Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:16, 11 September 2008

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Sarah Palin. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Sarah Palin at the Reference desk.

view · edit Frequently asked questions To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question. Q1: This article is over 70kb long. Should it be broken up into sub-articles? A1: The restriction mentioned in WP:SIZE is 60kB of readable prose, not the byte count you see when you open the page for editing. As of September, 2008, this article had about 4,100 words (approximately 26 KB) of text, well within the guideline. The rest is mainly citations and invisible comments, which do not count towards the limit. Q2: Should the article have a criticisms/controversies section? A2: A section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article. See also the essay on criticism. Q3: Should the article include (one of various controversies/criticisms) if a reliable source can be provided? This article is a hit piece. Should the article include (various forms of generic praise for Palin) if a reliable source can be provided? A3: Please try to assume good faith. Like all articles on Misplaced Pages, this article is a work in progress so it is possible for biases to exist at any point in time. If you see a bias that you wish to address, you are more than welcome to start a new discussion, or join in an existing discussion, but please be ready to provide sources to support your viewpoint and try to keep your comments civil. Starting off your discussion by accusing the editors of this article of having a bias is the quickest way to get your comment ignored. Although it is certainly possible that the article has taken a wrong turn, please consider the possibility that the issue has already been considered and dealt with. The verifiability policy and reliable source guideline are essential requirements for putting any material into the encyclopedia but there are other policies at work too. Material must also meet a neutral point of view and be a summary of previously published secondary source material rather than original research, analysis or opinion. In addition, Misplaced Pages's Biography of living persons policy says that "views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics give a disproportionate amount of space to critics". Perhaps there is simply no consensus to include the material...yet. Also, the material might be here, but in a different article. The most likely place to find the missing material would be in an article on the 2008 presidential campaign. Including everything about Palin in a single article would exceed Misplaced Pages's article size restrictions. A number of sub-articles have been created and some controversies/criticisms/praises have been summarized here or been left out of this article altogether, but are covered in some detail in the sub-articles. Q4: Should the article include (one of several recent controversies/criticisms/praises/rumors/scandals)? Such items should be covered in detail in the main article, not buried in a sub-article. A4: Misplaced Pages articles should avoid giving undue weight to something just because it is in the news right now. If you feel that the criticism/controversy/praise is not being given enough weight in this article, you can try to start a discussion on the talk page about giving it more. See also the Misplaced Pages "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle". Q5: If Misplaced Pages is supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, should I just be bold and fix any biases that I see in the article? A5: It is true that Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and no one needs the permission of other editors of this article to make changes to it. But Misplaced Pages policy is that, "While the consensus process does not require posting to the discussion page, it can be useful and is encouraged." This article attracts editors that have very strong opinions about Palin (either positive or negative) and these editors have different opinions about what should and should not be in the article, including differences as to appropriate level of detail. As a result of this it may be helpful, as a way to avoid content disputes, to seek consensus before adding contentious material to or removing it from the article. Q6: Why is this page semi-protected (locked against new and anonymous users)? A6: This page has been subject to a high volume of unconstructive edits, many coming from accounts from newer users who may not be familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies regarding neutrality, reliable sourcing and biographies of living people. In order to better maintain this page, editing of the main article by new accounts and accounts without a username has been temporarily disabled. These users are still able and encouraged to contribute constructively on this talk page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance). United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alaska High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Idaho This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Idaho.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Brian Krebs (2008-08-29). "Misplaced Pages Edits Forecast Vice Presidential Picks". The Washington Post. Yuki Noguchi (2008-08-29). "Palin's Misplaced Pages Entry Gets Overhaul". NPR. Chris O'Brien (2008-08-29). "Tug of war over Wiki entry on Palin". Mercury News. Natalie Weinstein (2008-08-30). "Sarah Palin Misplaced Pages edits--fast and furious". CNET News. Noam Cohen (2008-09-01). "Don't Like Palin's Misplaced Pages Story? Change It". The New York Times. Jemima Kiss (2008-09-01). "Sarah Palin's immensely flattering Misplaced Pages entry". The guardian. Mike Harvey (2008-09-01). "Sarah Palin Misplaced Pages entry gets glowing make-over from mysterious user Young Trigg". The Times. Roberto Reale (2008-09-02). "Misplaced Pages e la biografia "ripulita" di Sarah Palin". RAI. Mark Sabbatini (2008-09-02). "Misplaced Pages war emerges over details about Palin". Juneau Empire. Iain Simons (2008-09-02). "Who scrubbed Palin clean?". New Statesman.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.

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. 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 this one is certain not a reliable source. At this point this entire episode has be thoroughly debunked, and there are many reliable sources testifying that she was never an AKIP member.--Paul (talk) 20:14, 11 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 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 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? Misplaced Pages 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." --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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Levi's age

I was admonished for added back Levi Johnston's age as 18. Here is proof; 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  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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Mayoralty of Sarah Palin

Just thought I would inform you of the above page which was created (not by me) a few minutes ago. Dont know if you think it is notable to have a page of its own? I have no opinion. Perhaps if people think the page shouldnt exist there would at least be some info on it that could be added to the main Sarah Palin page? Willy turner (talk) 06:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There are now separate articles Mayoralty of Sarah Palin and Governorship of Sarah Palin. They are both summarized here in this article, per WP:Summary style. This seems to me like a very good idea.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see this section before. See my note below. Subarticles should be created only after discussion and consensus on the talk page. Much of this material went through a lengthy discussion above. I restored that material that went through discussion to the main page. I am not arguing against the creation of subarticles as a general policy, but in this case, consensus should be taken before making such a move. I would argue for including the restored material in the main article. -Classicfilms (talk) 11:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Objection to both subartilces, Mayoralty of Sarah Palin and Governorship of Sarah Palin. The creation of them didn't even get consensus and it's hard to believe edits on those pages will either. Theosis4u (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Mayoralty, no, miscongeniality, no....

The article tells us that In 1984, Palin won the Miss Wasilla Pageant, then finished second in the Miss Alaska pageant. Plus a few links. One of these links is to Miss Congeniality. Wondering what this term meant, I clicked on the link. The "article" (disambig page) "Miss Congeniality" is completely uninformative. Perhaps somebody who knows what 'Miss Congeniality" means could revise that "article", or perhaps the link there could be removed from this article. Tama1988 (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The second usage given at the dab page is "A special award given at beauty pageants". That would be the sense in which it's used here. -- Zsero (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. So Palin finished third ("second runner-up") in the Miss Alaska pageant, at which she won a college scholarship and the "Miss Congeniality" award. And what might that mean? It's A special award given at beauty pageants -- something that the reader can infer from the very sentence from which it's linked. I suppose it means that she's "congenial", but the world of beauty pageants is such a bizarre one that I don't know what "congenial" means in this context. There are three links to examples; two have no explanation whatever, but this tells us that in that particular context it reflects the respect and admiration of the delegate's peers, who voted for her as the most congenial, charismatic and inspirational participant. This suggests that it has less to do with physical appearance than it does with, uh, what -- Christian devoutness or something? Until the article Miss Congeniality is informative, I think the link to it should go. (By contrast, a red link would be OK: the reader would know there's nothing to see.) Tama1988 (talk) 05:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Pregnancy with Trig

I apologize if this has been brought up already, however I propose the addition of this in the personal life section (added after "Palin's youngest child ... prenatally"):

Palin had difficulty coming to terms with Trig's illness and concealed her pregnancy, continuing to work up until she gave birth and returned to work three days after Trig was born. She has since been accused of exploiting her child's illness for political gain.

Normally I would go WP:BRD but this is article is quite contentious. Also, can anyone suggest wording to balance the last bit? The sources (New Zealand Herald New York Times) suggest that supporters are glad a child with special needs is "in the spotlight". Thanks, ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 11:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence is unacceptable in a whole load of ways: how do we know (apart from human sympathy) that Gov. Palin "had difficulty in coming to terms" with her child's "illness"? in what way did she "conceal her pregnancy"? What does "return to work" mean for a State Governor?

The second sentence is simply not supported by the cited source. Physchim62 (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"She was, it seems, struggling to come to terms with the fact that the baby would be born with Down's syndrome." "... some accuse her of exploiting Trig for political gain." You did actually look at the sources, right? ~ Ameliorate! _{U T C} @ 14:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

How much informational value does this add? A.J.A. (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it says a lot about her personal life. The world's media appear to agree. ~ Ameliorate! _{U T C} @ 23:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"She was, it seems, struggling to come to terms with the fact This is supposition and in a WP:BLP it isn't allowed regardless of the fact that a WP:RS is doing the supposing. The second quote from the source is just repeating attacks. How does that help anything? What _is_ missing from the article is the quote from Palin that "she and Todd feel blessed and chosen by God" to have this child. Now that really does say a lot about her personal life and deeply-held beliefs.--Paul (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Summarizing Mayoralty section

Yesterday, new articles were created for Governorship of Sarah Palin and Mayoralty of Sarah Palin. According to WP:Summary style, those articles are now supposed to be summarized here in this main article, and indeed the governorship article is summarized here. However, the summary of the mayoralty has been reverted. I hope that people will weigh in about this, because the present mayoralty section is very bloated, and does not summarize the sub-topic article. Following is the present version of this section here in this article, followed by the removed summary version.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Present version of mayoralty section

"Sarah Palin served two terms as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, which is a city of 7,025 located 47 kilometers (29 mi) north of the port of Anchorage. She served as mayor from 1996 to 2002. Palin began her political career in 1992, when she won a three-year term on the Wasilla city council, supporting a controversial new sales tax and advocating "a safer, more progressive Wasilla." She was re-elected to a second three-year term on the city council in 1995.

"In 1996, Palin ran against and defeated three-term incumbent mayor John Stein, running on a platform of "fresh ideas and energy". In the campaign, she vowed to replace "stale leadership" and criticized Stein for wasteful spending and high taxes. She also introduced campaign issues such as abortion, religion, gun rights, and term limits. Although the mayoral election was non-partisan, the state Republican party ran advertisements on her behalf.

"Shortly after taking office in October 1996, Palin began to make leadership changes. She eliminated the position of museum director and asked for updated resumes and resignation letters from Wasilla police chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton, finance director Duane Dvorak, and librarian Mary Ellen Emmons. Palin stated this request was to find out who supported her. She temporarily required department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters, stating they first needed to become better acquainted with her policies. She hired a new city administrator and reduced her own salary from $68,000 to $64,000.

"According to Emmons, she and Palin twice discussed the question of library censorship: first in early October, then in detail on October 28. Emmons stated Palin asked her if she would object to censorship, and Emmons replied "it would not be just me ... the American Civil Liberties Union would get involved, too." Palin raised the possibility of people circling the library in protest, to which Emmons replied "it would definitely be a problem the ACLU would take on then." In early December, Palin spoke publicly about the issue, using it as an example of a discussion she'd had with her department heads, and stated, "many issues were discussed, both rhetorical and realistic in nature." She further added that censorship "was discussed in the context of a professional question being asked in regards to library policy" and that she did not have a specific list of books in mind. No books were removed from the library.

"Palin gave signed letters to Emmons and Stambaugh on January 30, 1997, that stated: "I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern the city of Wasilla. Therefore I intend to terminate your employment..." Palin rescinded the firing of Emmons the next day after meeting with her and after what the Anchorage Daily News called "a wave of public support for Emmons." Palin stated that her concerns had been alleviated when Emmons agreed to support Palin's plan to merge the town's library and museum operations. Palin also spoke with Stambaugh at least three times about the matter, but ultimately he was fired as planned. Stambaugh filed a lawsuit which was later dismissed by a court that found the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason, including a political one.

"Despite the rocky start, Palin gained favor with Wasilla. She kept a jar with the names of Wasilla residents on her desk, and once a week she pulled a name from it and picked up the phone. She would ask: "How's the city doing?" She cut property taxes by 40% while improving roads and sewers and strengthening the Police Department. She also reduced spending on the town museum and opposed a bigger library. Palin ran for re-election against Stein in 1999 and was returned to office by a margin of 909 to 292 votes. Palin was also elected president of the Alaska Conference of Mayors.

"During her second term as mayor, Palin introduced a ballot measure proposing the construction of a municipal sports center to be financed by a sales tax increase. The Wasilla Multi-Use Sports Complex was built on time and under budget. The total cost escalated due to an eminent domain lawsuit growing out of early planning errors. She also hired the Anchorage-based lobbying firm of Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh to lobby for earmarks for Wasilla. The effort was led by Steven Silver, a former chief of staff for Senator Ted Stevens, and it secured nearly $27 million in earmarked funds. The earmarks included $500,000 for a youth shelter, $1.9 million for a transportation hub, $900,000 for sewer repairs, and $15 million for a rail project linking Wasilla and the ski resort community of Girdwood. Some of the earmarks were criticized by Senator McCain in 2001 and 2002.

"In 2002, term limits prevented Palin from running for a third term as mayor. Her stepmother-in-law, Faye Palin, ran for the office but lost the election to Dianne Keller after Sarah Palin endorsed Keller."

Proposed summary version of mayoralty section

"Sarah Palin served two terms as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, which is a city of 7,025 located 47 km (29 miles) north of the port of Anchorage. She served as mayor from 1996 to 2002. Palin had begun her political career in 1992, when she won a three-year term on the Wasilla city council, supporting a controversial new sales tax and advocating "a safer, more progressive Wasilla." She was re-elected to a second three-year term on the city council in 1995.

"In 1996, Palin ran against and defeated incumbent mayor John Stein, whom she criticized for wasteful spending and high taxes. The state Republican party ran advertisements on her behalf.

"Shortly after taking office in October 1996, Palin began to make leadership changes, and she temporarily required department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters, until they had become acquainted with her policies. She hired a new city administrator and reduced her own salary from $68,000 to $64,000.

"She started a debate about censorship and library policy, though she did not have a specific list of books in mind. No books were removed from the library. Palin asked subordinates to support her plan to merge the town's library and museum operations.

"As mayor of Wasilla, Palin was in charge of the city Police Department, consisting of 25 officers, and Public Works. She was praised for cutting property taxes by 40% while improving roads and sewers and strengthening the Police Department. She also reduced spending on the town museum and opposed a bigger library. During her first term, the state Republican Party began grooming her for higher office.

"Palin ran for re-election against Stein in 1999 and was returned to office by a margin of 909 to 292 votes. Palin was also elected president of the Alaska Conference of Mayors.

"During her second term as mayor, Palin put a measure on the ballot to increase sales tax to finance the construction of a municipal sports center. Though the center was built on time and under budget, the total cost escalated due to an eminent domain lawsuit growing out of early planning errors. She also hired the Anchorage-based lobbying firm of Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh to lobby for earmarks for Wasilla. The effort was led by Steven Silver, a former chief of staff for Senator Ted Stevens, and it secured nearly $27 million in earmarked funds. The earmarks included $500,000 for a youth shelter, $1.9 million for a transportation hub, $900,000 for sewer repairs, and $15 million for a rail project linking Wasilla and the ski resort community of Girdwood. Some of the earmarks were criticized by Senator McCain.

"In 2002, term limits prevented Palin from running for a third term as mayor. Her stepmother-in-law, Faye Palin, ran for the office but lost the election to Dianne Keller after Sarah Palin endorsed Keller."

Do you support summary of mayoralty section?

This cuts the section down from 825 words to 473 words, and I think it's a good summary, perhaps in need of improvement, but adequate for now. Who agrees or disagrees?

Support. For reasons described above.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't support what you are proposing but maybe we could shorten things up with a bulleted list as proposed in the following sectionRktect (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Your proposals have nothing to do with the mayoralty section, and therefore are not relevant to the mayoralty section.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: For the past few days, a number of editors collaborated on material for this section. The discussion began here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_15#Book_Banning

was moved to here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_15#Proposed_change_to_Wasilla_section

and found consensus with this draft:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_15#8th_draft

The version approved by consensus was added yesterday. My argument has been that this version created via consensus was moved to a new article without discussion or consensus on the talk page first. As I indicated here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sarah_Palin#Mayoralty_of_Sarah_Palin

I reverted back to the consensus version because there had been no discussion on the talk page about turning the section into a summary and moving to a new article. I believe the move was a Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith attempt to improve the main article and I appreciate the fact that we are starting a discussion here about the possibility of turning it into a summary.

I am not opposed to the idea of creating a subarticle for this section, but I do believe that just as we went through consensus for the existing material, we need to achieve consensus for a summary.

The current summary is a good start but I cannot yet support it because the section on the library does not discuss both Emmons and Palin's points of view as the consensus version does.

I will be open to a rewrite and to further input from other editors as to an acceptable summary for this section. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The suggested summary says that Palin, "started a debate about censorship and library policy, though she did not have a specific list of books in mind. No books were removed from the library." I think this is preferable to going into all the details about Emmons (the librarian) right here in this main article. It's all in the sub-article.

The material that you're suggesting to include here is the following, which obviously includes a large amount of unnecessary detail for a main article like this one. "According to Emmons, she and Palin twice discussed the question of library censorship: first in early October, then in detail on October 28. Emmons stated Palin asked her if she would object to censorship, and Emmons replied 'it would not be just me ... the American Civil Liberties Union would get involved, too.' Palin raised the possibility of people circling the library in protest, to which Emmons replied 'it would definitely be a problem the ACLU would take on then.' In early December, Palin spoke publicly about the issue, using it as an example of a discussion she'd had with her department heads, and stated, 'many issues were discussed, both rhetorical and realistic in nature.'24] She further added that censorship 'was discussed in the context of a professional question being asked in regards to library policy' and that she did not have a specific list of books in mind. No books were removed from the library. Palin gave signed letters to Emmons and Stambaugh on January 30, 1997, that stated: 'I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern the city of Wasilla. Therefore I intend to terminate your employment...' Palin rescinded the firing of Emmons the next day after meeting with her and after what the Anchorage Daily News called 'a wave of public support for Emmons.' Palin stated that her concerns had been alleviated when Emmons agreed to support Palin's plan to merge the town's library and museum operations. Palin also spoke with Stambaugh at least three times about the matter, but ultimately he was fired as planned. Stambaugh filed a lawsuit which was later dismissed by a court that found the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason, including a political one."Ferrylodge (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view issue which applies to the main article just at it applies to the subarticle. It is important that all perspectives of all issues appear in articles including this one. The quote you gave above was agreed to via consensus of a number of editors here as I indicated through the links above. At the same time, if you can offer a way to further condense the information, perhaps removing quotes but remaining with NPOV, I will be open to it. I also think that other editors who contributed to the creation of this material need to give their opinions as well in line with Misplaced Pages:Consensus. This is why I suggested keeping the section as is - as the links above indicate, it took a number of days for everyone to agree to what is currently in the article. That doesn't mean it can't change - this is a wiki after all. However, there needs to be consensus on changes. Can you give me a shorter version that captures the essence of the above? -Classicfilms (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you would briefly explain why the following is POV. Palin "started a debate about censorship and library policy, though she did not have a specific list of books in mind. No books were removed from the library." Please don't say it's POV merely because it is different from the longer version. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of it being a different version. The version currently on the main page was agreed upon by a number of editors through Misplaced Pages:Consensus. It offers both Emmons' and Palin's versions of what happened - that is what makes it NPOV. To offer only one version of the events would be POV - which is why I would make the same comment if only Emmons was mentioned and not Palin. The WP is an encyclopedia and thus gives all points of view so we need to mention both. It took a number of days for us to reach consensus on how to convey both Emmons and Palin as you can see by going through all of the threads. So the comment that I am making here isn't my opinion, it is a reflection of all of the discussions which have been happening over the past few days. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - There isn't enough content to justify a sub-article for her time as Mayor yet... I'd be in favor of changing the Mayor article into a redirect here. Seriously.. 825 words does not warrant a sub-article. --Bobblehead 18:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The question was not whether to delete the sub-article. If you want to start a thread about that, then please go ahead. Seriously, have you taken a look at the sub-article? It's larger than most articles.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, this thread is not about whether to delete the sub-article or not, nor am I saying the page should be deleted. It's about whether or not I accept the summary you've made and I oppose that summary for the reason given. The sub-article has 4.5kb of readable text and is just a mirror image of what was in the mayor section at the time the sub-article was created. That can easily fit in this article for now. This does not mean that a sub-article for her time as mayor in Wasilla can not be created in the future, it just means that it is not needed right now. --Bobblehead 20:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - The earlier consensus seemed to include both points view on the library issue. The current summary does not. Manticore55 (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And for the record, I agree the mine road, while personally amusing is not of the same magnitude as the library issue. Manticore55 (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Palin's time as mayor is not significant enough to have a separate article. The current version is of appropriate length to be included in whole in the main article (and currently is an exact copy of the main article) and thus the sub-article should be deleted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The section is inelastic; it cannot be expanded enough for a subpage, nor shortened enough for a summary. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I would like to support this as I think the summary is accurate, shows a NPOV, and is concise as it should be in a biographical article. Being Governor is more important than Mayor, and should be given more weight, but it's almost the other way around now. However, 800 or so words is not that much, there is a lot of controversy about the librarian and we did come to consensus which I'd like to protect, and finally, spinning off this material into another article doubles the amount of effort to keep things accurate and non-biased. (This means I'm also in favor of deleting the daughter article) --Paul (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose all versions because it is original research to comment on the size of Wasilla. The part of the population and the location can be obtained by clicking a link to the town's article. In other political debates, when information was added by synthsizing information from many articles, this has been shot down. 903M (talk) 04:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Try again. I second Classicfilms comment. 194.83.141.23 (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose and can someone please deal with both Mayoralty of Sarah Palin and Governorship of Sarah Palin still being available? Theosis4u (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Chef & per-diem

While I doubt the notability of this topic in it's entirety, in the interest of compromise I have reverted this section to reduce the incendiary and POV tone of the original version that is being revert/restored. Can we please discuss why this section is even necessary? Let's get consensus on this before it goes into the article. In particular what's been shown is that Palin re-assigned her personal chef to another position in the state government and has elected to draw on a per-diem while working away from her primary work location. What's notable about this? Ronnotel (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Note to Bobblehead - I think there is an idiomatic distinction between fired and terminated. For instance, you can be "fired" from a job without being terminated from the organization (i.e. a transfer). I'd like to give Palin the benefit of the doubt and assume she was using the idiomatic use of the term (not too surprising since she was giving a political speech, full of colloquialism). Thoughts? Ronnotel (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The idea is to just be able to list them and a link to to a more detailed source without long discussion. The problem is there are so many of them coming so fast its hard even just to list them.

The Alaska National Guard Commanding General changes his story about Sarah Palin and is promoted for it to a rank which isn't approved.

The notability of the per diem charged for working at home is that its an example of corruption, like cheating on your tax return. It amounts to an embezelment and is a felony. Its one of many examples of things that might be considered negatives about Sarah Palin. Above is another example. There are a lot of things about her worth some discussion. I don't see that the tone needs to be incendiary or reflect a POV. All that is being requested is a simple listing to compliment other possible overly positive impressions and give a fair and balanced assessment Rktect (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please don't cite Daily Kos. Re: the per diem, the Washington Post reported here that Palin charged the state a travel allowance for 312 days spent at home in her first 19 months in office. She billed the state about $25,000 for her daughters' travel expenses, which the state finance director suggested was a bit iffy. She later went back and deleted some log entries indicating that she'd stayed home, but still claimed the per diem. The Post suggests that this is relevant because the campaign has positioned her as a "crusader for fiscal rectitude". The story has been picked up by a handful of other outlets, including the AP.

Whether this is notable enough for a biographical entry, or just the campaign-news-tidbit-of-the-day, is unclear to me. I think that if this is included, it should be very briefly mentioned. One could also make an argument against including right away on the basis of WP:NOT#NEWS, and wait to see if this particular issue gains traction and a -gate suffix, or simply fades away. MastCell  18:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

More or less agree with Mast's assessment. Ronnotel (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, it may be too soon to include it in the main article, but I'd argue in favor of retaining the detail of the travel expenses in the sub-article regardless of whether or not it catches on. As far as the distinction between "fired" and "terminated".. Umm.. That's a bit far fetched, IMHO. One is not "fired" from your position when remaining within the same company, you are "transfered" or "demoted". Regardless of the definition Palin uses, it is clear the intent of the statement was that she reduced expenses for the state by getting rid of the chef. --Bobblehead 18:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Well, presumably the chef filled a vacancy when transfered. Unless we have more information, do we really have enough information to determine that she didn't reduce expenditures? Seems like WP:SYNTH Ronnotel (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't have any evidence that she did cut expenditures either. Notice that I didn't mention an impact to the budget in the article. Just on the talk page.;) Also, speaking of WP:SYNTH, I disagree with this edit. The private jet was obviously not a customary perk for an Alaskan governor considering how much flak Murkowski received for purchasing the jet. We're still at one right now, that being the executive chef... --Bobblehead 19:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Nor do we have any evidence that she said she "fired" the chef. The quote from her acceptance speech is "And I thought we could muddle through without the governor's personal chef." Until she gives some of the per deim back or is convicted of embezzlement or corruption this is completely non-notable and doesn't belong in this article. Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper.--Paul (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

← Somewhat separately, I have made this edit removing a contention that "all of Palin's charges were allowed under state policy." The source (the Washington Post) doesn't say this; in fact, it specifically quotes Alaksa's comptroller as saying she "can't imagine" how Palin's children could be conducting official (reimbursable) state business. MastCell  20:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I am all for removing the whole paragraph as not noteworthy. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I am going to be bold and claim consensus here and put in this NPOV version:

Palin continues to live in Wasilla eschewing many of the perks of her office. She does not use the the Governor's private chef, who was transferred to the lounge of the State Legislature. though she has charged her travel expense account for the nights she spends at home with her family.

If someone wants to remove the whole thing while we wait to see if this is just the campaign-sniping-of-the-day, or something more substantial, that's fine with me.--Paul (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Go crazy. ;) Too soon to see if it is important enough to make the main article. I've already moved it over to the governor article, so if it does blow-up, a summary of it can be put back here. --Bobblehead 22:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

So "rumors" get dropped in wiki as edits even before a 24 hrs cycle is allowed by the valid media to run the story 6 times to get it right - I get that. My growing concern though is that when the "rumor" gets turned on it's head the response here becomes to remove the whole thing. This is a good example of that. She was required to do the per diem, it did show fiscal conservative judgements- especially in comparison - and so forth.

"Gov. Palin has spent far less on her personal travel than her predecessor: $93,000 on airfare in 2007, compared with $463,000 spent the year before by her predecessor, Frank Murkowski." WP - Palin Billed State for Nights Spent at Home Scrutinized

So, in this case I think a proper "correction" should go on the page and should reference past administration expenses. Theosis4u (talk) 05:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. This is not a page contrasting her to her predecessor, it's a bio page. It can talk about her political life and political choices in that reference frame. Realistically, the bio page should not have many of these items in favour of something akin to "Political Criticisms of Sarah Palin". Maybe then the focus could change away from this page trying to be all things for all people and maintain a biographical intent, as opposed to Misplaced Pages:Coatrack. --198.162.133.115 (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree To Move Topic Exclusively To Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin ? This way it can be fully accounted for. Not sure if a "summary" will do justice to all three sides - left,middle,right. Theosis4u (talk) 01:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Three Palin-related content forks need watching

Here are three Palin-related content forks that have been edited by only a few editors:

• Matanuska Maid Dairy controversy -- just one editor. Needs substantial clean-up, wikification, etc.
• Governorship of Sarah Palin
• Mayoralty of Sarah Palin

--A. B. 18:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's worth periodically checking the list of 500+ articles that link to Sarah Palin for new forks, some of which may be non-neutral (such as the Matanuska Maid Dairy controversy "COATRACK".) --A. B. 18:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Governorship of Sarah Palin and Mayoralty of Sarah Palin are sub-topic articles. See WP:Summary style. Sub-topic articles are perfectly fine. Only a small fraction of sub-topic articles are content forks.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey I am all for Forks , Forks are an excellent way to expand on a topic. --MisterAlbert (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not what is meant by a Misplaced Pages:Content fork. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, forks can be a good way to expand a topic without getting an unwieldy main article. My main point above was to get lots of eyeballs on these articles to prevent POV-pushing.

FYI, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mayoralty of Sarah Palin

--A. B. 20:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

These type of articles are not very common, though. For comparison, and . Cenarium 00:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palins Church Controversy, her Pastor, Her Relilgous Beliefs now Aired on CNN

Request Edit: Larry Kroon delete that took place after a 40 minutes consensus {very quick} be added back to the article. I find it quite pointless to omit his name now, it is all over the airwaves.

More Information has surfaced, CNN Anderson Cooper aired last night on Palins Church and it Cotroversial Position on the Jews, and this Morning CNN headline News aired more info along with viewer phone ins discussing the subject.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/08/palin.pastor/index.html

"MCCain must Embrace Palin's Beliefs, evangelical leaders say Link below:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/09/perkins.ga/?iref=hpmostpop --MisterAlbert (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2008

--MisterAlbert (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The title: you can google the title below or go to you tube,

Palin church: Alaska 'refuge' for Armageddon

http://www/youtube.com

--MisterAlbert (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC) --MisterAlbert (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The article Sarah Palin: Dominionist Stalking Horse discusses some issues relating Sarah Palin's religion, stance on abortion and other antifeminist FFL positions. Lets allow we are all familiar with the Dominionist movement and believe strongly in freedom of religion.

Joel's Army believers are hard-core Christian dominionists, meaning they believe that America, along with the rest of the world, should be governed by conservative Christians and a conservative Christian interpretation of biblical law. There is no room in their doctrine for democracy or pluralism.

Dominionism's original branch is Christian Reconstructionism, a grim, Calvinist call to theocracy that, as Reconstructionist writer Gary North describes, wants to "get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God."

Notorious for endorsing the public execution by stoning of homosexuals and adulterers, the Christian Reconstructionist movement is far better known in secular America than Joel's Army. That's largely because Reconstructionists have made several serious forays into mainstream politics and received a fair amount of negative publicity as a result. Joel's Army followers eschew the political system, believing the path to world domination lies in taking over churches, not election to public office.

Isn't it reasonable to consider putting a warning lable on Sarah Palins page that this is what we are putting a heartbeat away from the most powerful position in the world? Rktect (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not reasonable to put a "warning label" on a WP:BLP, nor is it appropriate to cite Daily Kos for such an article. So please don't. WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well, so I'm going to ask that you don't make any more poorly-sourced contentious claims here. MastCell  22:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The Daily KOS is one of the most timely and accurate sources on the web. I frequently see its stories covered half a day later in the press because it reports and breaks a lot of real news. Its far from the only source I use but when it comes to politics, global warming, the environment, economics, peak oil, the housing crisis, hurricane coverage, its got a lot better batting average than say AP. Obviously you have a different POV so perhaps the way we should settle this is to stick to just the facts. WP:BLP say's

The writing style should be neutral and factual, avoiding both understatement and overstatement

Rktect (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"The Daily KOS is one of the most timely and accurate sources on the web" - with all due respect, that is the funniest thing I've read all day. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears you are not a regular reader of the Daily KOS and yet have a POV about it.Rktect (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Kos is for the kool-aid drinkers, not thinkers. Weekly World News is more trustworthy.--King Bedford I 02:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Easy, fellas. The point is simply that Daily Kos is not a reliable source for a BLP. If something they report subsequently gains traction to the point that a reliable source is willing to put their name and reputation behind it, then it becomes BLP-worthy. If you've read WP:BLP and come away thinking that Daily Kos is an acceptable source, then please read the policy again. MastCell  04:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedians like consensus. Articles that get frontpaged on the Daily Kos often have thousands of recomendations and polls which give excellent indications of consensus.

Some people, the kind who think global warming is a myth, Al Gore is a joke, Creationism should be taught in public schools, healthcare sand education houldn't be available unless you are well enough off to afford them without the government getting involved, civil and human rights should be stripped from the constitution so America can be more like Russia, Polar Bears should be taken off the endangered species list because regulations protecting them slow the oil and gas development of Alaskas North Slope, the oil wars in the mideast should continue till the last drop of oil is extracted even if that takes 100 years, and the poor should be taxed to give tax cuts to the rich probably won't like what the Daily Kos has to say. That doesn't make it a bad or partisan source, it just means its not biased in favor of the Bush administration and its successors talking points like other examples of the MSM are. Instead of a lot of government propaganda what it provides is links to information. Any site that is informative and a good place to find links to consensus building discussions of current events should be a fine source for WP:BLP Rktect (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well biologists are on the verge of creating life from non matter! don't know where this leaves the creationists.

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/biologists-on-t.html?npu=1&mbid=yhp

--207.232.97.13 (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)fred

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." 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

Edit request: Public Safety Commissioner Dismissal

Please edit the following sentence:

"Monegan alleged that his dismissal was retaliation for his failure to fire Palin’s former brother-in-law, Alaska State Trooper Mike Wooten, who was involved in a child custody battle with Palin’s sister and had been accused of threatening Palin's father."

To read:

"Monegan alleged that his dismissal was retaliation for his failure to fire Palin’s former brother-in-law, Alaska State Trooper Mike Wooten, who was involved in a child custody battle with Palin’s sister, Molly McCann."

The tertiary party, with no direct involvement in this investigation, had already been sufficiently identified. Thanks. Spiff1959 (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Done, but you can do these edits yourself now. The article is only semi-protected. --Bobblehead 22:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd had a WP account a few years ago, and did a few edits of WWII pages. Since then I've moved, gotten a new ISP, and forgotton my old login. I'd attained no special privileges back then. This account I created only a few days ago, and there is no "edit" tab showing on this article for me. I do very much appreciate your assistance. Spiff1959 (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I emphatically disagree with that edit. Thousands of current news reports indicate that Wooten was accused of threatening to kill Palin's father. It is also mentioned in the lead of the sub-article. Why is it necessary to wash this fact out of the main article?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And thousand of articles note that Wooten had already been suspended by the State Troopers for what he did... It's an unnecessarily biased addition to the sentence. It's also curious that the most egregious of the offenses committed by Wooten is the only one that is included. What would the reaction be if the sentence had ended with "and had been accused of illegally hunting moose." --Bobblehead 00:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's right, the sentence does not end with the type of shampoo that Wooten uses, or that he once jaywalked. Is that really a problem, Bobblehead? Aren't we supposed to focus on what is most notable? The fact that he may have been threatening Palin's family also indicates why Palin and her staff may have had a legitimate reason to be contacting Monegan about him. That's the main reason she has provided. She has not argued that she and her staff were contacting Monegan to complain about Wooten's moose-hunting.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin herself hasn't even made the argument that she sacked Monegan because he was lax in dealing with Wooten's death threat. Her position is that Wooten's misconduct had absolutely nothing to do with her firing of Monegan. It would be extremely misleading to the reader for us to mention the death threat without more. It would readily create in the reader's mind that false impression that the dismissed Commissioner was lax about dealing with trooper misconduct. If we mention Wooten's 2005 misconduct, we must also report that he'd already been disciplined for it. JamesMLane t c 06:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Environmental issues

The version currently showing readily to the public has no references to ANY environmental problems with Palin: nothing about her suing the Department of the Interior over the listing of polar bears on the ESL; nothing about aerial hunting of wolves; nothing about beluga whales; nothing. Her environmental record's abysmal and that's something important to know about any state governor, particularly one charged with the stewardship of a state with the natural resources of Alaska, which still, even now, has an abundant wildlife population and relatively unspoiled scenery. Right now, Alaska is undergoing the obvious and very rapid signs of global warming because of its proximity to the melting polar ice caps. For a governor of Alaska, these issues are very important. Alaska's beaches are eroding and some traditional native villages, which've been inhabited before there was a US, are being flooded or are soon to be under water. She doesn't believe global warming is man made with an environmental catastrophe all around the state. This section needs to be put out there. It's too important to ignore this and just keep it out.Jolly momma (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Jolly, see Political positions of Sarah Palin, and Governorship of Sarah Palin ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of Palin suing the Department of the Interior over listing polar bears as an endangered species? After all, it's not like she didn't write that op ed piece in the NY Times about it. Saying she believes they shouldn't be listed as endangered because of concerns over oil exploration isn't the entire truth, and the rest of it can be backed up. Again, this would be considered an important politcal position, and a rather important political move. Jolly momma (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, she's the governor of the largest state in the union, and one of the most environmentally watched. Her environmental record IS important. Simple sentences like those are not enough. In the originial article, there was a section which explained positions and had references. THAT STUFF SHOULD STILL BE THERE! This is an election year; to leave it out is to take sides, unless that is the point. Alaska is being affected by global warming in a way that no other state is. Oil companies work throughout the state. This stuff is important, and since that section could be verified it should be left in. Unless you are taking sides with the McCain campaign, you should print the facts and let the chips fall where they may, whether the facts be good or bad, unless the facts are erroneous. I submit that these are not. That's what encyclopaedias are supposed to do. Jolly momma (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Somebody should add a piece on Palin's earmark reduction

The the title of the article I am linking to is misleading, I believe that its content would be a very important addition to the Palin page.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080903/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_earmarks

Under Palin, the state of Alaska earmark requests have dropped from more than $800/resident in her first year as Governor (a continuation of the status quo before her governorship) to $295/resident in her second year. Yes, this is still significantly above the national average, but Alaska has ALWAYS been significantly above the national average due to unique circumstances and conditions (geography, weather, sparse population) that lend themselves towards a demand for funding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfeenswiki (talk • contribs) 01:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the sub article about her governorship. Since she doesn't deserve full credit for the reduction (AK's congressional delegation does) it is probably not notable enough for the main article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Besides, that figure can be affected by one or two big-ticket items. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Article milestone

The article just went 30 minutes between edits. Stick a fork in it... Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Proof that the system works when it is allowed to function unencumbered.Neutralis (talk) 01:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Another might argue that it is proof the full protect allowed time for people to cool down and thus served its purpose. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Neutralis. Full protection for this article was a complete mess and lost wikipedia serious credibility. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. The thousands and thousands of edits since her candidacy was announced cast severe doubts about the authenticity of the article first, notably here.--Happysomeone (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That source is about Young Trigg's edits, as if people wouldn't click on it. That article was not fully protected for days afterwards. Full protection is useful to allow time for people to cool down, but this article stayed full protected for far too long. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 05:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

We'll never known if full protect was good or bad because of the side-show involving the admin's and their internal wars. I can show a thread that BECAUSE of full protection it worked to produce a better write up and avoided false data that was out there during the time of the talk article discussion. Full protection seems to work when people work the talk page appropriately. Full protection doesn't seem to work when people want to avoid talk page consensus in favor of fast edits. Encyclopedia's aren't weekly magazines for a reason. Theosis4u (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This Talk page has more freedom and information than the Sarah Palin ever had or ever will have. I, myself, will refer here for information and open vibrant discussion. Can we send the reader/visitor here for a better view and let them make up their own minds as to what the facts are???--Buster7 (talk) 09:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO - the talk page is good for your request. When people see the information on the "talk" page they know it's being debated, see it in context of the arguments, and know it's not definitive information "yet" - which they might imply if it was on the main page. Their still free to run around and reference all the rumors to their friends they want but it's clear their being disingenuous to themselves and others - there will always be people like that. Theosis4u (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

husband part Innuit or Eskimo

According to press reports, her husband in part Innuit or Eskimo. Might be worth inclusion as, if true, this makes Sarah Palin's children partly non-white, presumably relevant as the Democratic president candidate is of mixed race. Redhawk69 (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a pretty fine line between being half-African American and being "partly non-white", but even then - why would you assume that the race of the children of a Vice Presidential nominee is noteworthy because the race of a Presidential nominee is? --danielfolsom

By blood her children are a 1/16 native. Culturally they might be more engaged than that suggests, but you'd need sources for that discussion. Dragons flight (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It is included in Todd Palin which is where it belongs. Gtstricky 14:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Religion Section

Can be augmented with material from: "Sarah Palin, the pastor and the prophecy: judgment day is not far away - Times Online". Retrieved 2008-09-09. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Video Footage: Look I don't know how accurate this the comments claims this: " This is reportedly video footage from the Pentecostal church Sarah Palin belongs to, clearly showing dozens of members of the congregation speaking in tongues and wandering zombie-like through the aisles, also occasionally thrashing on the floor in front of the pulpit. I've seen barely anyone online mention this video so far, or even Palin's connection in general to this church (including a pastor who preaches that God put George W. Bush into office), so thought I'd bring it to your attention."

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/09/04/video-footage-of-sar.html

--207.232.97.13 (talk) 05:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Fred

That's a seriously boring but blessedly short video. People wobbling their arms to the sound of fourth-rate rock music. Move along, nothing fascinating to see. Tama1988 (talk) 05:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This is better (forgive the cuts...) http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/9/5/03830/11602 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Mm-hmm! Enrapturing! Tama1988 (talk) 06:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Macro Bias on Misplaced Pages: Obama lacks a Religion Section

There is macro bias. Having a whole section on religion for Palin while having nothing of the sort on Obama....mentioning the theology of Palin's churches while Obama's article never mentions once "black liberation theology" is macro bias. The excuse "well thats over THERE and this is HERE" is precisely the point, and does not justify or excuse that all wikipedians have a dual responsibility to fairness. This is a politician in an ACTIVE election. Not only are you to be fair in this article on a micro level, but you also have a duty to the image of NPOV for Misplaced Pages as a whole. Here you are so armed to stuff Palin's article full of religious controversy, creating a whole section just to thump on her religion (and it IS bigotry), while you completely protect Obama! And don't throw at me the excuse that these are two different articles that is PRECISELY THE POINT, and you are using that excuse as a loophoole to denigrate the entire image of wikipedia as being POV. If you are honorable wikipedians, you will choose one of two options: you will either include a section in Obama's article for religion and make mention of the fact that he attended a black liberation church (like you make mention of Palin attending a pentecostal church), or you will remove the religion section from Palin. Right now, all of you are complicit on pervasive macro-bias on wikipedia. You have a duty to fairness and NPOV and in an active election, that duty extends beyond this one single article, but must take into account the individuals Palin is competing against and their articles as well. The excuse of "thats THEIR article" is just a sham and an utter double-standard, and is a terrible discredit to the reputation of Misplaced Pages. I am posting a similar notice on Obama's article. Because what is happening on Misplaced Pages right now is POV, and no amount of fallacy and rationalization will change this objective fact. I am a fair person, I support including a religion section on Palin, if it is done on Obama. If it is not done on Obama, your duty to macro-fairness demands that you remove it from this article. Far more press coverage exists over Obama's religion than Palin, and you simply cannot justify including Palin's theology (pentecostal) while not including Obama's (black liberation). Do the right thing, and be fair! Though, considering the typical wikipedian is a white male aged 35 and under, a tekkie, and socialist-leaning, I don't expect fairness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.2.202 (talk) 06:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to propose a Religion section on Obama's article, but most probably we will end up here with a spinoff article about Palin's religion controversy, along the lines of Jeremiah_Wright_controversy ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Lame excuse. You know what wikipedia is doing, and you cannot logically justify stuffing Palin with a religion section (I see you even want to EXPAND it) while keeping it nearly COMPLETELY out of Obama's article. But this is the predictable way of the white male socialist-leaning wikipedian. Why is wikipedia so horribly and systemically biased? Are there any wikipedians who are not white males under 35 and not socialist-leaning? Seriously, I mean that in all honesty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.2.202 (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I posted a far more patient response on the Obama talk page, but please do not insult other editors around here. Either be civil, and try to work within the goals and rules of the project, or take your complaint somewhere other than this talk page. Misplaced Pages is not biased, it simply does not contain the content you wish it to contain. If you have a specific proposal for adding, removing, or changing content to a specific article feel free to make it. If it is neutral, well-sourced, and otherwise fits our content guidelines then people will take the proposal seriously and arrive at a consensus on whether or not to include it. Generalized gripes about Misplaced Pages or other editors will likely be shut down so that we can actually edit and improve articles. Wikidemon (talk) 06:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Further, socialism is so rampant among Misplaced Pages editors that they, uh, insist on removing all negative information from this article. (See the section immediately below, about some dairy). -- Hoary (talk) 08:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Palin has been a Pentecostal for 22 years, and just a few months ago delivered an interesting speech at her former Pentecostal church in Wasilla. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There's some mention of Obama's religion beliefs and upbringing, using words like atheist and muslim, at the end of his personal life section. His infobox says that he is in the United Church of Christ. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of material that is not favorable to Sarah Palin.

I have tried to bring up the subject of the matanuska maid dairy BS that she was involved in on this age, or actually revert it back to the way it was before she was nominated and her followers decided to whitewash her whole article.

So I went and created a seperate page where I had several articles referenced and was working on it, and it seems to have been deleted yesterday as unencyclopedic crap by User:moreschi User:pharmboy and User:thaddeusB.

Some of us have day jobs and cannot spend endless hours on a page. I hade looked up and collected as much as i could, created a timeline from which to work from and cited about 13 newspaper articles, but insted of marking the page as 'need to be improved', these Gestapo (because that's what you are when you abuse you role here) just simple deleted the page.

It is utterly amazing to me the amount of effort and discourse you people have put into her daughter pregnancy, and you don't wake and look into what happened at the Matanuska Maid Dairy, and how it affects her political position. Why was the article so quickly deleted and marked as soap box? Because you didn't like the content? Well, let's rephrase it and help me work on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T1n0 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC) As stated above: "just one editor. Needs substantial clean-up, wikification, etc". Instead of helping me, you simply delete an article that I worked on by myself for several hours to piece together the different sources. Your bias is showing, ThaddeusB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T1n0 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, now it DOES NOT EVEN APPEAR IN HER ARTICLE ANYMORE. THERE IS NO LONGER any reference to Gov Palin 'replacing' the board that disagreed with her, replacing the board with associates, who had family members that would benefit from additional funding, and the closed sessions where friends where given favorable leasing on the equipment. The whole topic has now disappeared. WTF?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by T1n0 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Governors throughout time have made decisions that are unpopular with some people. I don't see how it is unfavorable to Palin. I haven't heard one mention of this dairy issue on TV, or read about it in my researches. Looking around now, it is still barely covered. This article mentions Misplaced Pages's take on the dairy, and essentially says it's a not notable executive decision. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It is still in the Governorship of Sarah Palin sub-article, and in my opinion it does not belong here. If others feel differently, then it can be put back. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That article you cited calls her leadership style 'fire and replace those who disagree with you'

I did not know it existed, but how is "The Governorship of Sarah Palin" the sub-article ?? If you take everything about who she is as a gov out of this article, the only thing left is her upbringing and her family?? I think it should be the other way around, but that a separate issue.

This was the sub-article, titled 'Matanuska Maid Controversy'. It may not be pretty, and it has not been laid out, but this happenned. After reading all of the articles I could find on this topic, this is the timeline I could piece together. If someone doesn't like it, then help me clean it up, but if someone states that it is not important, with all of the other crap that is on Misplaced Pages, they are censoring behind 'standards', and if someone states that it is not up to par with Wiki standards then help me clean it up.

1) The Alaska state-run dairy, Matanuska Maid, had been suffering financial losses for years.

2) In the spring of 2007, the 20 year CEO, Joe Van Treeck, citing strong competition from private dairies, and rising fuel cost that would directly impact distribution costs, recommends to the Alaska Creamery Board of Directors to either privatize to regain competitiveness, or close and liquidate to cover debts.

3) The director of the State Division of Agriculture, Larry DeVilbiss, resigned on May 31.

4) Governor Sarah Palin disagrees with the plan to close the Dairy, citing concerns for dairy farmers and employees.

5) Governor Palin fires the existing board over the weekend, and replaces them with associates, most of which had family and friends with a vested interest in the continued operation of the Dairy. Of special interest is the newly appointed Director of Agriculture, Franci Havermeier. Her father in law, Bob Havermeier, was one of the dairy farmers to benefit from the continued payouts by Mat Maid.

6) The new Creamery Board reverses the decision to close the dairy. There is a closed session during which CEO Joe Van Treeck is fired, and an additional $600,000 in aid is approved.

7) This aid is from a $25M grant that the US Federal Government had approved in 2002.

8) When asked why the Board of Agriculture did not act on Mat-Maid dairy president and CEO Joe Van Treeck's requests last year to privatize, Ronda Boyles, chair of the BAC, said that they had not acted due to the impeding change in administration.

9) The Dairy is eventually closed, three months later after more losses, in debt, and facing litigation for pension lawsuits.

10) It is put to auction at $3.5M, but there are no offers.

11) Eventually a Storage Company purchases the site and structure for $1.5M, to convert it to a heated public storage facility.

12) Competing private Dairy businesses that were also given approximately $600K in federal funding, are given no-bid leasing contracts for the dairy manufacturing equipment.

In Summary: The controversy stems from vested interest be the parties involved, and the disbursement of Federal funds. Governor Palin, under the auspices of protecting farmers, used executive powers to appoint a favorable board in order to keep a failing business open, to disburse federal funds to said business which then paid out to vendors that are family and associates, and her Agriculture Director appointee Franci Havermeier then leases leftover equipment to preferred farmers in a closed negotiation at very favorable prices in closed session, and under direct gag-order to staff. == Begin References: Approval for funds could lead to sale of Mat Maid dairy AK JoC, Sunday, April 29, 2007 http://www.webcitation.org/5act9Rnjf

Mat Maid a step closer to becoming a private-sector dairy AK JoC, Sunday, May 13, 2007 http://www.webcitation.org/5acsBLvMD

Mat Maid board rejects Palin plea to stay open Anchorage Daily News (Anchorage, AK), 13-JUN-07 http://www.webcitation.org/5acsE8XHu

Palin looks to Mat-Su for board. Anchorage Daily News (Anchorage, AK), 19-JUN-07 http://www.webcitation.org/5acsMwJJ7

Creamery board cuts loose longtime chief. Anchorage Daily News (Anchorage, AK), 03-JUL-07 http://www.webcitation.org/5acsOzILn

State to put Mat Maid dairy up for sale. Anchorage Daily News (Anchorage, AK)29-AUG-07 http://www.webcitation.org/5acsQa4gW

Equipment Auction: http://www.webcitation.org/5ad7CqjM0 Andrew Halcro, of Alaska legislature, Harvard Graduate, and Local Businessman, questioning the new board: http://www.webcitation.org/5acttlFqf

The $600K disbursement: http://www.webcitation.org/5aiycCb3D

The state audit which shows Mat Maid kept paying farmers another $39K, and that he 600K check was put into a general checking fund, and consequently comingled with other funds: http://www.webcitation.org/5aiyfmod9

Mat Maid private attorney and Ass't Attorney General both resign, no proper Request for proposal, and equipment is being auctioned off: http://www.webcitation.org/5aiyi8uR2

Agriculture Director Franci Havermeier tells the staff to refrain from discussing Mat Maid Dairy: http://www.webcitation.org/5aiyprqE6

Now since it wasn't allowed to be in the Sarah Palin article, I created an article named 'Matanuska Maid Dairy Controversy' which would have allowed this to be edited, and also other pertinent facts added. I am sorry that I am not at liberty to write much more, but I thought I would start with the facts of the controversy. Some of these accounts come from Andrew Halco, a local legislator up in Alaska that seems to be intimately familiar with the workings of this situation. I will be contacting him about this event, and I will be asking for him to provide as many sources as possible.

The question is: Why are the admins so quick to delete instead of allowing someone to edit and improve? —Preceding unsigned comment added by T1n0 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's an easy one. Because admins are just typical editors, and "the typical wikipedian is a white male aged 35 and under, a tekkie, and socialist-leaning" (as revealed by the IP who got so incensed in the section immediately above). -- Hoary (talk) 08:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I'm white, educated, just over 40, and a capitalist pig. However, I do get very incensed when a) admin use their position to exercise their bias.

b) my tax dollars are scammed away to politician's friends. If you don't care, maybe it's because you don't pay taxes. t1n0 09:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Damn, I knew I was in the wrong place. Tvoz/talk 08:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, the material was seen by millions of people, including reporters doing research, but it hasn't gained any traction. It failed to sell in the marketplace of ideas, and it was read by 1% of the population of the US. Nobody is reading this article anymore, so its not being here now is not such a big deal as it would have been the first week. Improve it in the Governorship of Sarah Palin first, and see if there is consensus for a mention of it to be put back here. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, sounds like a reasonable plan. But not esta noche.t1n0 09:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I note that , , , and are not in any way acceptable as reliable sources. Nor is the material covered in those sources available - as best as I can tell - in any newspaper article or other reliable source. So while I've just finished expanding Governorship of Sarah Palin#Matanuska Maid Dairy, I've not been able to add any information on what happened to dairy operations after the Mat Maid Dairy closed in early December 2007. If you in fact can come up with anything, I encourage you to add the information at that section. And I suggest that further discussion be at Talk:Governorship of Sarah Palin rather than on this page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin's proudest of it, and it's not in the article

Palin has said that her greatest accomplishment as governor is the natural gas pipeline through Canada, and there is no mention of it in the article. Truly, why am I the one noticing this, and not the Palin boosters? Anyway, in case I missed some (surely mistaken) consensus earlier to remove it, doesn't it deserve to be in the article? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

True, that was a great thing. It should definitely be included...how ironic. t1n0 09:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably an over-site. Maybe one of our fellow editors that could not get in would have included it. We'll never know.--Buster7 (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It was there yesterday (or the day before). Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to mention the $40 Billion Palin Pipeline feel free. The Palin Pipeline just goes to Boundary Lake, Alberta!!! Thats because it doesn't bring energy to heat peoples homes. it brings energy to an oil field. It was certainly very controversial during her 2006 run for Governor so one would hope you would touch on some of the reasons for contraversy.

it involves running a natural gas pipeline through one of the worlds most active fault zones.

It runs to Albertas tar sands not the US Its designed to spend $40 billion dollars of taxpayer money to build oil and gas company infrastructure so they can develop a resource for which they will then charge the taxpayers inflated prices which kick back to Alaskan families thousands of dollars every year.

The oil and gas companies would use the natural gas to heat the oil tar and combine this with a large amount of Albertas potable water that presently supplies drinking water to many western states to create a dirty fossil fuel by burning a cleaner and cheaper fossil fuel so as to increase their bottom line. It benefits Alaskans beciase its construction pork for Alaska. Its environmental costs are huge and it brings no energy to the US.

Now Canada has the world’s second largest reserves of oil. Estimates are that our neighbor to the North is sitting on over 179 billion barrels of oil. Unfortunately for Canada and our planet, 95% of those reserves are embedded in the tar sands of Alberta. To pull oil out of those tar sands requires up to 4 barrels of fresh water per each barrel of oil and up to 1000 cubic feet of natural gas to heat the water and separate the oil from the tar sands. As thing stand today, pulling oil from tar sands requires about 0.6 billion cubic feet of gas per day. By 2015 the natural gas needs are projected to need 1.6 billion cubic feet of gas per day. By the time the Palin Pipeline comes online in 2017 the gas per day requirements are projected to be higher—and energy needs to pull oil out of the tar sands will only keep growing if our only energy policy is to always feed our oil addiction until the system collapses.

The environmental costs from tar sands oil extraction are high. Tar sands open pit mining and drilling are Canada’s fastest growing source of global warming emissions. Looking just at the production process, to produce a barrel of tar sands oil costs the climate three times the emissions as a barrel of conventional oil. For mining, up to four barrels of water are drained from the Athabasca River to produce one barrel of tar sands oil, resulting in tailings ponds of toxics that can be seen from space by the naked eye. Aboriginal communities downstream from the tar sands are concerned about high cancer rates.

Its a deal put together by Jack Abramov and Stephen Silver with McCain’s advisor Randy Scheunermann out of which we first get mention of Sarah Palin as a possible VP choice and McCain gets $160,000 in campaign contributions from the Trans canada the pipeline builder and oil sands developer. Its a deal that couldn't be done by an administration that cared about the environment so its sort of a now or never proposition.

If its in the article those concerns should be mentionedRktect (talk) 10:21, 10 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 the parent needs to set boundaries for their relatives."

It is the mother's responsibility to set boundaries for her relatives and insure 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 , for the children's best interests, it 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 thread 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

Controversial position on morality issues

Sarah Heath eloped with Todd Palin Aug 29, 1988. Her marriage was followed 7 months later by the birth of their first child, Track, in April 1989. Her daughter Bristol became pregnant at 17 and a baby is expected late 2008. Despite these family issues proving that abstinence-only is ineffective family planning and pregnancy prevention, Ms. Palin staunchly supports abstinence only sex education. Katwiki229 (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)katwiki229 sept 2008

Your point? Clearly some people do connect the dots in this way. But this article is supposed to chronicle her life, not be a judgment about it. Wikidemon (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Mayor Allows Wasilla Police to Bill Sexual Assault Victims for Their Own Rape Kits

thx --Moneybrother (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The first link does not mention her name. The second link does not work. And the report is biased. "In the past we've charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible" and it is being spun into a "victim must pay" story. It has no place in her bio. Gtstricky 14:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

the first link mention a date and a place. thats not enough? ok. --Moneybrother (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Readers may be interested in this from the Frontiersman. It does not mention Palin, but Police Chief Charlie Fannon was hired by her after she fired his predecessor. I also don't know whether Fannon was fired the day after this article was published or not, but that action certainly would have earned her points on my ledger.--Appraiser (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops; sorry I didn't realize it was the same link.--Appraiser (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this applies to Palin... She doesn't exactly have control over policy at the PD.... On the downside, looks like Wasilla PD was investigating about 16 rapes a year back in 2000... --Bobblehead 16:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin#Reception

This section seems overly positive and fluffy and seems to violate WP:NPV. Any suggestions on how to make it more neutral? I am not sure the section is even needed. Gtstricky 14:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I would not be too fussed if it were sixed. Ronnotel (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a notable reaction from Ed Koch. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The section is very much needed. Please also restore the time article cover that was there but deleted somehow. If you have some proposals that could be added to the section, bring them up here. Hobartimus (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

66.156.63.234 (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)At the least it should mention that she was the focus of major media attention for the first two weeks.

Apart from little known Ed Koch, Rudy Guiliani who is a much more known figure did infact made a notable reaction but others seemed to object to including individual people's reaction. Hobartimus (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the Time cover, and am leaving a note on User:Fasach Nua's talk page regarding his removal of the image. I think the reaction section is an important one, and if you see an area in which it needs to be defluffed, defluff away. But the public reaction to her candidacy has been notable, and biographical, and should be included as such.   user:j    (aka justen)   15:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The section needs expansion. I will tag as such. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It requires additional viewpoints for NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO this section will be a magnet for every bit of news trivia and commentary imaginable. The reaction section on the McCain campaign page is dreadful. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sofixit. Just because a particular section is prone to problems doesn't mean it should be deleted altogether. The public reaction to her selection is notable and has become biographical. Four years from now, whoever is in the White House, the public reaction to her candidacy will still be relevant. The section absolutely needs to be kept under control, but the first few days have had a clear focus: strong and sometimes unflattering media attention, an apparent bump in the polls for McCain due to her, and concerns over very limited media access.   user:j    (aka justen)   15:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I can not see this section ever being neutral. Lets face it, the Republicans love her, the Dems dislike her. We can find sources all over the place to prove those points but they are not needed in her bio. This section currently discusses the press bashing her, her affect on the polls, and her magazine covers. The last section on the magazines and interviews can be moved up to the 2008 Vice-presidential campaign section. The rest violates WP:NPV and should be removed.

There are distinct differences (positive and negative) between the reaction to her and what the reaction would have been if McCain had picked Romney or Ridge or Lieberman. We can usefully and neutrally point these out: general surprise, enthusiasm from the religious right, qualms in many quarters about her perceived inexperience, and the factor of her being a woman (help appeal to Clinton voters? an insult to those voters to think they'll vote for anyone with a uterus?). We could title it "Initial reaction" so that its focus is limited and it doesn't become a grab-bag for everything that's said about her during the campaign.

Right now the section is heavily POV in Palin's favor, giving such prominent positioning to "Some Republicans felt that Palin was being subjected to unreasonable media coverage...." That wasn't even the most prominent Republican reaction. Certainly our discussion of what was said about her in the media should precede any discussion of what was said about what was said. JamesMLane t c 22:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not fond of the section at all. Deep-six it if you like. I did just delete the sentece that said "Time's Palin cover was cited in an article about media bias". That was offensivelt POV to me. Read Time's "McCain's Bias Claim: Truth or Tactic?" if you wish to see how littel value that reference had. The line contained nothing of value, did manage to put "Time", "Palin, and "Media Bias" together in a short little sentence. Spiff1959 (talk) 05:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Remove it It was deleted before, for the same reasons, and it should be deleted again. The reasons; hopelessly POV (one way or the other or both), piling on of more and more opinions, recentism, WP:NOT#NEWS, attracting POV pushers, crystal ball gazing. The information on "general surprise, enthusiasm from the religious right, qualms in many quarters about her perceived inexperience, and the factor of her being a woman..." can be integrated into other parts of the article. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

First I wrote a long response but in short I don't see a valid rationale for the deletion of the section. Hobartimus (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Time Cover

As presently constructed the inclusion of the Time Magazine seems to fail the non-free content criteria. Specifically, point #8. As far as I can see showing her face on the cover of Time doesn't appear to add anything to the article that isn't already accomplished by the text saying she was on the cover of Time. Fair use images are expected to contribute in ways that exceed what the text accomplishes, and I simply don't see that here. We already know what she looks like, and we already stated that she was on a cover, so I'm not sure what additional encyclopedic value comes from showing the cover. Dragons flight (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it fails WP:FU ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The image helps illustrate, specifically, Time magazine's fairly unique reaction to Sarah Palin. Take a look at the back and forth between Time magazine and the McCain campaign. On the one hand, Time has been one of the most vocal media outlets criticizing the campaign (correctly, in my opinion) for the lack of media access to Palin. On the other hand, they slap her face on their cover. A few other newsmagazines have included her as well, but Time's is somewhat unique in criticizing her on the one hand and putting her on their cover on the other. We're not going to have paragraphs about the Time piece, but I think the critical commentary there now on the cover satisfies wp:nfcc.   user:j    (aka justen)   15:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Still disagree, nothing you've said depends on the look of the cover, merely the fact that it exists. The cover can't be included unless its appearance (and not merely its existence) is contributing to understanding the issue. Dragons flight (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in these matters but shouldn't alleging some sort of infringement or violation of criteria be debated at the image talk pages and not here? I mean if it really infringes on Time's copyright in some way then the image should be deleted right? I think there is no question that this image is appropriate for this or this type of article (infact it's unlikely that it'd ever be placed in any other article but ones related to Palin) so the only question is if the picture itself is allowed to stay on Misplaced Pages servers. Hobartimus (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

We can always ask the good folks at WP:FUR to give as a hand in determining fair use or not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree it fails WP:FU. I see no release on Time's website. I think it is more fitting and a better image to use then the airshow image, however it fails WP:FU #8. Gtstricky 15:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't need a release to use a fair use image if there's critical commentary on the notability of the cover, which there is.   user:j    (aka justen)   15:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You still need the cover to contribute to the article in a way the text doesn't. You haven't said what way you think it does that. Dragons flight (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that's subjective; I think the Carney quote combined with the image of the cover itself do contribute in a way text cannot. In any event, I've added the appropriate rationale to Image:Sarah_Palin_Time_cover.jpg.   user:j    (aka justen)   15:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

In WP:FU#Unacceptable use it states: "A magazine cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover does not have its own article, it may be appropriate." In what source is the cover discussed and therefor needed to to prove a point? If there was an article that said "Palin hair was a mess on the Time cover" I could see the need but the cover is not needed (or sourced) to prove a point. Gtstricky 16:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, one hardly needs to show the time cover to prove the point that she was on the cover. Nearly every important person gets on the cover of some magazines and if we go down that road every bio article would have a magazine cover picture. Moreover, the underlying material does not seem terribly relevant to the article. Of course she gets a lot of coverage given the circumstances. Perhaps a discussion of how the media treats her vice presidential candidacy belongs in a campaign article, or perhaps not. Wikidemon (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominated for WP:FUR at Misplaced Pages:Non-free_content_review#Image:Sarah_Palin_Time_cover.jpg. Dragons flight (talk) 16:15, 10 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 16:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages 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)

1999 Mayoral election

isn't "and was returned to office by a margin of 909 to 292 votes" a misuse of the word margin? shouldn't it be "by a vote of 909 to 292"? Rds865 (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Aye. so fix it :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've taken care of it. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama's remark about lipstick

I'm sure this will be brought up eventually. Thoughts? Hobartimus (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems ephemeral to me. See WP:Recentism. Although I agree it would be amusing to provide Misplaced Pages readers with an illustration. :)Ferrylodge (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama responded to it so I think the issue should be included. The question is where. It seems like a pretty minor point at this time so I don't think it deserves its own section. I also don't think it should go under the reception section in the VP Campaign section. Perhaps a new section should be created like "Criticism of Obama" or something like that.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd personally disagree. Seems like much more of a campaign issue then part of Palins bio. Particularly since if it's going to be represented NPOV you have to add Obama's claims that it was unrelated to Palin and was adressed to McCain's policies.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh God. Lipstickgate. I have to agree with Ferrylodge, which may be a first :) Can we give this a couple of days and pray that some issue of substance actually replaces it in the news cycle? If there an element of the McCain/Palin campaign message develops which aims to paint Obama as sexist, then perhaps this would warrant a brief mention there, but right now it's just today's talking point. Let's not run with it unless it gains more traction and becomes more encyclopedic and less newsy (per WP:Recentism and WP:NOT#NEWS). MastCell  17:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(EC)FYI I basically agree with this. I should have said If it belongs anywhere it belongs in the campaign not the bio. But if we write paragraphs on every barb-counter barb from now to November these articles are going to be uglier then they already are.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Agree (that's twice in 24 hours, Mast). No direct evidence he meant Palin. Seems like a pretty bonehead thing to say but I don't think it rises, yet, to notability for this article. Of course that may change if the story lingers and/or (unlikely) snowballs. Ronnotel (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It does seem more of a campaign issue. And of course, we'd also have to include Palin calling herself a dog with lipstick during the RNC speech as well. Aprock (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2)Move along, nothing to see here. We're trying to add information that is notable in the medium and long terms. This is not wikinews. This will be forgotten in a few days, and has no bearing here. Consider this: if you were publishing a biography on Palin, would this merit a mention? Oren0 (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Lipstick-gate seems to have a lot more to do with the election specifically than with the life of Sarah Palin. Not the kind of thing that seems to fit this particular article. Dragons flight (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama's actual words don't smear Palin, they're being twisted by the Republicans to make it look that way. It's just electioneering. Baseball Bugs 17:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of the Republicans (read: Jane Swift).Ferrylodge (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll let you in on a little secret. Both sides have been doing this and both sides will keep on doing it for two more months. And no, none of the back and forth belongs in an encyclopedia. --B (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? Shazam! Clearly we've come a long way since the clean, good old days, for example when some prominent Democrat said that Thomas Dewey looked like the little man on a wedding cake; or when TR, in 1912, said that Woodrow Wilson had a yellow streak down his back. Baseball Bugs 18:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget Grover Cleveland extramarital affair and paternity allegations. Hey, why is that a redlink? We need a content fork! :) MastCell  19:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No reason to include it. Besides if you did, then to be fair, you'd have to include in both the McCain and Hillary bios where McCain used the exact same quote ("lipstick on a pig") against Hillary. I agree it's ephemeral.GreekParadise (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Recentism, and irrelevance. It's a common metaphor used by McCain, Thompson, and others. Now, if he'd said "lipstick on a moose", we'd have more than one word in common.--Loodog (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The appropriate home for this information is United States presidential election, 2008. That's that the point of making two articles, so that not everything that's said during the campaign gets shoved into a bio. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this statement. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment to this article would be absurd. It will be forgotten ten days from now. This is an encyclopedia, not some source of childish "gotcha" journalism. --JHP (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Not needed It'll be a distant memory 3 days from now except for the extremist. There is more appropriate "sexist" comments we could use besides. And even then, I think that content, if it was to be included, should go under United_States_presidential_election,_2008. Maybe under a subartcile that deals with these issues in regards to both Palin and Hillary. Theosis4u (talk) 01:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You're discussing putting this in but you omitted the entire section (except for fly-by sentences) about her assault on the environment (mentioned in political points of view, which, as I have stated before, is not sufficient given the state she governs, the environment, the natural resources, etc)? Obama's comment had nothing to do with her. I suppose this answers my question about the environmental issue: it really sounds like this is becoming a very Republican friendly article, and not a very fact filled one as a result. Jolly momma (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS. This isn't relevant to her bio at all. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Time cover image, again...

It seems that the discussion of the fair use of the Time cover image is continuing here (at least for now): Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#Image:Sarah Palin Time cover.jpg.   user:j    (aka justen)   17:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks wikipedia for removing the Religion Section

Its not in Obama's article, therefore it doesn't belong here either. You did the right thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.2.202 (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It didnt go anywhere. Grsz 02:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Note

I've nominated Talk:Sarah Palin/Draft article for a deletion discussion. Since this page is again semi-protected, the point of having a semi-protected draft article is rather limited, and no active discussions on this page are making use of it. GRBerry 21:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Mayor of Wasilla allows Sexual Assault Victims to be Charged for own Examinations.

During the time Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla she supported charging sexual assault victims for their own forensic examinations. In 2000, Democratic Governor Tony Knowles signed House Bill 270, sponsored by Eric Croft, D-Anchorage, preventing victims from being charged for their own "rape kits". At the time, most municipalities were absorbing the cost, however, Mayor Palin appointed Police Chief Charlie Fannon, had complained that the new law would further burdon the city. The previous police chief, Irl Stambaugh was alleged fired for political differences with the Mayor. Marisolgold (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)MarisolGold

Already discussed above. DCEdwards 21:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin Attention - Please resolve issue with Mayoralty of Sarah Palin and Governorship of Sarah Palin

I can't find references for these subarticles being approved by consensus and there are threads on this showing consensus isn't given yet. So, why are they still allowed? Theosis4u (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are what still allowed? The references, or the articles themselves? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The references of being a subartilce and the articles. I believe all the other references did go through a consensus process . Theosis4u (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

See , Talk:Sarah_Palin#Mayoralty_of_Sarah_Palin , Talk:Sarah_Palin#Mayoralty_of_Sarah_Palin , Talk:Mayoralty_of_Sarah_Palin

I can't find any references to the Governorship of Sarah Palin page consensus at all.

Theosis4u (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can create any article they want. If you'd like to discuss possible deletion of the Mayoral sub-article go here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mayoralty of Sarah Palin--Paul (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Made this then : Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Governorship of Sarah_Palin

This addresses the issue of the articles themselves, not their subartilce links from the main Palin page without consensus (if we are still trying for that). Theosis4u (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that the guideline on daughter articles makes it clear that the information in the main article should be a summary. That's clearly not the case here: Sarah Palin#Mayor of Wasilla is not a summary of Mayoralty of Sarah Palin is very similar to , and Sarah Palin#Governor of Alaska is not a summary of Governorship of Sarah Palin.

And, at the risk of stating the obvious: have very similar, detailed content in two places is absolutely wrong because (among other things) it requires updating two different articles when information changes, it means that content discussions need to take place on two different talk pages, and (worst of all) readers directed to the (slightly) longer "daughter" articles are not going to be interested in reading through them just to figure out what they have already read (in the main article) and what is additional content.

So: let's decide whether we want separate articles (if so, then shorten information in the main article) or not (if not, then delete the daughter articles): Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Governorship of Sarah_Palin, and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mayoralty of Sarah Palin. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey I agree...it is better to have sub aritcles and keep the main page short..plus there is too much control on the main page..I mean a locked page defeats the purpose of the wiki... Probably why all the sub pages started up. It allows more input from people who like to wiki. After all it does take a tremondous amount of time and research. Look how much the sub page Mayoralty of Sarah Palin has improved over the main page article. It is clearer , easier to read, and easier to access the references. Possibly that is why there is so much opposition to it and the fact it is now open to all editors. --207.232.97.13 (talk) 03:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Fred

For the very reasons you state it shows it to be a bad idea. If that is the motive behind the pages then their content will get out of sync with the data as represented on the other consensus based pages. If this resolves to keep those pages...then the talk activities on this page need to go back and re-sync the contents of them. As to minimize any disjointed impressions to the reader. Just an opinion I'm expressing here. My only intent is to get content between all pages to have a consistent flow to the depth of details.

The following is also true for the mayoral page as well. Topics being equally represented in lengths - though content and sourcing is different.

The main topics presented in Governorship_of_Sarah_Palin are the following

Energy & Environment , is already covered in Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Energy_and_environment , Sarah_Palin

Budget , is already covered in Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Government_Spending , Sarah_Palin

Matanuska Maid Dairy, ISN'T covered in Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Government_Spending but could be.

Bridge to Nowhere, covered in Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#.22Bridge_to_Nowhere.22 , Sarah_Palin, and Gravina_Island_Bridge

Earmarks, covered in Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Earmarks, Sarah_Palin

Public Safety Commissioner dismissal, covered in Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal , Sarah_Palin

Theosis4u (talk) 04:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This main page article is by far too cumbersome . I find wading through this page very tiring...and much prefer the sub pages. They are more reader friendly. They also allow the wiki to function as a wiki where everyone can edit, and particpate and they have been doing fine. New information is being added daily.

On this main page it appears the spin doctors are trying to manipulate the content, hence the need for gatekeepers, and to me shows the reason for a topic heading being opened under the title "Three Palin-related content forks need watching ". It clearly shows to me the need of some editors to restrict the flow of information. An ongoing complaint on this board if you read the comments. --207.232.97.13 (talk) 04:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Fred

Again, one of my points is that the content is becoming disjointed across the pages and usually involves 90% of the content from a page that did go through and still is a consensus process. Much of the diff's are items that were rejected by the consensus process. And if you followed this page since the announcement about Palin - you'll recognize most of these at one time on the pages, fought to be kept on the page, and so forth. Do what thou wilt , though. Theosis4u (talk) 05:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, content is becoming disjointed - I find this statement pretty scary: Topics being equally represented in lengths - though content and sourcing is different. Lots of duplicate work, twice the number of fights. This is not the first time that Misplaced Pages has had to deal with this issue: We have a guideline: Misplaced Pages:Summary style, for how to spin off daughter articles. What we don't need and don't want is this massive duplication - either we need to kill the daughter articles, or we need to shorten the main article by only have summaries - three or four paragraphs at most - related to each daughter article. (And yes, I know it's hard to right a neutral, accurate, comprehensive four paragraph summary, but that's no justification for having both daughter articles and long, long sections that duplicate most of the content in those daughter articles. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This bio article certainly shouldn't repeat all the detail in the daughter articles. As John McCain and Barack Obama are, we should strive to make this a high-quality article, summarizing the major sections, and directing readers to daughter articles about each of the major topics. It is there that details and nuances can be wikified and worked out through consensus. One can tell, just by reading this Talk page, that this article has had too many contentious details. Once this article gets down to a respectable biographical summary, its quality can be enhanced and this Talk page will have a more reasonable volume of consensus-building. If the deletionists are successful in killing the daughters, we'll never get there.--Appraiser (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The First Post and The National Enquirer on Palin

They are both established news sources so their articles on Palin can be cited. Here is the one from The First Post.--Sum (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "established". The National Enquirer is not a reliable source as Misplaced Pages defines the term, and it's certainly not a suitable source for use in a biographical article. Somewhat more reputable sources, like the Post, which are skeptically rehashing Enquirer stories are no more suitable. Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid. MastCell  23:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The Corriere della Sera, the newspaper that sells the most in Italy, covers the news along with other details on Palin's familiar life: . --Sum (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't read Italian, but I can read that this is a reprint of the Enquirer story. As Mast noted, this is not a tabloid. Arzel (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"Established" does not equal reliable and encyclopedic. –Juliancolton 00:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The Enquirer may not be a RS, but if cited in other sources and if notable for that reason, the other sources can be used. For example "Newsweek and other media outlets described The Enquirer's blah blah bah, which was rebutted strongly by blah blah blah and threatened with a lawsuit for libel." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we put possibly libelous material in a BLP??--Paul (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

A story like this would have to pass a pretty high threshold before it could get into this article:

1. It must be reported by multiple, independent reliable sources.
2. It must be germane to the article in some tangible way (a mere allegation of an affair, even if widely reported, would still not be relevant enough to Palin's bio to outweigh the due care we must show to the subject of a BLP)
3. It must impact, or be perceived to impact her career in a lasting way (in this case, I hardly think there would be much interest in repeating these rumors were Palin not the VP candidate)

So far, none of these criteria are even close to being met. Ronnotel (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

@Paul h. Absolutely not, that was not my point. Read again. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi's comment is in congruence with WP:BLP's discussion of when Misplaced Pages should include media discussion of a rumor of a politician having an affair. Some seek to set too high a bar. like forensic examination of the bedsheets, rather than a rumor spreading from the blogosphere to reliable sources as WP:BLP demands. I personally like to see a reporter ask the politician about it and they deny it. A politician having an affair is, in the post-Clinton era, quite germane to an article about the politician. Edison (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say it is less germane since Bill Clinton. He has made it a non-issue. Much different climate now then when say Gary Hart was caught with his pants down, so to speak. Not sure if your analogy is a good one here, as IMO if the situation is analogous to an affair of a politician, it's a non-issue.Die4Dixie (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Pardon my extreme skepticism. Arjuna (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say to create the Sarah Palin personal life article, espanding from the current section, and quote there what just the reliable sources report, carefully attributing everything.--Sum (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oil Companies say Palins Taxes put Pipelines in Jeopardy

I think that there are some very interesting points made here, that need paraphrasing , but would make good wiki to include in the article.

The source is Times Business so I believe it is fairly reliable and meets Wiki Standards: Reference:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4728307.ece

"However, energy experts say that in challenging BP, Conoco Philips and Exxon Mobil Mrs Palin may have gone too far, driving billions of dollars out of Alaska and jeopardising the goal of energy independence." The taxes introduced by Mrs Palin had led them to shelve two multimillion-dollar projects and cancel plans to explore new drilling areas. “Palin’s taxes were popular. But economically they didn’t make sense. She has behaved like the worst Democrats.”

Mrs Palin has raised taxes on oil profits and given $1,200 rebates to consumers – an idea John McCain has opposed at federal level. She has given $500 million to a Canadian company to build a gas pipeline that the main holders of the state’s gas reserves boycotted. And she has become embroiled in a legal battle over rights to one of the state’s richest gas deposits.

--207.232.97.13 (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)fred

CNN aired the two Tax Plans MCCain and Obama side by side and showed the differences

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/index.htm

since she is running for McCain should this be added to her article, I would Suggest it for Obamas and Also for MCCains.

--207.232.97.13 (talk) 04:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Fred

No, it has nothing to do with her biography. Grsz 13:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact, it has nothing to do with her, just as Obama's tax plan has nothing to do with Joe Biden. It's McCain's plan; Palin wasn't even selected as the nominee at the point where it was published/publicized. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Earmark return

I know the entire Bridges section is being discussed elsewhere but I want to focus on one statement: "Alaska did not return the $454.4 million in the original earmark to the federal government". The dollar amount is not supported by the cited source which says "$223 million". I am guessing that someone has done some OR and added some numbers here. Also, the cited source says specifically, "...Alaska was still granted an equivalent amount of transportation money to be used at its own discretion." The statement made in the WP article seems to come from a statement made by Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein (Democrat), and Mike Elerding (was Palin's campaign coordinator) and is not a statement made directly by the cited source. The sentence in the WP article is very misleading and needs to more accurately reflect the sources. WTucker (talk) 04:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

so fix it..., please. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fixing the sources now. The $223 refers to just one of the two bridges. The 442-454.4 number represents both bridges. This was all perfectly sourced but then folks messed with the text without checking the sources. :-( GreekParadise (talk) 06:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

All sources fixed (and it's 3:30 am and I'm tired!). Let me know if you still have a problem. I made it easier to follow by putting each source in this section directly after the text that it references.GreekParadise (talk) 07:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"Respectfully" or "respectively"?

"In the general election, she defeated Democratic nominee Tony Knowles, 48% to 41%, respectfully."

The word is "respectively," not "respectfully." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.51.55 (talk) 07:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither word needs to be there. The fact that she won indicates that 48% is her, "respectively" is redundant. Good catch, fixed. Oren0 (talk) 07:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Red links in infobox - ethics supervisors in conservation commission

The infobox includes Palin's position as "ethics supervisor" in the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Predecessor Camille Oechsli Taylor and successor John K. Norman are currently redlinked, so how notable was Palin's position? Relevant enough to be included in her infobox? Notably, Palin's position as ethics supervisor is not further elaborated in the article. --Hapsala (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It isn't relevant enough to be included, in my opinion. She was chair of the commission, and happened to also be designated as the ethics supervisor of the commission. One article I read said that she was frustrated because that position gave her no leverage in dealing with the other two commissioners. I think this is something like being designated the person to review EEO complaints, or the person designated to review whistleblower complaints; it's a very secondary role.

I've removed this from the lead section; as noted in my edit summary, WP:LEAD doesn't support adding very minor facts to lead sections. As far as I know, there has never been an article solely about such a role on the Commission, probably because there are relatively few ethics complaints in any given year. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

What about the conservation commission? Is it notable enough to be included in the infobox, as no more elaboration is made in the article? --Hapsala (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Religion - born again

An editor just removed the statement that Palin is a "devout born-again Christian" with a reason given that the term is pejorative and redundant with converting from Catholicism to Pentecostalism. I don't know whether she is or is not born again - but I'd just like to point out that there is nothing pejorative about being born again, being Pentecostal, or whatever. It's perfectly respectable, and if people have an issue with it, that's their deal. Also, does joining a Pentecostal church mean you have to be born again? The article doesn't talk about conversion, it just says she joined a church. They probably welcome people in all stages. The sources seem to be murky. I guess we ought to simply report her religious leanings without judgment, to the extent she has revealed them and they are important to understanding her life and career. And if the sources are unclear or she prefers to keep that quiet we can say that. Some sources say she is "post-denominational", which presumably means she chooses her churches for personal spiritual reasons rather than loyalty to a particular organization. Wikidemon (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the edit. The word "devout" has some interesting implications editing-wise. Is that sourced, uncontroversial, and relevant? Wikidemon (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I removed it on that basis. I don't mean to pose it negatively. I was not suggesting there is anything wrong with born-again Christians. My point is not that everyone views the term negatively. However, there are certainly some significant number of people who view that term negatively. It is like a litmus test, and one group of people would view her in a more positive light, and another group of people in a more negative light. As such, it is probably not best for the article. Also, as I said, the article already explains her origins as a Catholic, conversion to Pentacolstalism, and then rejection of pentacostalism in favor of non-denominationalism. So it seems her religious history is well covered. I don't think adding the term "born-again" adds to that in any meaningful way. (That is, the point that user:Wikidemon brought up. Is it relevant, uncontroversial and sourced? I don't think it is any of those three. Atom (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I also removed the material about her contacting her pastor for spirtual advice after joining the rep ticket since that is not waht the citation says. Thank you. --Tom 15:37, 11 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's part?Jolly momma (talk) 16:03, 11 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 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." 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)

32 years as a Pentecostal

It is sourced; it is factually accurate; it is notable. Please do not delete factual, notable and well sourced information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No need to be uncivil. It may be factual, but that does not mean that it needs to be in the article. So, how is the number of years (versus the currently stated history, that includes the years) necessary to the clarity of that section? Atom (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, on this. John McCain's article also mentions his own conversion to Baptism, so this seems not a big deal to include. rootology (C)(T) 16:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jossi, sorry but I reverted before posting in here. The dates given in the article makes it appear that she was there for closer to 34 years? Can you please post a link to the citation that says she attended that church for 32 years. I read the citations in the article but didn't see that fact, maybe I missed it. Thank you, --Tom 16:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The sources provided have the number of years and I do not see why is being kept deleted. It is factual, and it is undisputed, so what's the deal? Why should the length in years a person worshiped in a church be "uncivil"? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems that people keep deleting or shifting the sources around. I have changed as per Newsweek reporting, page 15 issue Sept 15, 2008: "Palin was raised a devout Christian, attending an Assembly of God church from the age of 4 until the age of 38." Hope that settles this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jossi. --Tom 19:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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, Misplaced Pages, 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)

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)

High Approval Ratings

This section was removed along with this information:

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

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

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

Rapegate -- a sensitive topic that could cost her the election -- how should it be mentioned here?

Today brings a new scandal--Rapegate. Basically, as Mayor of Wasilla, the town was the only city in Alaska that made rape victims pay for their own rape exams, which led the state legislature to pass a bill outlawing the practice which was signed into law by the former governor. Obviously, such an important scandal will need to be mentioned somewhere in this Misplaced Pages entry as the news begins to circulate and as it becomes widely-known public knowledge. Here is a link to one of the references, Critics: Under Palin, Wasilla charge rape victims for exam. If anyone can come up with more links to articles about it or some sort of a cite of Palin saying something to the effect that she thinks women bring rape upon themselves (perhaps by dressing provocatively or by encouraging men by talking to them and being friendly or inviting them on dates) please post it here.

1. Leonard Doyle. "Palin 'hid her pregnancy from aides'". New Zealand Herald. Retrieved 2008-09-09.
2. ^ Jodi Kantor. "Fusing Politics and Motherhood in a New Way". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-09-09.
3. The Anchorage Daily News, January 20th, 2008
4. Washington Post Palin Per Diem, Travel Expenses Scrutinized September 9, 2008.
5. http://www.knikbridgefacts.org/invrpt07.pdf, Page 2
6. "'Bridge to nowhere' abandoned". CNN. 2007-09-22. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
7. Cite error: The named reference Tumble was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
8. http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/politics2944951
9. Dilanian, Ken (2008-08-31). "Palin backed 'bridge to nowhere' in 2006". Gannett News Service. Retrieved 2008-09-08.
10. ^ Tom Kizzia (2008-08-31). "Palin touts stance on 'Bridge to Nowhere,' doesn't note flip-flop". Anchorage Daily News. Retrieved 2008-09-08.
11. "Palin's maverick trail goes from city hall to gov's mansion". CNN. 2008-09-02. Retrieved 2008-09-02.
12. State of Alaska (2007-09-21) Governor's office press release.
13. Rosen, Yereth (2008-09-01). "Palin "bridge to nowhere" line angers many Alaskans". Reuters. Reuters. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
14. http://www.observer.com/2008/politics/fairy-tale-palin-reformer
15. "Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Alaska Governor Sarah Palin". 2008 Republican National Convention. 2008-09-03. Retrieved 2008-09-08.
16. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/09/palin_defends_bridge_to_nowher.html
17. Romano, Andrew (2008-09-08). "The Politics of the 'Bridge to Nowhere'". Stumper. Newsweek. Retrieved 2008=09-08. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
18. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122090791901411709.html?mod=loomia&loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r4:c0.0766691
19. Fact Check: Palin and the Bridge to Nowhere. Published by the Associated Press, 8 September 2008; accessed 10 September 2008.
20. Account of a Bridge’s Death Slightly Exaggerated, by David D. Kirkpatrick and Larry Rohter. Published in the New York Times on 31 August 2008; accessed 10 September 2008.
21. "An Apostle of Alaska". Newsweek. 2008-09-06. Retrieved 2008-09-08.
22. As Campaign Heats Up, Untruths Can Become Facts Before They're Undone, by Jonathan Weisman. Published in The Washington Post on 10 September 2008; accessed 10 September 2008.
23. ^ Cite error: The named reference wall was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
24. Cite error: The named reference Sean was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
25. http://marriage.about.com/od/politics/p/sarahpalin.htm

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• High-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Low-importance
• Unassessed United States presidential elections articles
• Unknown-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class Alaska articles
• High-importance Alaska articles
• WikiProject Alaska articles
• B-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Idaho articles
• Unknown-importance Idaho articles
• WikiProject Idaho articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press