is marriage. If you want to play semantecs, I would say that 'elope' conjures up imagery of something impulsive and/or "quick and dirty". Where is the evidence that this was the case? Levinite (talk) 05:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

LA Times article, 30 August,2008...referenced..--Buster7 (talk) 07:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

For Palin, using the word "elope" would paint a negative picture - because it would make a hypocrite of her. Let's stick to what we know, no speculation. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

They eloped...thats a fact. If elope is too "quick and dirty' then provide another word, semantically appropriate. "Married' is too "bright and clean"...and like I said, it conjurs images in the reader that are inaccurate. Sarah's BLV should be truthful.--Buster7 (talk) 06:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Just find a reliable cite. If we're going to say she eloped while pregnant we need a real good cite. But how much do you think people really care if her personal life doesn't always match her ideals? What should matters is what she wants to do for other people's families with the vice-presidency and perhaps the presidency? Can't we focus on the changes to people's lives that she wants to make? That's what matters to voters, that's what we should be focusing on. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of focusing on eloping is part of laying the groundwork for infering that she was already pregnant at the time - which can't be proven, so they have to resort to inference. However, it is important, if provable, because it (along with her daughter's unwed pregnancy) shows how little value her so-called "Christian principles" actually have in her and her family's lives, and people might actually care about that. The story about charging rape victims for rape kits is another highly questionable policy. Instead of "doing for [or 'to'] other people's families", she ought to focus on her own problems - the biblical principle of removing the log from your own eye before removing the speck from someone else's eye. It's amazing how politicians who would criticize others' behavior are remarkably tolerant about their own misbehavior. But without evidence demonstrating the value of the fact (and as far as I know, there ain't any), the "eloping" part doesn't belong in the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There ought to be evidence. I've seen references to a 'town hall wedding' because, apparently, they didn't want to put their parents to the expense of a 'real' wedding. We can't know the motive, but the where and when, that can be checked. And I've seen claims that that wedding was 8 months before the first child - which presumably was not >1 month prem. All those dates could be checked. But it doesn't matter. Maybe she 'didn't wait' and , certainly her daughter didn't wait. But Sarah doesn't back down - knowing what she knows, she still backs the same horse. She's been there, and it hasn't changed her mind about whether it's a good place to be. You can't score points by attacking her for that. Not unless you can show that her beliefs are going to be bad for ordinary people. There isn't going to be a knockout blow. If she's going to be taken down it'll be inch by inch, policy by policy. She's reignited the culture wars with a flamethrower and everything, everthing, is up for grabs. She has the guts to say how little she thinks of some people, and that appeals to a lot of people. McCain's old, and the presidency is a tough job, a killer job. She's damn likely to end up as President, and if she does, you know pretty much what to expect. That's what you ought to focus on. Cheers, Ben Aveling 09:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That "ordinary people" comment betrays serious elitism - and having children out of wedlock is about as "ordinary" as it gets. She's in no position to be copping anything resembling a "holier than thou" attitude. She needs to clean up her own house before daring to criticize anyone else's house. She's a lightweight, and anyone with half a brain can see that. She's a "trophy VP" candidate. Do you think this frenzy would be occurring if it were Condi Rice? Not hardly, and Condi is about 50 times better qualified for the job. The GOP is counting on this celebrity-frenzy to get people voting as stupidly as they did in 2000 and 2004. And if they do, they deserve what they get - Just as they did in 2000 and 2004. The article, though, is a different story. It has to be kept as "fair and balanced" as it can be, an especially daunting task since she's such an unknown quantity even now. Every tabloid rumor is finding its way here, and those have to be choked off unless good sources can be found, which is seldom the case. The GOP spent 6 months doing a background check, and they decided that her failure in bringing her daughter up the right way was something they could live with; so unless she's got some other skeletons that she's hidden very well, this is probably about all there is, and the rest is persistent attempts to infer things that can't be proven. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You keep thinking that she's a lightweight, and you'll be left wondering how she won the election. Obama has his vision of what America could be. Palin has her vision of what America should be. The tabloids are there to present the world for the viewer's titillation. We're here to present the world so it can be understood: What's being said, what it means. Who has said the same things before and who has tried the same things, and when, and what happened when they did. We're here to strip away the fluff. Did she answer a question about the 'Bush Doctrine'? Or did she answer a question about 'punching back, first'? Does she support "the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq"? If so, is it because she understands and agrees with the policies, or does she just support the Bush Administration? A bit like the Democrats perhaps, these articles are drowning in fluff. I'm signing off for now. Best of luck, Ben Aveling 13:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Bush is a lightweight, and he won twice. Never underestimate the gullibility of the voting public. Look at how the GOP lackeys are "Rush"ing to her defense, like "gentlemen". They wouldn't need to do that if it were a candidate of substance. This does not bode well. And so-called tabloid stuff is relevant if it can be proven, which is the slippery part. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is a very unproductive line of argument and is fraught with all sorts of Wikipedia policy problems. Best to focus on her policy positions (and contradictions therein), gaffes, and ethical issues. Arjuna (talk) 09:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Along with the eloping is the inference due to her first child being born 8 months later. As they say, "The first one can come any time, the second one always takes 9 months." But as was proven with her latest one, children can come after only 7 months. So, again, there's no evidence, just inference, and it doesn't belong. It is funny, though, how people ragged Clinton about his supposedly low moral standards, yet the Palin apologists are just fine with her behavior - yet which family produced the out-of-wedlock pregnancy or pregnancies? A great role model, yah. But without evidence, her own marriage and pregnancy have to adhere to strict standards in the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Facts They had to rassle up two witnesses from the old folks home for the wedding. Their parents weren't present. This February article has the story, and a lot of other interesting stuff. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

See discussion further down on the talk page about this also. They did elope, she describes in numerous places when campaigning for governor that they eloped to save money. There should be no problem with describing that they eloped, as that is factual. Trying to speculate on why they may have eloped is not appropriate for the article. The article should be factual, and state that they eloped because they could not afford a big wedding, as that is what she is quoted as having said, and what citations can support. Atom (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

bush doctrine

I've just removed "When asked about the Bush Doctrine she did not seem to know what he was talking about.[4]" [5]. It's sourced, but it's unbalanced, and I dislike the vagueness of the word "seem". Thoughts? Regards, Ben Aveling 05:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If anything, this is John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, not material for her biography.JoeyCG (talk) 06:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to having something discussing that interview, but this particular attempt had too many issues for me to like it. Regarding her biography, remember that she may be the next president but one. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That's someone's interpretation of an interview, hence it's editorializing. If someone told me that a doctrine meant "the right of 'anticipatory self-defense'," I would have to say I don't understand it either. But it sounds like a fancy way of saying, "I thought he was going to hit me, so I hit him back first." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, the woman was obviously completely clueless about the Bush Doctrine. But that is an intangible, subjective assessment (collective consensus to that effect though there may well emerge) and so it would be impossible to put in the article as far as I can tell. But if so, it would go into the campaign article, not here. Arjuna (talk) 10:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to say something about it, I understand that it was her first real interview and I think a lot of people were counting on her making a mess of it. But it sounds more like, not much happened. That's hard to get excited about. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I dunno -- it was a pretty embarassing performance... I just don't see how any intelligent person could have seen it and not come away with the conclusion that the woman is completely and utterly unqualified for the position. So I find that pretty exciting (not in a good way)! But that's my opinion; it's not an encyclopedia-relevant claim. Arjuna (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Some editors have repeatedly deleted the post-interview reference I added (NY Times, 9/12/08) and substituted a pre-interview AP reference. Then they deleted the whole text and claimed that the reference didn't substantiate the text. This is really not in the spirit of Wikipedia. For a controversial figure it is Wikipedia policy to present controversial issues, both sides. If the antis have some alternative view with references to support it, it should go in, but it is not reasonable that something that is controversial should stay out just because the antis don't have a reference to their views. --Zeamays (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

At least Charlie didn't ask her about "cool-down blocks". — CharlotteWebb 15:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a great source on the Bush Doctrine question http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/the_palin_interview.php

And the funniest thing about her performance in the Gibson interview is that she NEVER actually answers his question, even when he spells out for her what The Bush Doctrine means!

It's as if she'd read every job-interviewing tip book on Amazon and had become the world's most upwardly mobile, positive-thinkin' hockey mom, but she finally got stumped.

I'm sure she looked up The Bush Doctrine on Wikipedia right after the interview and teared up and started slapping herself... "Oh Sarah, you fool, you foooool. Waaaaa"

Young Trigg had better open a new Wiki account. Sarah's gonna need some help with this one. (Peeing myself laughing.) --Ohaohashingo (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I opened up this article, hit "Ctrl + F", and looked for "Bush Doctrine", and it hit 0 results. Come on folks, whether you're for Palin or against her, it is all the news right now. If its notable enough to merit so many news articles on all the major publications, it should be enough to have at least a blurb on here. Whether she does not actually know what the bush doctrine is or not, she certainly gave the clear impression she did not on her interview, and that is the gaffe that is in the news. Can someone please insert an unbiased reference to the current goings-on, or does Sarah Palin need her separate own controversy page now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.19.106 (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Troopergate Back in the NEWS again read all about it

May need to update the troopergate sections in the various articles. This referenced material refers to information gleaned from the Wall Street Journal, CNN, The Seattle Times , The New York Times.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/11/1377812.aspx --207.232.97.13 (talk) 05:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)fred

The source material above is drawing from other news sources

The source you bring is MSNBC, weren't MSNBC-s election anchors just fired for extreme bias? Hobartimus (talk) 06:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes , the two were squabbling and fighting on air with each other here is the story. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/business/media/08msnbc.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin --207.232.97.13 (talk) 06:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)fred

• MSNBC is a reliable source, even if it has a bias. This article, however, is just a compilation of other sources and is useless. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw a news story on a Pew research that showed CNN as most trusted, followed by NPR, then CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC and FOX in last place. No surprises there. Essentially it shows all of them as less trusted than in the past polls. Atom (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The Pew article referred to appears to be http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1353 . It states "Roughly a quarter of the public (24%) regularly watches CNN and about an equal percentage (23%) regularly watches the Fox News Channel." Nielsen ratings indicate that Fox has more long-term viewers, while CNN has many viewers who look in for a few minutes at a time, possibly only once or twice in a month. As Pew does not have a criterion for "regular," it may be comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. Nor does this cite refer to "trust." Moreover http://people-press.org/report/348/internet-news-audience-highly-critical-of-news-organizations "The ratings for Fox and CNN, individually, are comparable to those for cable news networks collectively; 75% of those able to rate Fox have a favorable impression of the network, while 72% say the same about CNN. Positive views of CNN have fallen substantially over the past two decades." Meaning? A lot of people do not trust any single news source. Collect (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

dinosaurs and other unorthodox beliefs

There is a lot of speculation on the blogosphere about palin believing that humans and dinosaurs once co-existed, that the earth is only a few thousand years old and other odd things. Is there any actual verifiable evidence of all this and if so would it be appropriate on wikipedia? Coolug (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would be appropriate, if adequately sourced material can be found. Speculative articles and blogs won't do; it has to be pretty well-documented. Speaking personally, it would be very interesting if you are able to locate that material (my guess is that there are lots of people now in Alaska looking for such material), and I would support its inclusion. Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 10:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• NO, that was from a humorous blog posting that went viral because it seemed plausible to some people. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There are many fundamentalist Christians that do believe all of that stuff. But unless there's a reliable quote of her saying that, it's not relevant. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If Matt Damon says she said it, then it must be true.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Matt Damon has suddenly left the country for a cultural event in Pyongyang. Kelly ^hi! 17:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Reception section creep

There will be no end to it, mark my words. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Eloped vs married

I recently change eloped with to married which was subsequently reverted to eloped and married. Is there a pressing need to describe her elopement? As per WP:BLP, we are obliged to offer Gov. Palin basic human dignity. That she married Todd Palin is clearly relevant to her bio. That she did not do so in front of 200 guests is not. People elope for many reasons and using that term in her bio seems, IMHO, somewhat petty. Especially when the perfectly neutral term married is available. Thoughts? Ronnotel (talk) 11:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "married" is a more WP:NPOV term. From what I recall, the paragraph used to go into more detail about the reasons for the elopement (the family couldn't afford a big wedding) - I think this was someone's attempt at a "human interest" angle. That's been appropriately pared down, but "eloped" remains. It should simply say "married". Kelly ^hi! 12:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I could accept "married" or even other descriptions "Her husband of 20 years, Todd is a ..." "Her marriage with Todd Palin was ..." etc. Hobartimus (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to discussion above, elope or marriage. As you know, since you were the editor that removed a previously verified edit (from eloped with to married), in good faith I contacted YOU hours before I made any edit to this section. My reasons for changing are as I state. I have no subversive intentions. "married" paints a less than complete picture in the readers mind about what happened. I have no intention of adding any mention of pregnancy. I believe the cited article will inform the reader that it was an economic decision (to elope). Feel free to add more congenial reasons, if you like.

This broad jump to "basic human dignity" is a stretch. We edit what we find. It so happens that 42 years ago, my first wife and I eloped. If someone was writing my bio, I would certainly want that fact included. Its Romantic.--Buster7 (talk) 12:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I somehow gave the sense that your edits were not made in good faith - that was not my intent. I accept that some may be happy with describing their own marriage as an elopement. However, it would be incorrect to assume that everyone would prefer that term over the more general, and less-value laden, married. You refer to painting a picture in the reader's mind. On the contrary, WP must strive to avoid painting anything but instead choose the most neutral language possible. It's the term elope that paints a picture. Ronnotel (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The term/word "elope" is the best word possible to describe what happened. The term/word "marriage" is NOT specific enough to describe the facts. --Buster7 (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the "facts" that are imparted by the term elope, i.e. that the ceremony was private, civil, and not attended by guests, etc., are simply not relevant to her bio. In fact, because these "facts" have a largely negative connotation, they have no place in the article. Ronnotel (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"The term/word "marriage" is NOT specific enough" you claim that there is no legal "marriage" between Todd and Sarah Palin? I could understand questioning phrases "they married on x day y year" but to deny that there is an actual marriage existing between them is weird. Hobartimus (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Elope" doesn't mean they were Not Married. They certainly WERE married. Don't put words in my mouth or put your POV onto my simple edit--Buster7 (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"They certainly WERE married." So what's the problem with writing this in the article? You yourself say that "They certainly WERE married." Hobartimus (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with saying "eloped". It's factually correct (I assume that's not in dispute). Maybe that fact can be interpreted as having negative connotations, though I don't think everyone reads it that way, but this is her biography. Interesting and well-documented facts about her life should be included even if some are marginably negative. Our goal shouldn't be to make the history look better (or more "neutral") than it actually was any more than our goal should be to make it look worse than it was. An elopement is the kind of fact that I would expect a public figure's biography to mention. Dragons flight (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I believe most serious biographies would prefer to avoid the value-laden and tabloid-esque term 'elope'. How about "married Todd Palin in a private civil ceremony". Ronnotel (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm - the problem is that "eloped" carries all kinds of connotations, both positive (some people think it's romantic) or negative (assumptions that families disapproved of the match, or that they "had to get married"). The word "elope" by itself is either too much information or not enough. I could see using it if it explained that the reasons for the elopement were economic in this case. Kelly ^hi! 12:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to elaborating on it. This is her biography, not just the political history of Sarah Palin. Right now, this article has substantially less discussion of her personal history and development than any of the other candidates. Dragons flight (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If she had eloped and her first child were born a year later, no one would care. It's the inference that she "had to get married" which is why editors are pushing for it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd expect the elopement to be mentioned even if she never had kids. I know that some people are pushing it to foster to pregnancy meme. For my part, I've actually removed references to that first pregnancy more than once. I simply consider the elopement as the kind of biographical background that is natural to include in a biography. Dragons flight (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well Track was born in April 20th 1989, and they were married in August 29th of 1988. That means he was conceived in July of 1988. I suppose they chose to get married, and I don't see the relevance of any connection between getting married and having a child. This isn't the 1950's. No one cares about whether someone is married before they have a child or not anymore. Regardless, they chose to elope, so we should just be honest about it. Atom (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have never considered eloped to have any negative connotations. IN any event, they did elope to get married. It applies. If there were, for some people, negative connotations, then those would seem to be applicable if they did elope. This is Wikipedia, not a marketing document or a job resume. Also, if eloped were somewhat negative for some people, well, we have NPOV that allows expression of differeng views. How could we have a neutral article if every fact that could remotely be considered to be negative in any way is prohibited in the article, (even if true)? If she uses the term eloped herself, well then she must be okay with other people describing it that way. Atom (talk) 13:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If she herself says she eloped, then it's not a problem. Where's the citation? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Let me look. Atom (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The sentence has two sources - one is the Johnson book, which I know one of the editors of the article now has in hand. The other is here, which says in relevant part

Sarah eloped with Todd, her childhood sweetheart, in 1988. Her mother said: ‘It was a shock but she did it because she knew we couldn’t afford a big white wedding. They have been together ever since. He is her rock.’

GRBerry 13:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I still fail to see why "married Todd Palin in a private civil ceremony" is not a preferable alternative. Anyone? Ronnotel (talk) 13:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If she herself says she eloped, you can link the word elope to its definition if you want to. It's not appropriate to spin the article either direction. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion "married Todd Palin in a private civil ceremony." Please make the change. Eloped is a loaded, pejorative term intended to make Governor Palin look bad. SnapCount (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Describing the facts isn't spin. "Eloped" is more descriptive on a major life event and we aim to present relevant biographical details. It sounds like a classic elopement. It has all the elements. You know, getting married without telling the parents in advance so as to spare the fuss of a formal wedding. Calling it a "private ceremony" sounds like 1950s euphemism - that is definitely spin. We all know why this is an issue, something having to do with the apparent disconnect between conservative religious values and her family's history vis-a-vis sex and pregnancy outside of marriage. But that's a judgment people are making, not one the article supports. We can just present important biographical facts - we cannot control what people make of them. It looks like most of the major sources say that they eloped. To avoid the negative implications we can follow the lead of the Telegraph and many others which explain why they eloped: "the couple eloped to save the cost of a wedding."[6]Wikidemon (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If she eloped, and she apparently says in numerous places when she was running for governor that she eloped to save money, then saying she eloped, because she did elope, should not be an issue. Elopement is not negative, it is merely factual. If someone wants to attach negative connotations to elopement, then that is their prerogative. Also, the article must be NPOV. Avoiding saying something that someone may think is negative (even though factual) is hardly NPOV, but an attempt to spin the article to be only positive, rather than factual.

The pregnancy outside of marriage thing is entirely different. From what I can tell she is not on the record for discussing this, and so it should not be in the article. It is not notable anyway. This isn't the 1950's, 30% of parents in the U.S. have children without being married. Marriage is not a requirement for having children. Why would her being pregnant before getting married even be an issue? Atom (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Good Christians" aren't supposed to conceive children out of wedlock, especially if they're putting themselves in position to tell other women how to behave. However, there is no concrete evidence that she herself was pregnant when married. She herself has apparently used "eloped" freely, so there's no reason for the article not to. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You've hit on the problem with using the word eloped. It is meant to suggest, connote, and imply -- falsely -- that Governor Palin conceived a child out of wedlock. SnapCount (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, eloped does not imply or mean that. Secondly, it has not been established that she did not conceive before marriage. Using the word elope in the article is firstly factual, and secondly true to how she described it when she was campaining for Governor. Atom (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

We've seen that at least one source (a UK newspaper) uses "eloped", and enough sourcing to understand that it is accurate in the sense of "getting married without the knowledge of the parents", which is a large part of the original meaning. We also know that "married" is accurate. To my mind, WP:NPOV implies that we should use the wording that is more commonly used by reliable biographic sources. So which wording is used more often? I think that is "married". GRBerry 14:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, hypocrisy is the hallmark of Christianity. Millions of "Good Christians" have and do have sex before marriage, and conceive out of wedlock, she would hardly be the first. Also, as far as I know, the Vice president is a public servant, and not someone who is in a position to "tell us how to behave". Also, as I understand the teachings of Christ, the religion is about grace, forgiveness, charity and hope, and a personal relationship with God, not about telling other Christians how they should behave. But, back on topic. The topic is not whether we want to put that she eloped, or not. The question is "Did she elope, or not"? Can we cite that this is accurate? Does it violate BLP policies? Is it notable? (That she uses "crest" to brush her teeth may be factual, but not notable.) In my opinion, clearly she did elope, and that can be thoroughly cited, including her own description of the event as an elopment. As for BLP, since it is accurate, and cited it does not violate BLP. As for notability, given that she described hersels as eloping answering questions from the press in numerous interviews running for governor, and that was reported, it seems notable. Atom (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Accuracy is already established, BLP isn't the issue. The issue is WP:NPOV, which says that if we are going to use only one word as a decription, it should be the most common usage in the reliable sources. If most reliable sources describe her as marrying, we should use that wording. If most describe her as eloping, we should use that wording. GRBerry 14:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I see your view. I believe though that "eloped" and "married" are not synonyms, and therefore interchangeable. "Eloped" is more specific and "married" less specific, which is why "eloped" should be preferred. Also, NPOV does not mean the article should only state neutral facts. Atom (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, it seems clear we're not going to get a concensus on using loaded, disputed terms like "eloped." It should be removed until there is a clearer consensus on this issue among participating editors. SnapCount (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

All marriages are "marriages." I was a J.P. for fifteen years or so, and performed weddings which were "elopements" if one chose to use such a deceptive word in context. Collect (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If two people elope, how is it deceptive to call it an elopement? Atom (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest something like "In 1988, Sarah Heath, at age 24, eloped with Todd Palin, who had been her high-school boyfriend." This would alleviate any unintended notion that she 'needed' her parents' permission. Pingku (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I like this. It is concise, agrees with Palin's public statements and implies nothing other than the facts. Atom (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's good. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC) (Atom, I fixed the dates in your above comment, trust you don't mind.)

Arbitrary break

I've changed it to "married" for now, as that is undisputed, while "eloped with" seems controversial. Kelly ^hi! 16:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's funny that you're removing "elope" as being controversial. Apparently Palin is not allowed to call it what it is, as that would violate WP:BLP about herself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That is, they're worried about "negative connotations", but if Palin herself doesn't think that's a concern, then it puts wikipedia in the position of being nannies and spin-doctors. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just changed it for now, until consensus emerges one way or the other. If consensus says "eloped", I have no problem with that. Kelly ^hi! 16:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm having problems seeing why some have their knickers in a twist over the word "eloped". All it means is that instead of pre-planning their marriage in detail then went off to Vegas and got married without notifying family members that they were doing so... The word by itself does not impart any sense of POV or any state of mind that may or may not have driven the Palins to elope versus having a formal ceremony. Heck, as noted above, Palin herself uses the term eloped to describe how she and Todd got married... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course it should be "eloped". That's how she described it. To change it to "married" is POV-pushing because it is a less specific term than what she uses. Would you change "marijuana" to "drugs?" No! Reducing the specificity changes the meaning. I concur with Pingku's suggestion above.--Appraiser (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, and not counting the article page edits 9 editors (Buster7, Baseball Bugs, Atomaton, Dragons flight, Wikidemo, GRBerry, Pingku, Bobblehead, Appraiser) have sounded in here with arguments that it is preferable to describe the marriage as an elopement, while 5 (Levinite, BenAveling, Ronnotel, Kelley, SnapCount) feel otherwise. It's not clear this makes consensus so take that for what it is. I am a little concerned that here, and with the discussion of religion, what we've gone beyond patrolling the article for poorly sourced, inaccurate, triial, and POV facts and are now deleting well-sourced notable facts acknowledged by Palin herself that happen to (in some people's opinion) reflect negatively on her. I don't see how her religious practices or her strong will and spontaneity towards her marriage are derogatory. I'm trying to get my arms around this, but it seems like we're applying a standard that would deny facts in favor of euphemism. Wikidemon (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Atom on this, "eloped and marry" is balanced. It's not enough that facts be true, they have to be balanced as well - and by balanced, I mean of equal importance. If we just ran the good facts, or the bad facts, or even if we tried to run an equal number of good and bad facts, we'd be distorting. It's not always easy to agree on what to include, but the guiding principle has to be that we start by including the most important facts and work our way down, regardless of good or bad. We may disagree on what's important, but at least we agree that important is the principle, not good or bad. In this case, neither elope nor marry is enough on their own - each leaves out part of the story. But together, it works nicely. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, per Ben above. Kelly ^hi! 21:35, 12 September

2008 (UTC)

Good...When the change is made please also reconsider returning the date to the article. As it stands now it merely says .."In 1988, Sara and Todd were married......" Before it included the date...August 20, I believe. Thank you--Buster7 (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, it never said..."eloped with" as stated above. It was, and should be, per consensus, "eloped and married". --Buster7 (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm, someone is misreading what I wrote. I've written that each word is accurate and sourcable. I've written that we should, per WP:NPOV, go with what the most common usage in reliable sources is. I've speculated that the more common usage is married, though that is more a gut feel than a scientific study. I certainly have not argued that we should use eloped instead of married; I have not done that. GRBerry 21:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, since "eloped" and "married" are not synonyms, the most common of the two would not be the correct standard. One is more specific and one less specific (and so one is more accurate). All people who elope are married, but not all people who marry eloped. We have a citation that she eloped, and since that is the better choice of the two, being more specific (more accurate) it would be preferred. Atom (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

@ GRBerry...not instead of married,,,but WITH married...Do you agree to that?--Buster7 (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

AGREE with change to "eloped to marry" by Atom.--Buster7 (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

1.6 Billion Alaska Budget: Cut by or Reduced to?

It is stated under budget and spending as Alaska's Govenor that Palin reduced the budget by 1.6 Billion USD. Under political positions it indicates she cut 1.6 Billion from the budget. Both items have the same citation. The citation seems to indicate "reduced to 1.6 billion" is the correct statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.86.202.33 (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Gibson interview

I'd suggest that some of Palin's views be eleborated in a small passage. In the interview she was notably forceful in discussing Russia, saying its incursion into Georgia was "unprovoked" (possibly a position some foreign policy analysts might argued with); and that "We’ve got to keep an eye on Russia", which she repeated twice. --Hapsala (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears you should be raising this discussion at Talk:Political positions of Sarah Palin or Talk:John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. This is her biography, and we'll have no more than summaries of the most important parts of those pages here. GRBerry 16:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No, seeing as this was her very first interview in a national scale, it goes towards establishing her notability and should not be banished to a side article. Grsz^talk 16:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The current short summary seems appropriate. Ronnotel (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree a brief, neutrally worded summary is appropriate. SnapCount (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's probably appropriate to note that she still thinks Iraq has a connection with 9/11, per that same source. Grsz^talk 17:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean that she thinks Al Qaeda is in Iraq? If they're not, then who are those people that have been claiming to be Al Qaeda in Iraq? Kelly ^hi! 17:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean that she thinks Iraq/Saddam was responsible:

"At a separate event on Thursday, a deployment ceremony for her son Track and thousands of other soldiers heading to Iraq from Fort Wainwright, Alaska, Ms. Palin told them they would be fighting 'the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans'.

"The comments sounded reminiscent of the disputed connections the Bush administration once made, but no longer does, between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks. But a senior McCain campaign aide said Ms. Palin did not believe Saddam Hussein played a role in the attacks."

A McCain aide had to cover for her. Grsz^talk 20:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The current 'short summary' of her 'Political Positions' on foreign policy is no longer accurate and needs to be updated. It presently states: "Palin's foreign policy positions remain unclear". In the Gibson interview, she clearly expressed her foreign policy positions on various issues that should be included per WP:SS.75.36.70.205 (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this sentence is no longer accurate. How about:

"Palin supports an assertive foreign policy that includes NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine, and as well as support for the Bush Doctrine".

Ronnotel (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember hearing an answer from her once Gibson told her what the Bush Doctrine was. The NATO part is fine.--Appraiser (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The best I can make out of that interview is that she: a) didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was; b) believes Israel has the right to defend itself from supposed threats from Iran; c) supports military operations in Pakistan without Pakistani approval; d) supports Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO. This is brief enough that it can all be included. Grsz^talk 20:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I like it Grsz - it briefly covers the major issues including her not knowing what the Bush Doctrine was. IP 75 75.36.70.205 (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)After asking Gibson to clarify what he meant by "support for the Bush Doctrine", she replied "Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.". Sounds like support to me. Ronnotel (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the details from the interview under political positions. It's very brief. I left out mention of the Bush Doctrine until consensus determines what to put. Grsz^talk 20:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

looks good. Ronnotel (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Photos from junket to Kuwait

At various times in this article's history, there have been between zero and six photographs from Palin's visit to Kuwait. When there were six photos included, which was soon after the announcement that she would be the GOP candidate for Vice President of the United States of America, there was no mention of her trip in the body of the article. Thus, the inclusion of the pictures, and so many of them, smacked of non-NPOV and bias. Whoever added them was clearly trying to bolster her foreign policy credentials in the eyes of uncritical GOP party members and others. A few days later, zero pictures from the trip still existed on the article. Currently, there are two photos from the trip included on the article. I believe that there should be one photograph from the trip, with a brief mention of it in the body of the article. If there is no mention of the trip in the article, then there should not be any pictures from the trip.

The trip is mentioned in the article. I think two photos is fine, I'm not sure how they supposedly "boost her credentials". The last I checked, Barack Obama, with a similar amount of foreign policy experience, had two photos taken on military junkets in his article. Kelly ^hi! 17:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(reply to original post) For the sake of your argument I really hope that there are long discussions in the body of the article about "Obama playing basketball with the troops" in the Obama article one of the prominent photographs there. Obama's basketball game against members of the military is hardly notable event in it's own right and it doesn't have to be. It's still there. Hobartimus (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking it is less an issue with trying to insert POV into the article, but more an issue with trying to get free images of Palin that are at least marginally decent. One of the problems of living in the hinter regions of the US is that there aren't that many non-copyrighted images out there and her trip to Kuwait was photographed by federalized ANG members, thus making the photos public domain. So if you want to replace the pictures from that trip, then please feel free to go find some other free ones that are better. On a side note... Kelly, is it really necessary to compare the Obama article to this one? Additionally, last I checked Obama had quite a bit more foreign policy experience than Palin. He's actually met with foreign leaders. *grin* --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bobblehead. Govt. photos are always PD and available to us. I think two "military" shots is a reasonable number, but we shouldn't let that grow.--Appraiser (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Partial Transcripts of the Palin Interview on ABC

http://theblogs.thetimes.co.za/minor/2008/09/12/the-palin-interview-on-abc/

--MisterAlbert (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That link doesn't work for me. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's another link.

http://marklevinshow.com/gibson-interview/

Delete McCain spokesperson clarification of Palin statements

I'd like to recommend deleting "A McCain spokesperson clarified the governor's comments saying that she was "speaking generally of jihads" and not specifically of the Iraqi government". My concern is with third parties clarifying Governor Palin's (or any person's) statements. What's wikipedia's BLP position on this? Does McCain speak for Palin?--Nowa (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree, however for now I just changed it to "spokesperson stated" because obviously they can't say exactly what she meant. Grsz^talk 20:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That has to go; the way it is written it looks like a clarification of the "have an exit plan" quote from a while back. It's confusing, and I don't see how it relates to jihads. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Done, plus I gave the foreign policy section a major haircut.--Nowa (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Use of "minor edit" button and insertion of subsubheadings

These recent edits were all marked as "minor". Please do not mark non-trivial edits as minor. See this policy. "A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." Some of these exact edits were already reverted, so the editor must have known that they were controversial.

I will repeat once more only: I only marked as minor those edits which involved "rearranging of text without modifying content." I do not believe I marked the revert as minor, or if I did, I did not intend to.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, inserting sub-sub-headings is unnecessary in the section on her mayoralty. This is just a summary section, and subsubheadings clutter it up. Subheadings are enough. Additionally, these subsubheadings do not follow the subheadings in the subarticle. See WP:SS.

Additionally, a "restructuring" subsubsection should not include hiring and firing that occurs without eliminating or creating positions. It also should not cover discussion about censorship. And, there's no reason to expand the censorship material in order to try to justify a subsubheading. The details of conversations from 1996 are in the subarticle, and that's adequate. Ferrylodge (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Ferrylodge. I would like to reiterate this point: Do not mark edits as minor unless they are, indeed, minor. Some users may have an incorrect setting in their preferences. To check, go to the “Editing” tab of your preferences and make sure that the “Mark all edits as minor by default” setting is disabled. Thank you. —Travis^talk 20:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

They were minors edits in that they involved editing for flow, and did not impact the content. I did not erase anything factual. The two additions I made I did not mark as 'minor' edits. When I say the other edits were 'flow edits', what I mean is that the section was nearly incomprehensible to the non-expert reader. Although they followed a chronological order, the information about hiring and firing appeared to be random (i.e. who cares who a mayor hires and fires, that's every mayor's prerogative) and needed to be grouped in a manner which would show that they were not indeed random details but impacted this tiny little town.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

So, you're simply not going to say anything about insertion of subsubheadings? It is very obvious that these edits were not all minor.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

To clarify a bit more, the hiring and firing section previously seemed irrelevant, mostly because the relevant contexts of the firings had been omitted. Thus I inserted two brief points to elucidate the relevance of mentioning the firing of a librarian and police chief. It is true that these points are expanded upon in the mayoralty article, but the most important thing is that this article make sense on its own, and that facts herein included are not so utterly stripped of context that they lose their relevance entirely. The point of subarticles is not to allow for deletion of points from main articles, but to allow expansion of the context.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll get back to you about the subheading in a minute.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for bringing this to the talk page. I do see those edits as minor, actually, as I did not alter the content, only moved the first sentence of the conclusion up, moved a few sentences within a paragraph, and added a subheading, all of which qualify as "rearranging of text without modifying content." (as I mentioned earlier, I did not marked content changes as minor). But I understand if you see things differently - point taken - and I will try to be less casual about makring such edits as minor in the future. As far as the "restructuring" and "taxes and spending" heading, can you explain why you feel there should be no subheadings? I think it helps the reader to scan the article more quickly for points of interest.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) For the record, your edits do not constitute minor edits. Please mark edits as minor only if they meet these guidelines. Thanks —Travis^talk 21:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not against subheadings here. I am against subsubheadings here. This is merely a summary of a subarticle, and subsubheadings clutter this article up.

Even if I did not have any problems with subsubheadings, these ones you have chosen don't work. For one thing, they do not follow the subheadings in the subarticle.

Additionally, a "restructuring" subsubsection should not include hiring and firing that occurs without eliminating or creating positions. It also should not cover discussion about censorship.

I do not follow your first point. According to whom? Please explain why you feel this way - I am not familiar with any policy that states anything like this, and if there were one, I would say Wiki is getting far too bureaucratized. As far as your second point, I'll get back to you in a minute.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

According to me. I said that I feel this way because it causes clutter.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Please explain: "a "restructuring" subsubsection should not include hiring and firing that occurs without eliminating or creating positions."LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Restructuring means to change the structure of government, such as by creating a new position, or eliminating an existing position. It does not mean replacing one person with another in an identical position. Incidentally, if you are responding to a comment here, please make your reponse more indented than the comment you're responding to (I've fixed your indentation).Ferrylodge (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I notice that you tried to expand the censorship material here, you were reverted here, and you reverted back here. Please let's keep in mind that this is a summary section, and that controversial expansions should at least be discussed here at the talk page. Thanks. I disagree with including the additional details that you inserted, because it's adequately covered by the sub-article.

Yes, I reverted back. I will repeat and slightly rephrase: the point of subarticles such as the mayoralty article, is not to allow for omission of the relevance of information included in main articles. In other words, the main article included this information, but deleted its relevance entirely. This is not proper. When information is present, its relevance should always be evident (the reader should not ever have to guess why the info was included). It is always possible to express relevance concisely, to edit the language so that it is tight and clear. If you wish to edit the relevance down, I will not oppose it, so long as the essential message remains.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The material in question now reads: "According to librarian Mary Emmons, Palin asked whether she would object to library censorship in October 1996.[29] Palin later spoke publicly about the issue, saying she had no particular books or other material in mind for removal.[29] No books were removed from the library.[30][31][32] Emmons recalls Palin raising the possibility of people circling the library in protest, to which Emmons replied that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) would get involved.[29] The italicized part is what you edit-warred about, and I do not see how it is needed here to establish relevance. Are you saying that it is, or are you just trying to expand the censorship material so that it will justify a separate subsubcategory section header?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, please see WP:ACCESSIBILITY: "Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this can disconnect the heading from the text it precedes, when read with larger fonts. Instead, either right-align the image, remove it, or move it to another relevant location."Ferrylodge (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I'll just say this once. You are POV-pushing and edit-warring at this article, and repeatedly bypassing discussion at this talk page. Please stop. This is also a WP:3RR warning, LamaLoLeshLa.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

When I reverted, I did not know it was you who added the headings: "Lowered mayor's salary", "relations with reporters," "fired librarian", etc., but these edits were not constructive and in good conscience I could not let them sit. Indeed, they were, not only a rather "cynical move" shall we say, but perhaps even close to vandalism, because there can be no justification for the inclusion of a heading reading "lowered mayor's salary" to head a single sentence reading, "she lowered her salary from x to x". The only reason to insert such a heading would be to make the point that there are too many petty headings, not to contribute in good faith to the quality of the article and to contribute to the relevance and readability of the information included.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to have subsubheadings, then they should be accurate, don't you think?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed the heading to "reorganization". Now that you've explained a bit I understand that restructuring connotes something very specific.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

How to describe the interview

I tried to change this

"Her first interview with the press, with Charles Gibson of ABC News, aired on September 12. In the interview, Palin answered questions about her experience, national security, and Iraq."

To

"... In the interview, Palin endorsed the current Republican party position on national security, and Iraq."

To me, the article doesn't say that she answered the question of her experience.

I quote from the NYTimes piece:

"At times visibly nervous, at others appearing to hew so closely to prepared answers that she used the exact same phrases repeatedly"

But no major blunders either. So I think that question is still open.

She did take questions on national security and Iraq. But I don't think she really gave answers:

"You have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we’re on"

That's a commitment to the platform, but it's not an answer. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I really think discussion of this interview is too "newsy". Two months (or six months if they win) from now no one will remember this one interview. I think it's fine to cite the interview and/or news sources talking about it to glean policy positions and whatever else she said, but the interview itself is not currently biographical. On the other hand, if they lose, and sources say it was because of this interview, then perhaps it will become noteworthy. For now, I'd remove that sentence.--Appraiser (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I also think the Daily News reports, interviews, subordinates comments, etc. only add to the already fractured quality of the article. Not meant as a critique. It is what it is. It may become too multi-faceted. Imagine how the article will develope when the debates start. And that may be a better time to evaluate positions...when they come right from the candidates. This article is not a typical biography of a living person. Millions of readers are coming here to get information about a previously unknown person that is seeking the next to the Highest Political office in the World. We are obligated to remain as balanced and as non-political as possible while providing as much information as we can to our visitors. --Buster7 (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, Sarah, Sarah

Corwin8 for some reason introduced a bunch of occurrences of her first name. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Subsequent uses of names says these should be simply "Palin". —KCinDC (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of content

A bunch of content has just been removed, with this edit summary: "rm. not in the source provided. Tagged before but ignored. Now deleted." However, there was no tag as far as I can tell. Am I missing something here?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I added the tag, but someone deleted it. Check the history.Diff The reason I tagged it is that the source does not support the claims made in the text. Feel free to re-add once you find a source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I found a good ref and put it back.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin the fundamentalist

This edit helpfully explains that her religion was "commonly regarded as a fundamentalist movement". Only thing is, the cited source does not say so, and this is therefore Original research. Please remove it, and simply follow reliable sources that discuss Palin. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

basketball

Wasilla High currently has a boys and a girls basketball team. I assume (but don't know) that it was the same way when Sarah Heath played there. The way the Wik article on Palin now reads, one could fairly, but probably incorrectly, infer that there was only one team. Kdammers (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Dispute #1: Alaskan Independence Party

AKIP Inclusion Proposal For Review

Proposed Palin attended the Alaskan Independence Party convention in 2006 and sent a welcome movie to the attendees of the 2008 AKIP statewide convention.[7] Sitedown (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Support If you support this with minor modifications please included the modified version you would support.

1. I support this text, but would like additional material, as shown in my addition to Talk:Sarah Palin/sandbox. --Zeamays (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)--Zeamays (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   I think the idea of a sandbox is a bad idea, just opening up another avenue for edit warring and potential libel. Could you please move your suggestion here and ask an admin to remove that page?--Paul (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   It wasn't my idea. I saw a note on this pages asking to place proposals for edits via admins to be placed ion the sandbox. --Zeamays (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)--Zeamays (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

2. She not only attended, she was a member, and only switched her party affiliation when she ran for governer, according to Dexter Clark in this video from last year (jump to 6:00).
3. The Dexter Clark youtube video above specifically mentions Sarah Palin, which makes it a valid part of the entry about her- the same goes for the AIP's later retraction. The readers should be given both pieces of information- our job is not to draw conclusions for them, but to publish relevant facts. Dexter Clark's statements in the YouTube video create sufficient reason to question the retraction, so it seems relevant--Grumbleputty (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

A video is a primary source and wikipedia requires secondary sources. Plus, this one is certainly not a reliable source. Including this video is WP:OR original research which is not allowed. At this point this false charge has been thoroughly debunked, and there are many reliable sources testifying that she was never an AKIP member.--Paul(talk) 20:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

secondary source for Dexter Clark's speech at the Secessionist' convention here and here. Reliable source argument holds little water, as any doubt about the secondary sources accuracy is removed by watching the primary source video. The WP:OR Original Research argument is absurd- the secondary sources accurately quote Dexter Clark from the YouTube video, in which Mr. Clark, a Vice Chairman of the AIP and an undeniable expert on his own words, states that Ms. Palin was a former member and sympathizer. There is no interpretation, spin or bias- simply the man's own words, spoken by him of his own free will. Dexter Clark's statements in the video clearly describe a relationship between Gov. Palin and the AIP, which is borne out the the videos and convention appearances the OP wanted to add in the first place. Mr. Clark makes no claim that she is currently a member of the AIP, and I have yet to see a statement which refutes his contention that she is "sympathetic to our cause", or the AIP's strategy to "infiltrate" the two major parties- only his contention that she was a member is in question. I can't see how the wikipedia page of a candidate for the second-highest office in the US could be accurate and non-partisan without acknowledging this debate and describing the evidence and statements, PRO and CON.--Grumbleputty (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Support Her husband was a member for a decade. She attended at least two, if not three state conventions. She gave the address by video just six months ago. Clearly she has "supported" the party, even though she wasn't a member. In my view, to NOT include any mention of it whatsoever would be POV.GreekParadise (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Support, for reasons already outlined above by others. However, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and polls such as this are no substitute for good editing. If Palin's association with AIP is a demonstrable fact, it must go in the article. Arjuna (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Support It is definitly worth mentioning. As to whether it was a symbolic gesture (i.e. Palin was/is a secessionist herself), or merely a tactical move (i.e. she doesn't agree with them), we don't know (at the moment). What we do know is that she sent a video for that convention and praised AIP (with "good work")--the party that her husband was a member of up until she "made an unsuccessful bid for the Republican nomination for lieutenant governor" [in 2002]. (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-aip3-2008sep03,0,6399468.story). So cool (talk) 08:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose If you oppose please either include a supported version or state your reason for not including anything in relation to the AKIP

1. It's a McCarthyistic attempt to prove "guilt by association" with a fringe party which is not even accused of doing anything illegal, but only of having a fringe viewpoint - and with no evidence that Palin herself agrees with that viewpoint. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   The simple fact that multiple meetings were attended by her makes this worth mentioning. There is no reason to try to prove guilt by association but if you believe a statement to be added in relation the rumors then please provide a suggestion. 99.228.151.16 (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Are people still pushing the debunked "secessionist" meme? I thought even dKos had given up on flogging that. But Bugs is correct - there's no need to give undue weight to a trivial relationship with one particular group. As governor, she attended and greeted many organizations, from the Better Business Bureau to the Girl Scouts of America. Kelly ^hi! 15:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   Even if the rumors had never been raised this still warrants a mention. If she has attended multiple conventions for other parties I beleive this would also deserve a mention. 99.228.151.16 (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

3. It might have had some relevance when it was suspected that Palin had once been a member, but since that has been debunked, the only reason for inclusion would be to imply "guilt by association." She attended the 2006 convention while campaigning for Governor, and sent a welcome video to the 2008 convention in her capacity as Governor. And even though it isn't mentioned above, she attended the 2000 convention in her capacity as mayor of Wasilla. Inclusion of the proposed sentence violates NPOV and UNDUE WEIGHT.--Paul (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   If a governor attends multiple conventions for a seperatist group and submits a video then it is worth a mention. I recall you previously agreed that a statement could be included. 99.228.151.16 (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   Rebuttal to 1-3: This is well-documented material. AN AIP leader can be seen on video at their convention stating that their aim is to "infiltrate" other political parties, so this is relevant. My proposed addition doesn't mention "secessionist". More importantly, she expressed support of AIP aims in the video. Did she also send a video to the Democratic Party Convention that year supporting their aims? Wikipedia policy for Well-known public figures reads, "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." [emphasis mine] --Zeamays (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   Have you watched the video? "Your party plays an important role in our state's politics. I've always said that competition is so good. And that applies to political parties as well." Very sinister!--Paul (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

4. As I said above, the story is dead. If she had been a member of the party, I think there would be something here, but those claims (made by that party itself apparently) have since been debunked. Addressing the convention of a competing party is interesting (and something I think should be encouraged), but it's trivial and not biographical, and thus including it in the article would be wp:undue. Should further facts on the matter emerge, though, I reserve the right to change my mind.  :)   user:j    (aka justen)   02:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

   Rebuttal to 4: Once agin, this is not a dead issue. The facts have been documented that she and her husband have been associated with the AKIP, he as a formal member, she as a sympathizer, who stated in the welcome video a sympathy for the party and support for its success. --Zeamays (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

5. Were articles to list every politician's every slight contact with every organization, then perhaps this might be valid. It doesn't. The connection is sufficiently minor as to verge on the use of Wiki for political statements and campaigns. Collect (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose. Clearly at this point the attempt to include an undue weight statement about this item is POV. The organization in question has acknowledged that Palin has is not nor has ever been a member and no legitimate press organization is spending any time on this. --Textmatters (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Jillyan2008 (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Palin's ties to the Alaskan secessionists are neither irrelevant nor too thin to be worthy of mention. Whether found on You Tube or blogs across the internet, the video of Sarah Palin is real evidence that she did in fact say she was "delighted" to address the 2008 convention of secessionists and advised them to "Keep up the good work!" Her sentiments were made clear by her own words and are available for anyone to see on tape. It's a fact. And it most certainly is relevant to her political career as she was serving as a governor at the time and was charged by the electorate of her state to serve them and represent them. And now she seeks to be the vice president of the nation from which the members of the organization she told to "Keep up the good work" wish to secede. It is factual, relevant and one of the most important issues in the 2008 campaign. No, she was not an official member. No suggestion to say she was on Wikipedia has been made. But her remarks in her words should be included in her biography. To do otherwise is to present an unbalanced press release for a political candidate and ignore the fair, factual, complete picture of this historic figure. A brief explanation of the organization and its official beliefs and activities, that she deemed good work worth keeping up, would be appropriate.

It seems pretty clear that Sarah Palin was in bed with the AIP. Her husband Todd was a member, they attended conventions together, she addressed them at their convention speaking of them positively and voicing support for their philosophy. If those six things were all we said about the matter and didn't even get into how it affected the $40 billion dollar natural gas pipeline that would be fine. The pipeline could go in its own section. Rktect (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This is another opposition research fringe issue. Sarah Palin was never a member of the AIP; she's been a Republican since 1982. Politicians talk to a lot of people; that's sorta their jobs. Her husband's views are irrelevant; would you put Michelle's views into Barack's bio?... Unhhh .. no. Leave this out; include in her political positions article if you want. Freedom Fan (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the media coverage on this issue and the widespread misinformation that she was a member of this party, it is important to mention that she has just sent a welcome DVD to the members of 2008 AKIP statewide convention. Nevertheless there must be some sympathy for this secessionist party or would anyone send such a movie to a movement he/she doesn't like? M0s6p (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you watched the video? Palin: "Your party plays an important role in our state's politics. I've always said that competition is so good. And that applies to political parties as well." Then she lists a few issues and says "and I know you agree with that" and then wraps it up. There is nothing at all here that is the least bit notable or out of the ordinary.--Paul (talk) 13:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not the party is secessionist is unclear. Merely sending a video-taped greeting to a meeting of a prominent minor party sounds like a politician reaching out for votes and not particularly noteworthy. I see no compelling reason to include this material. Ronnotel (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The contents of the video as described above merely illustrate a good politician at work - buttering people up. Technically, the AIP doesn't specifically argue for secession unconditionally, they claim that statehood was attained unconstitutionally, and they want the chance to vote on the matter. Last time I checked, expressing opinions was not against the law. Not in America, anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

-> source quoting AIP's chairperson stating AIP's goal is secession here. Politicians go to great lengths to avoid appearing at the conventions of/sending endorsement videos to groups they don't agree with ideologically, as it tends to identify them with the goals of that group. Knowing that, when a politician does send a supportive video to a group with an unusual agenda, it becomes noteworthy, and tends to get added to that politician's wikipedia page (unless that politician's supporters clutter the talk page with the magic word "debunked".--Grumbleputty (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)