Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:27, 1 October 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.

Sarah Palin was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 25, 2008). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

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. Andrew Sullivan (2008-09-15). "The Odd Lies Of Sarah Palin II: The Bridge To Nowhere". The New Statesman. Stephanie Condon (2008-09-17). "Sarah Palin winning the Misplaced Pages popularity contest". The Atlantic. Farhad Manjoo (2008-09-22). "Why Google's online encyclopedia will never be as good as Misplaced Pages". Slate.

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.

"She was always good looking but never vain...."

....are we serious here? Is she running for VP of the United States or trying to become VP of a high school? And not that it matters in the real world, but when you enter a pageant you are indeed vain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.27.11 (talk) 04:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Please confine comments to discussion of the article. This is not a blog. Edison (talk) 05:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

abstinence only education?

"Abstinence only" failed in her own case & in that of her daughter. Really? Did either she or her daughter have "abstinence only" education? Maybe if they had had it, it would have stuck. The debate over the effectiveness of such education will go on, but the fact that it didn't have its touted effect on someone who didn't have it is hardly an argument against it! -- Zsero (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL she told her daughter not to root around, even if her daughter had/did not know condoms exist. Obviously her daughter was not abstinant, and she had been told to do this!--203.192.91.4 (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course Palin & her daughter had "abstinence only" education! It's the only kind of "sex education" Pentecostals allow... 96.231.165.216 (talk) 03:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the issue is not Palin but the child. There is no reason why you should need to know the exact birthdate / birthday. Hobartimus (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to respond to BenAveling. No, we are not all in agreement that almost certainly conceived prior to marriage. Did you miss the part about 1/3 of the births being premature. Unless you or others have specific knowledge about when these two were having sex or about the birth details, drop it. --Tom 20:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

One third of births are premature? Your source for this statistic being? You don't mean "pentecostals who practiced 'adstinence-only sex education' report that one third of their first births are premature?" Geo Swan (talk) 10:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Medically, "premature birth" refers to "under 37 weeks" -- 34 weeks is "3 weeks premature" by that standard. http://en.wiktionary.org/premature_birth . Collect (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Even the McCain campaign has acknowledged the discrepancy 1. There can be no real doubt. 140.139.35.250 (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Should Palin announce that her first son was conceived prior to marriage, it will then become biographical. At this point, considering it's not certain, it's sole intent here is to embarrass the subject of the article potentially very unfairly. I strongly vote it has no place in the article (beyond the obvious privacy concerns of identifying birthdates). Fcreid (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to think that Track was just prem. But I gotta admit, the 1/3 prem claim probably doesn't apply here. According to Premature_Babies, 1 baby in 8 is >3 weeks prem. Track, as I understand it, arrived 33½ weeks after the wedding. So that would be 6½ weeks. There's a chance of a baby being that prem, but it's small. And it's certainly enough time to miss a period and arrange a quick wedding. But, arguing about whether she walks the walk isn't important. She made a mistake. Ideally, nobody would care what she does in her private life. It's what she would do as VP or as President that matters. She knows that abstinence only education leads to pregnancy, statistics show it - her own experience is just one datapoint. And she still supports it. She believes that abstinence only education has benefits that outweigh the costs. And that's what we should be saying. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

She knows that abstinence only education leads to pregnancy, statistics show it - her own experience is just one datapoint. How is her experience a data point? Did she have abstinence only education? -- Zsero (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"But, arguing about whether she walks the walk isn't important. She made a mistake" So people knowing somthing doesnt work then keep pretending it does is a good thing? Did not work for her, did not work for her daughter! Think she would have worked it out by now.--203.192.91.4 (talk) 00:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ben, your figure is incorrect for firstborn children who has a much higher incidence of prematurity. Fcreid (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you consider that perhaps firstborn children have a higher incidence of prematurity due to marriages which occurred when the bride missed a period? Edison (talk) 05:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

She made a mistake? I love holier than thou people. geesh --Tom 23:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Leave it out! If any reader is interested, they will do their own math. Misplaced Pages is not the only source for information, but it can be the most reliable.--Buster7 (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

@Fcreid: We work with what we have. I'm sure there are actuarial tables around, but here's a simple rule of thumb. If 3 weeks early means 1 in 8, then 2 * 3 weeks is probably going to be something like 1 in 64. It's possible, but it's low. Throw in an elopment as well. At 6 weeks prem, Track would probably have been fine, but he wouldn't have left the hospital quickly. And as pointed out above, at less than 4 weeks prem, it would have been unlikely for them to realise, but at 6+ weeks, quite possible. Sadly, nothing else really adds up. But don't make too much out of it: Does this fact alone suddenly make her a bad person? No. Happens to lots of people, and plenty of them respond in worse ways than getting married and staying married. Does it make her a hypocrite? Not in my opinon. See my response to Tom below. Other people might feel differently, at least if they are trying to make her look bad.

@Tom: Yes, she made a mistake. And are you accusing me or her of being holier than thou? Either way, yes, she made a mistake, and it led to her getting pregnant and married. Probably two things she wanted to do sometime, but I suspect not quite as quickly as she did. Not that any of us know for sure, but the evidence is that she made a mistake, and I don't see it as hypocritical of anyone to say "don't do what I did". "Don't do what I do" is hypocrticial. Yes, "Don't make the mistake I made" would be better, more honest, braver, etc, but I'm not sure how many of the rest of us would be tough enough to carry that line through what she has to go through.

@Buster7: I'm not suggesting that we say anything more than what we know. We know they got married, 7 1/2 months ahead of the birth of their first child. And that's all we can say, and that's what we should say. It's not OR. To say anything more than that would be OR, so we don't have to say more than that. But I can't see any reason to say less than that either, and I've been trying, and I can't see any reason to leave the matter out entirely. About the only reason I can see to leave it out is censorship. Nobody forced her to bring her kids on stage; she herself has made them part of the narative, and so - I'm open to suggestions here - but I can't find any decent excuse for us not to tell the whole storys

Regards, Ben Aveling 11:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i am saying you are being holier than thou because you keep on insisting she made a mistake without any proof of such. Unless you know on what dates she was having sex, then you are being judgemental. Do you know when she first had sex with Todd? Yes or no question, no blathering. --Tom 13:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC) ps, you wrote but the evidence is that she made a mistake do you have 5 x 8 color glossies of her having sex that are time stamped? What is this "evidence" that allows you to be so judgemental? --Tom 13:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Posting the dates serves only one purpose, and that is to insinuate (in the absence of any absolute proof) that she was pregnant at marriage, and some of the ones pushing for it have made it clear that that's precisely why they want it. She recently gave birth to a preemie, so it's possible the first one was also a preemie. Likely? Maybe not. But posting the dates is inappropriate. Now, IF she owns up to it, or IF some solid proof emerges, that would be different. But 7 1/2 months is insufficient "proof", it's only inference and doesn't belong. Baseball Bugs 11:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Tom, it's possible that Track was prem, but it's not plausible. 7 1/2 months. Quickie wedding. And every opportunity in the world to just say that he was prem. As for the holier than thou, no, I'm no holier than any one else on this one. By Palin's mistake, I mean becoming pregnant. I don't know what information she had at age 24, but as a potential VP/P her own views and experience on sex education matter. Sex before marriage is an individual choice for each person and couple to make on their own. In my opinion, it should be an informed choice. Whether it is an informed choice isn't up to me or you, or even the VP/P alone. But they have a lot more input into it than most. This is verifiable, it's important, it's relevant. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, her "mistake" was becoming pregnant? Again, that is your opinion and judgement.--Tom 14:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)ps, again, you keep talking about sex before marriage. Do you have ANY evidence of this? Color glossies with time stamp work the best. --Tom 14:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Concur, Bugs. Ben, I'm certainly not questioning your motivation, but rather the encyclopedic value of this fact unless it's presented in an awkward and "clinical" fashion. In other words, if you listed every child's birth date (and, possibly, the gestation period for each), that would seem encyclopedic (albeit quite invasive). In contrast, a comment like "they eloped... and Trig was born 8 months later" is clearly an insinuation. Yes, facts are stubborn. In addition to those discussed above, we are also ignoring the fact that Palin was 24-years old when she married (and not 17!) That simple fact, and others we do not know such as whether she was living with her parents, would lead to even stranger conclusions. Again, I see no value for the detail in the article except for salacious and possible incorrect conclusion. Fcreid (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur that insinuations without precise facts should be excluded. However I feel trying to turn this into an abstinance only issue is totally missing the point of that campaign. Abstinance only is presented as the best way to control the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Personally I feel that people should not have sex unless married. However, For the arguments against abstinance only to have any meaning here you would have to demonstrate either that one of these people had had sex with another person creating a potential spread of zexually transmitted diseases, or that the father of an unborn child had abandoned the mother instead of going through with standing as the father. Lastly your attacks on abstinance education ignore the psychological costs of free roaming sex and ignore the fact that condoms and not impermiable. It also ignores the fact that any genital contact will spread the HPV.Johnpacklambert (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding claims about "premature birth": By definition previously cited, it applies to before 37 weeks. Thus the child was ~3 weeks premature. Which is quite common for first time mothers of any age. I trust this obviates the statistical misinformation which might otherwise be attached to the discussion. Collect (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Not at 99% certain. Not even at 100% certain.

Seems like we had this debate several weeks ago, and you indicate the important point yet again - that you can't necessarily draw conclusions from 7 1/2 months. If it were 4 or 5 months, there would be no question. But this is just ambiguous enough that it's a POV push to use it. Baseball Bugs 12:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would you include it at 4 or 5 months, but not at 7 1/2 months? Regards, Ben Aveling 13:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't, necessarily. All I'm saying is that 4 or 5 months would be sufficient to demonstrate that the child was conceived out of wedlock. 7 1/2 months isn't, but the POV-pushers want to suggest to the reader that it is. But it isn't. 4 or 5 months would be. That doesn't mean it belongs in the article. But at least it would be solid proof. 7 1/2 months isn't. Did I say that already? Baseball Bugs 13:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

And maybe I'm not being clear enough on the larger point. Posting the dates amounts to analysis or drawing (or trying to get the reader to draw) conclusions. That is a violation of the wikipedia philosophy. Now, if you can find a reliable source (and the Enquirer emphatically does not count) that discusses this issue, then you might have something, or at least something worth talking about here. But it is not wikipedia's place to draw that inference unilaterally. Baseball Bugs 13:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the editors said the dates were available in connection with the Hannity & Colmes TV show. So the question is, did they debate the matter? What conclusions did they reach, if any? Because now you're looking at verifiable citations, instead of wikipedians trying to decide what significance 7 1/2 months has, if any. What did they have to say about it? Baseball Bugs 13:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Dunno. I don't watch the news. It clouds my judgment. :) Fcreid (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I hear ya. But don't confuse H&C with "the news". :) Baseball Bugs 14:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, you were saying that you don't want it included if it was 99% likely, now you don't even want it included if it were 100% certain. Mind if I ask why not? Which specific WP policy are concerned about? Regards, Ben Aveling 20:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ben, I think it's simply a matter of decorum, particularly given that there is a fair possibility that it's an erroneous assumption on anyone's part. I just don't see how it could be included here in an encyclopedic manner without insinuation. More importantly, and as this relates to the talk topic you chose about abstinence, is it really your contention that Palin didn't understand where babies come from at 24? Fcreid (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I just read the article, and it indicates she supports pro-abstinence sex education but also the discussion of contraception (in deference to the blinding reality that kids screw around!) I may be showing my age, but what's missing from that curriculum, e.g. are there alternatives missing from that program that you feel should be included? Furthermore, I an much more incredulous that a woman of her obvious attraction "abstained" for 24 years, or I truly want to shake Todd's hand for being the most patient man I'll ever meet! Whatever the case, it's none of our business. Fcreid (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Palin has apparently voiced support for sex ed which includes discussion of contraception (interestingly, this puts her at odds with both John McCain and the official Republican Party platform, which support abstinence-only education). If you want a policy basis for leaving out the date of birth, WP:BLP suggests that we use only the year (if that) for non-public individuals, which would include all of Palin's children. If you want a common-sense basis... come on, people. There's a multilayered economic disaster unfolding, a few wars, a resurgent Russia, climate change, dependence on foreign oil, a critical number of people without health insurance. It's 2008. Who cares whether her first child was born less than exactly 9 months after her wedding day? Can't we all go back to fighting about the Bridge to Nowhere, at least? MastCell  18:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well stated! That was much easier just to ignore!  :) Fcreid (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

We're not creating the speculation. It already exists. We're just choosing whether or not we self-censor information that is relevant to it. I'm not aware any policy citing decorum as a reason not to include information. As per BLP this alegation is "notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources". Regards, Ben Aveling 07:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't 1910, Ben. If their oldest child was conceived prior to Nuptuals, he is no different than millions of 21st Century Americans. Plus, let's have some regard for his , how should I say it, "legitimacy". IMHO--His parents sexual activities (and when they took place)(and what resulted from them) are private.--Buster7 (talk) 08:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages doesn't censor itself because a public figure might be embarrassed. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

However:

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

Have you no shame?--Paul (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Have I read that bit? I wrote it: . You're right that we need to be balanced. Would this fact, and it is a fact, be appropriate for an article about a random person? No, of course not. Not even for a random politician. But this isn't a random politician, this is a vice-presidential candidate who is running on a values platform. That makes her own adherence to those values relevant. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Point me to that platform again, Ben? Oh, and by your tone, you did find evidence she engaged in premarital intercourse? Do you have anything to present for peer review? 23:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcreid (talk • contribs)

Political positions of Sarah Palin more or less covers her platform. To summarise: She has said she is pro-contraception and that she opposes sex education. She wants abstinence taught instead of contraception. She also wants contraception taught. She has knocked back bills that restrict abortions while claiming that she supported the bills. She has said that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. She has described Abortion as an option. If some of these positions seems contradictory, they are statements she has made over a period of time and sometimes under pressure. She may have misspoken and people's positions do change over time, but until she clarifies herself, this is what we have. In short, she's consistently in favour of abstinence and if she has a consistent position on sex education, I can't work out what it is, but whatever it is, she's 100% behind it. To touch on your second point, it is not certain that she engaged in pre-marital sex, but it is the only plausible explanation, and she's never denied it. If you like, it is certain that it is highly probable that she did, and it is certain that it is highly unlikely that she didn't. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(Over here) It boils down to a simple proposal, Ben: You're asking us to embarrass Palin, her husband and her son in the article to make a completely inconsequential and tangential point on your narrow interpretation of her moral platform (in which others, myself included, do not join you in your interpretation). Worse yet, there is a distinct possibility you're wrong (and statistically you've overstated the odds supporting your supposition). Finally, as it relates to the *specific* moral position relevant to premarital sex--Sex Education--we both acknowledge her approach of promoting abstinence, while also discussing contraception, is utterly sound and sensible. You're certainly welcome to bring the point up for consensus, but I can't lend my support to something this picayune yet so much lacking decorum on our community's behalf. Fcreid (talk) 10:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

1. We have no clear evidence that the Palins did have sex before they were married. 2. Even if they did, standard good-old-fashioned small-town American Family Values ™ are that marriage before a baby is born retroactively legitimates all the sex that preceded it, and nothing more is said about it. That's the way it's been for at least 150 years, and probably centuries longer. Note, for instance, the six months between Obama's parents' marriage and his birth; had they remained together this discrepancy would have been regarded as unremarkable. 3. Conclusion: there's nothing at all to see here. -- Zsero (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There is clear evidence that it is far and away the most likely scenario. Better than 99% likely. Closer to 100%. And if it's no big deal, lets just mention it and move on. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Better yet. Let's not mention surmise and conjecture. Move on. Collect (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Rape Kit Controversy?

Mary Pemberton of the Associated Press reports in a story headlined "Palin's town billed rape victims to get evidence"

(cut-and-paste of article redacted)

According to Alaska officials, Palin did not inherit the policy and the previous police chief allocated funds for rape kits in his budget.

Her new chief, Charley Fannon reduced and then eliminated the fund in 1999, putting the burden on the victims. It was this action that inspired the state legislature to step in and require municipalities to pay for the kits. The fund reduction, reflecting the change in policy, is detailed in the 1999 budget which was signed by Palon.

So, yes, it was her policy, implemented by her staff in 1999 with her knowledge. The documents are available on line from the wasilla mayors office.

Okay. What do you want us to do about it? Include it? This was talked about before here, here, and here. Overall people seemed to think it was adequately covered in another article and was not significant/relevant enough about her to be worth describing here.Wikidemon (talk) 08:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Some people thought that. Some people thought the opposite. Some people thought that more information would probably emerge that would make the dispute easier to resolve. My personal opinion is that the information now available merits inclusion, notably because Palin's spokesperson expressly declined to answer some key questions from USA Today. The suppression of this information is another instance of pro-Palin bias, but I'm willing to wait a bit longer and see if the MSM do some actual digging and come up with answers to the questions that editors raised in the talk-page threads you cite. JamesMLane t c 09:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

According to Alaska officials, Palin did not inherit the policy and the previous police chief allocated funds for rape kits in his budget.

Waitagoddamminnit. Where are you getting this from? It's not in the article that you linked as a reference. I call shenanigans. -- Zsero (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

And I assume good faith.--Buster7 (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The rape kit controversy should be included in the article. It is significant enough that it is the subject of an article in the NY Times today - - --Zeamays (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not an article. It's an opinion piece.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, I agree: The NY Times article is an opinion piece, but I didn't propose the article as a reference, rather to show that the issue is significant enough to be discussed in such a prominent forum. Therefore, your point is irrelevant. --Zeamays (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The NYT parroting the latest desperate Democratic talking points doesn't make them significant. -- Zsero (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but it does. Coverage in the major media is part of what goes into making a subject important. Or is it your view that a subject is important only if it comports with the personal political opinions of Misplaced Pages editors? We have a whole article about the lies that were told about John Kerry's military service. Those lies were mere Republican talking points but they got enough coverage to make them important. JamesMLane t c 22:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What would make it significant would be if there was move evidence that she knew it was happening. If there is, I haven't seen it. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If, as mayor of a town of 7000, Palin did not know what her staff was up to, that is arguably more disturbing than if she was just trying to save some money in an insensitive way.--agr (talk)

The coverage I listened to said the Chief of Police was her appointee, and mocked the idea that he would take such a controversial stand without telling his mentor. Geo Swan (talk) 10:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Slate debunks this smear, and Palin herself specifically denies it in an interview with her home town newspaper. It also turns out that Wasilla and its police chief were never mentioned in the state testimony about the bill outlawing the practice; it was passed because of hospitals that were employing the practice.--Paul (talk) 04:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Attorney General

In this edit, Grsz11 edited the phrasing, "the validity of which were disputed by Alaska's Attorney General, who was appointed by Palin", to remove "who was appoined by Palin" with an edit summary of "yes, thats usually what a governor does: appoint people". I undid the edit, with an edit summary of "Not all attorneys general are appointed - for example Attorney General of Pennsylvania." Paul.h then reverted my edit with a summary of "entirely non-notable all executive branch officials are appointed by the executive".

My rationale for including the edit is that is not self-evident to a reader not familiar with Alaska politics that the Attorney General is a governor-appointed position. In Pennsylvania, for example, the attorney general is an elected position, and has been since 1980. The current Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Tom Corbett, is not even from the same party as Pennsylvania's governor. Further, the Pennsylvania Attorney General is elected to 4-year terms in the same years as presidential elections (2008, 2012, 2016, ...), while gubernatorial elections take place on the "mid-term" cycle (2010, 2014, 2018). It is therefore common in Pennsylvania for a governor to serve at the same time as an AG elected during a previous administration.

Until seeing Grsz11's edit, the idea that state Attorneys General would be appointed rather then elected honestly never occurred to me. For this reason, I believe the "appointed by Palin" language should be included. In the interest of WP:BRD I therefore invite discussion of this proposed edit. --Clubjuggle /C 05:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

When you pointed that out to be I went to State Attorney General and discovered only 6 of the 50 are appointed by the governor, so yes, it's important to clarify that distinction to readers. Grsz 06:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This is poisoning the well. Should we also include that the subpoenas are a nakedly partisan move by state Democrats to undermine Palin?: "Palin attorney Thomas Van Flein told reporters after the vote that the Democratic lawmaker managing the investigation, state Sen. Hollis French, "has partisan motives for doing this." And Palin's lieutenant governor, Sean Parnell, repeated claims that the investigation was "a political circus."" Or maybe we should try to stick to the facts on both sides. Subpoenas issued, validity disputed. Ok? Kaisershatner (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

To cite the typical right-wing mantra, "if they're innocent, they've got nothing to worry about." Baseball Bugs 19:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Kaisershatner, you're oversimplifying. "Validity disputed" by whom? A dispute by someone independently chosen by the people as the State's top legal officer is significantly different from a dispute by someone who serves at Palin's pleasure. Consider the comment by the State Senator overseeing the Troopergate investigation, that the outcome could be politically damaging to Palin. The quotation itself has now been relegated to a footnote, but even there, the legislator involved is specifically identified as a Democrat. Presumably the reason is to show that his statement might reflect a bias. The same rationale applies here, only more strongly, where the AG isn't merely of Palin's party, but is her personal appointee. JamesMLane t c 17:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see why one would object to the insinuation that the AG is politically allied with Palin and, thus, could not be objective. I'm sure the AG would disagree, but if it is included, it would be equally fair to include French's comment that this would be an "October Surprise" to derail Palin. I feel strongly neither way, but we need to balance things to make it clear there may be partisan interests on both sides. Fcreid (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I know you know it's a pretty serious character assassination to level against an AG that he/she would not represent the truth in an investigation. Now I'm sure you're going to respond that you're not "charging" him/her with anything, but if you weren't then you wouldn't be trying to include that fact. Fcreid (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

My starting point is always service to our readers. The Alaska AG may be a paragon of objectivity, but many of our readers will believe that his statements about a political matter, like those of most human beings, will certainly or at least probably be influenced by which side he's on. Therefore, many of our readers will find it relevant to know that Colberg is a Palin appointee, just as they will find it relevant to know that French is a Democrat. At present, both those pieces of information are in the article. Did you object to the description of French as a Democrat? JamesMLane t c 22:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

My expectation is that anyone involved in a legal investigation acts within the bounds of the law. In that regard, I consider the political party with which they're associated as insignificant and not worthy of inclusion. However, if one were to have evidence that one party or the other were acting in a partisan manner, but did not recuse themselves from the investigation, that would certainly be notable. Fcreid (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There are many readers (myself among them) who believe that "the bounds of the law" are often vaguely defined and subject to interpretation. Note the number of U.S. Supreme Court decisions that are 5-4 or 6-3 -- people eminently well qualified come to different conclusions. Many of us further believe that, where there's an issue on which reasonable people can differ, the politics of the situation will have some effect on the judgments of the fallible human beings involved. If your personal beliefs are to the contrary, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. All I'm saying is that many (perhaps even most) of our readers would think it relevant to know that Colberg is a Palin appointee. We should provide them with the information they want, even if you don't want (and even if you think they shouldn't want it). JamesMLane t c 18:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't recall any of the Supreme Court justices being quoted as "Let's make this an October surprise!" :) Fcreid (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The vast majority of Attorneys General are elected, so the fact that Palin appointed the Attorney General who is making arguments beneficial to her should be included in the article. It would be POV to censor this fact. Note that I edited the article to change it from "Palin's Attorney General" to merely noting the the AG was appointed by her. Edison (talk) 05:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Merely an attempt to ascertain notability and relevance, and certainly not censorship. It would warrant inclusion if the ratio is as disproportionate as you indicated, for no reason more than its deviation from the norm. One of my firm beliefs is we give everyone the benefit of the doubt in having integrity, and to not insinuate a lower expectation by our own words. Fcreid (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Witch hunting Pastor Thomas Muthee who blessed her

I have seen this reported in many reliable sources. This should be included in her article as Rev Wright is in Obamas. Thank you. 63.164.145.85 (talk) 08:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources

SOURCES that have looked at this amazingly disturbing story. AFP, The Nation, Yahoo News 63.164.145.85 (talk) 08:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

real video of her being blessed by a witch hunter WTF ! 63.164.145.85 (talk) 08:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

more sources Washington Monthly, Huffington Post, Brave New Films. wikipedia owes it to all Americans to warn them about this and quickly. 63.164.145.85 (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Raw Story: 'Palin credits electoral success to witchhunter', 'Drudge Report: Palin Linked Electoral Success to Witch Hunter's Prayer' 63.164.145.85 (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the kind of material that might quickly disappear down the memory hole. So I put it on the web-citation site:

• the AFP article.
• The Nation article
• the yahoo article

Unfortunately the raw you-tube link doesn't seem to work through the web-citation service. Geo Swan (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

ABC NEWS now weighing in. Seriously why is this being censored here on wikipedia. the people have a right to know ! 63.164.145.85 (talk) 09:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

MSNBC transcript with unrelated stories redacted. On MSNBC, Shannyn Moore, journalist, said - "... this church, in particular, they embraced him. They knew what this pastor‘s record was... she‘s given a lot of credit to becoming governor to this pastor." Tautologist (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Arguments to include/not include

NOTNEWS RECENT, comaprison with Wright and Obama Wiki articles

WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT are the two main reasons. As we did with the Barack Obama article, we'll proceed slowly with this. We first need to see if it becomes a major issue for Palin, as it did for Obama. --Clubjuggle /C 11:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid or a"breaking news" site, and we are not "on deadline," fearing being scooped by other media. If Palin's relationship with or counseling by Muthee is seen by reliable mainstream media as an important part of her biography it should be included, but not in any sensational or disproportionate way. Arguiing for some mention is TimesOnline article "Palin linked electoral success to prayer of Kenyan witchhunter," 16 September 2008. On June 8, 2008, long before she gained the media spotlight, Palin said at Wasilla Assembly of God '“As I was mayor and Pastor Muthee was here and he was praying over me, and you know how he speaks and he’s so bold. And he was praying “Lord make a way, Lord make a way.”“And I’m thinking, this guy’s really bold, he doesn’t even know what I’m going to do, he doesn’t know what my plans are. And he’s praying not “oh Lord if it be your will may she become governor,” no, he just prayed for it. He said “Lord make a way and let her do this next step. And that’s exactly what happened.”“So, again, very very powerful, coming from this church.” ' That is her words in a reliable source, which also says Palin was anointed by Muthee during a series of 10 sermons, in which he spoke about his witch hunting, and that she said his intercession was "awesome." It sounds like more than her happening to attend a church service where he happened to preach once, or some such trivial association. See Palin on video referred to by TimesOnline, June 2008 at Wasilla Assembly of God, speaking aboutMuthee and her commissioning as a Master by that church: . Edison (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure whether you are arguing in favor of inclusion. But it seems to me that this comment would apply as fully to the three articles cited above:

If Palin's relationship with or counseling by Muthee is seen by reliable mainstream media as an important part of her biography it should be included, but not in any sensational or disproportionate way.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The TimesOnline article seems appropriate for inclusion at this time.

Just think of all the time people have wasted on other religions when there's one here with proven results! (I'm going to try to have him bless my Mega-Millions ticket for tonight! :) You might also want to weave in other perspectives in reliable sources, such as The Boston Herald, in particular “He was giving an African prayer to an American Christian,” said Jacob K. Olupona, a Harvard African studies professor. “His prayer reflects his own background and his own training and his own world view. America may not believe in witchcraft, but witcraft is a reality (in Africa).” Fcreid (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the comparison between this and Wright. Wright was Obama's mentor for 20+ years. Obama sat through years of the man's anti-American sermons, and paid enough attention that he named a book from one of them. This was no casual relationship. Muthee, on the other hand, gave a series of sermons at Palin's church, and she was impressed; they had no close personal relationship, and she certainly had no reason to run an FBI background check on him. What he got up to back in Africa has no connection to Palin. I mean, I've been impressed by Obama's oratorical skills; does that mean I'm tainted by his views? -- Zsero (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(He's Kenyan. Maybe he knows Obama's brother?) All religion is a bit strange to me, but I'll defend anyone's right to practice it, or not practice one at all, as long as I'm not forced to do either against my will. If I recall, that had something to do with founding this nation, didn't it? Fcreid (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't include this in the article. It's an embarrasment to Misplaced Pages. I'm fairly certain the press is watching this article and once they see this, the POV pushing is going to attract more attention than this witch hunting stuff. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course this should be added. It is notable, covered in the "mainstream" media, and may affect the way voters view her. If Obama was on tape getting an exorcism from an African witch hunter in a church of tongues speakers - this election would be over. Stop whitewashing religious fanaticism and display it for what it is. 72.91.113.17 (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

A short mention on the personal section/religion would be acceptable. It is notable, and pertinent to understand Palin's worldview. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Editors may want to watch the video. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

And yet I note you adamantly opposed inclusion of Obama's relationship with Wright consistently during the course of many months. I find that remarkable, Jossi, don't you? Fcreid (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Source Associated Press: "The Associated Press: Palin once blessed to be free from 'witchcraft'". Retrieved 2009-09-26.

Maybe if Miss South Carolina ever does an interview, they can ask her if she supports burning witches at the stake. Viva Leviticus. No wonder Plato wanted weighted voting. 72.91.113.17 (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I was once blessed by a rabbi. OMG! Does that mean I'm now Jewish? :-) All kidding aside, small one time encounters do not make some one a pagan.Zaereth (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

And I can tell you my lotto ticket didn't pay off tonight, so I'm not convinced there's anything behind this stuff anyway! :) Fcreid (talk) 02:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Muthee what content is proposed to be included

• 1. When leave church? Wasilla Assembly of God article says Palin left church in 2002. But Muthee prayer was in 2005. Clarification needed.

She was still attending there in June this year, videos show Palin saying the war in Iraq is gods work and that praying stops you from getting shot in war.--203.192.91.4 (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• 2. If made a special trip from W Bible Church to W Assembly of God for ten weeks of Muthee, then should be in article.
• 3. Olberman at MSNBC says WAoG boasted guest pastor Muthee hunted down a witch. Palin denies pre knowledge of guest pastor David Brickner when he made comments re Jews, and would not go back, so should not he in her article. But here, she actually praised Muthee in 2008. So different from Brickner situation.
• 4. Hands on prayer with Kalnins, over Palin, included specific prayer for protection from 'witchcraft with no flinch from Palin. Goes to her beliefs.
• 5. Muthee prayer about protection from witches was credited by Palin for her victory in step up to governor. So it directly goes to her belief system and belongs here.

Tautologist (talk) 02:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You'll need many, many citations to support these assertions, and none of them will be credited to Olberman. Fcreid (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Muthee related content was already discussed and promptly rejected. Not suitable for this article. Hobartimus (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Rejected by who and why? "Promptly" means that no one stepped back and deliberated on things. My first article here was on Palin's churches, and they were promptly deleted, then restored, then a large number chimed in to delete, but after consideration there is consensus to keep. Certainly if a public figure intentionally goes before a person who actually hunted and persectued humnan beings as witches, or if a public figure praised a person with knowledge that they actually hunted down a woman and persecuted her, that would be a very notable thing abuot the public figure. Omitting it would be rather odd. Tautologist (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, why should she flinch when she was blessed with protection from witchcraft? Wouldn't anyone want such a blessing? And having received a blessing at a particular church, it's only good manners to recount it with gratitude on a subsequent visit. I don't see anything to indicate that anyone in Alaska knew that Muthee had "hunted and persectued humnan beings". At most there might have been some general description of him as having exposed witches in Africa; if so, why should that have rung any alarm bells? -- Zsero (talk) 03:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Most people would speak out against a person who hunted human beings, accused them of cuasing accidents through witchcraft, and persecuted them. According to the MSNBC transcript, Palin knew he did this and went to have him lay hands on her, and praised him, rather than denouncing them. That says more about a person than almost anything, and certainly goes to her beliefs and values, and transmission of the values by praising him before graduates of a masters commission at a church. Tautologist (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What exactly, in that reference, suggests that Palin knew he had "hunted human beings...and persecuted them"? Nothing that I can see. You seem to be just making that up out of whole cloth. Oh, and please don't edit my comments for no purpose. -- Zsero (talk) 05:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Muthee - specific proposals of content for inclusion,... if verifiable

• Shannyn Moore, journalist - "this church, in particular, they embraced him. They knew what this pastor‘s record was... she‘s given a lot of credit to becoming governor to this pastor".
• Olberman - According to the MSNBC transcript, ""Times of London" reporting today that Pastor Thomas Muthee (ph) not only began his career by literally persecuting a woman in a Kenyan village as literally a witch, but that he boasted about it, and Governor Palin‘s church in Alaska boasted about it, too”... he was praying over Sarah Palin, and in her presence, still talking about witchcraft", and "very powerful coming from this church. So that was awesome about Pastor Muthee". Tautologist (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Does "they" in "they embraced him" include Palin? If any of these are ture, it is notable and should be in the article. Tautologist (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

More to the point, what is the evidence that they knew this record? Olberman? Bzzzt. -- Zsero (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Shannyn Moore - "They knew what this pastor‘s record was". But is is unclear to me who all "they" refers to. Tautologist (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Not good enough - we'd need to know what her evidence was. I have no idea who Shannyn Moore is or why I should believe her opinion, even if I knew exactly what she meant by it. -- Zsero (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, even if she was Walter Cronkite, we still do not know wat "they' refers to. Still, worth looking for why she said this. Could always just look her up and shoot her an email and just ask what she meant and where she got this. Tautologist (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin knew Muthee's history?

• 1. "Palin knew Muthee's history."

This should be included if it is reliably sourced that Palin knew of Muthee's history. Tautologist (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

All of it. Go find a source for this. -- Zsero (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Shannyn Moore on MSNBC- "They knew what this pastor‘s record was"." Tautologist (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Absurdly and grossly insufficient for any claims in a BLP. Collect (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin went to see Muthee knowing of his history?

• 2. "Palin went to see Muthee knowing of his history."

Shannyn Moore on MSNBC - "They knew what this pastor‘s record was... she‘s given a lot of credit to becoming governor to this pastor".

This should be included if it is reliably sourced that Palin went to see Muthee knowing of his history. Tautologist (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

As above; go prove this, without relying on Olberman's psychic abilities. -- Zsero (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Shannyn Moore on MSNBC - "They knew what this pastor‘s record was... she‘s given a lot of credit to becoming governor to this pastor". Tautologist (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin believes in witchcraft and the existence of witchcraft and the need to expose it an be protected from it?

• 3. Palin believes in witchcraft, the existence of witchcraft, the need to expose withes, or the need to be protected from witchcraft.

This should be included if it is reliably sourced that Palin believes in witchcraft and the existence of witchcraft and the need to expose it an be protected from it. Tautologist (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, why? Most Americans, and most people in general, believe in the existence of evil, and would like to be protected from it. Why is this at all notable. That's the part I really don't get. You seem to think that merely being blessed with protection from witchcraft ought to have run alarm bells in Palin's head, and I don't see why. It wouldn't raise my eyebrow, nor, I suspect, those of most normal people. -- Zsero (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Believing in evil is entirely different from accusations of withcraft, believing in the efficacy of witchcraft, or beliving in the need for protection from witchcraft. Are you trying to defend Muthee's accusations and activities against women? And even if they were defensible, this has nothing to do with what should be in an encyclopedia article Tautologist (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No, they're not different. Believing that witchcraft exists and that it's a good thing to be protected from it is not at all remarkable. If it's true that Muthee "persecuted" a specific person whom he accused of causing traffic accidents, without hard evidence to support the accusation, and if that fact were known to Palin and the church in Alaska, then it would be notable. But it would have to be that specific. -- Zsero (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I really can't tell if you are kidding or not, "hard evidence to support Murthee's accusation of causing traffic accidents through witchcraft"? Even if she cast a spell on several people and they all died in an accident, this would not be "evidence" supporting persecution of her

Re- "they're not different" - Beliving in the existence of evil, believing that witches are evil, and believing in a need to be protected from witches, and a vice presidential candiate having the later belief are four entirely different things. Tautologist (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not kidding. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, especially if you're going to use those claims to justify harming someone, but NPOV says not to rule it out entirely. I'd be very very skeptical of such a claim, but how much evidence it requires really depends on what was done in response. If the woman was merely publicly denounced and shamed, the evidence wouldn't need to be nearly as strong as it would be if she was assaulted. And that's why I maintain that when discussing Palin's reaction to Muthee, we must start with evidence that she knew the full detail of what he did (if indeed the reports are true in the first place). So even if you manage to show that she knew he'd purported to expose a witch in Kenya, that would not be enough to support a mention in the article, because on its own that wouldn't be enough to make a normal American shy away from him. OTOH if you were show that he burned a witch, and that Palin knew this and still welcomed him, that would definitely be notable. Ditto if you manage to show that Palin is really a Martian invader who possessed the body of an Alaskan housewife and is riding her to control of the Earth :-)

And no, they're not different enough. The average American may not believe in Halloween-type witches with warts on their noses, at least not in America, but witchcraft as a form of evil cast by malevolent people is a different matter. Skepticism is all very well, but don't be so quick to rule it out. It never hurts to be protected, just in case. -- Zsero (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

She was assaulted, and they shot her pet snake in the assault. (no kidding, she had a pet snake and they shot it in the assault) Tautologist (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin praised Muthee, despite knowing of his history of publicly accusing women of causing traffic fatalities by being a witch?

• 4. "Palin praised Muthee, despite knowing of his history of publicly accusing women of causing traffic fatalities by being a witch."

This should be included if it is reliably sourced that Palin praised Muthee, despite knowing of his history of publicly accusing women of causing traffic fatalities by being a witch. Tautologist (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Watch the ambiguity. This sounds as if it was Muthee who caused the traffic fatalities by accusing women of being witches! As for what you actually meant by this, if it can be reliably sourced that she knew this, I'd still want to know how she was to know that the woman (or was there more than one) was innocent; until then, it would be OK to mention the mere fact that he'd made the accusation, but not beyond that. As for "hunting" and "persecuting", separate evidence would be needed for that. -- Zsero (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

you are correct, I fixed the wording, but am still looking for a back up source to Olberman assertions. Tautologist (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Tautologist don't you think you might be going about this the wrong way? Normally, we find a reliable source, summarize the points and put it in the article. You are listing hypotheses that may or may not be true and suggesting folks go out and find sources to verify them. That's not biographical scholarship.--Paul (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I cited MSNBC as a source in section header for this subsection. MSNBC is known to be biased in selection and presentation, but not to missstate facts (if for no other reason than to avoid getting sued). They make retractions when in error. I just think it would be better to find out what their sources were. Tautologist (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No, Olberman is a liar and not a reliable source at all. -- Zsero (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please source your accusation of "liar". MSNBC is a reliable source for facts, thuogh biased in secection and presentation. Tautologist (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's start with Olberman's insistence that the president can't remove the chairman of the SEC. That's a fairly simple fact, that Olberman got wrong and refused to recant. But that's just the top of a long long list. He has no credibility whatsoever. -- Zsero (talk) 22:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that the consensus is that Murthee is totally irrelevant to the BLP, and any mention if inserted should be excised forthwith. Collect (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Muthee is relevant here in that Palin is a vice presidential candidate who made a special trip to stand under a pastor who accuses women of witchcraft and went to have him pray to protect her from witches. That is a notably unusual belief system at best. It certainly belongs here. The question is over wording. Tautologist (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope. And the entire subject is less relevant than the claim that Trig is Palin;s grandson. It is not relevant, and will never be relevant. Palin has never said anything which places her outside mainstream Christianity. Obama also considers himself a "Bible believing" Christian, taking the oath of office on one. Collect (talk) 11:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• A pastor publicly accusing women of causing deaths through witchcraft, is not "mainstream Christianity".
• Palin making a special trip to a church that boasts of having a guest speaker who engages in this practice is is not "mainstream Christianity".
• Standing quietly under a pastor who boasts of being a witch hunter, while they pray to protect Palin from witchcraft, is is not "mainstream Christianity". Tautologist (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• In general, pastors who boast of their notariety for hunting and accusing women of causing deaths via witchcraft, are avoided by mainstream American Christians, not sought out. Tautologist (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Proof by repeated assertion does not work. So far that seems to be the basis for your insistence that Palin backs killing witches or the like ... Collect (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not claim an "insistence that Palin backs killing witches". Such inaccurate ad hominem attacks on editors only serves to dilute discussion of my assertion, and in no way addresses whether pastors who boast of their notariety for hunting and accusing women of causing deaths via witchcraft are generally avoided by mainstream American Christians, and are not generally sought out and accepted for protection from witchcraft. Tautologist (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I would answer in depth if there were anything other than an obvious consensus at this time that this "information" has no place at all in the article. As a consensus is clear, the subject becomes joyfully irrelevant. I intended no personal attack on you, but would suggest that the person pushing the "witchcraft" angle is in the minority at this point. Collect (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

re consensus, see two sections below.

Section for ad hominem attacks on editors

I also noted Tautologist (formerly EricDiesel) was chased off the Wasilla Assembly of God article recently for trying to insert similarly poorly sourced material. What's odd is that his axe seems to be with the religious practice itself or, perhaps, even with this specific place of worship. Regardless, I haven't seen anything yet to convince me any of this warrants inclusion in the Palin article, unless and until there's consensus that her religious beliefs are intolerable. Fcreid (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I created the Wasilla Assembly of God article, and was not "chased off". I sourced all of my edits, just did not feel like an edit war. The reason for massive deletion of content was that calling Mutee a witch hunter once was violation of BLP, but that is not the case as it was used litterally, not figuratiely. See talk page there. Tautologist (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious of your goal for inclusion. Is it to expose what you feel is aberrant religious practice, condemn the WAoG for allowing this person to speak there or, somehow, to taint Palin by any possible tangential association? Regardless, and I reiterate, there is nothing here that even remotely warrants inclusion in this article. Fcreid (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Condemnation is not a role for an encyclopedia. Statement of notable factual information is. Making a special trip to see a well known pastor who boasts of witch hunting and persecution skills is abberant, but evaluating that it is abberant is not te place of an encyclopedia. Only the statement of the fact of a special trip to listen to and be prayed under a known and self described witch hunter, and later praise for the witch hunter, should be included. Tautologist (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course you're under no obligation to do so on WP, Tautologist. However, if one were publishing a "traditional" encyclopedia, and a contributor were to present highly controversial information on a biographical topic, and the publisher knew that contributor was, say, working on a political campaign that opposed the subject of the biographic, don't you think it would be incumbent upon the publisher to know that? Fcreid (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know which of the above editors is working on a campaign that you are referring to. If you are referring to me, I did once work on a campaign within a youthful ideology which I have completely reversed with education; Barr is nice for noting government as the worst choice to get anything done, and Gore for for long term vision. Biden, for sheer political posturing, tried to pass an obscure bill that would have undone a project I spent ten years midwifing and has zero experience in life as a mature adult outside of being a politician. Obama is the least qualified presidential nominee in my lifetime, but has a high degree of experience being a lawyer, an area that his campaign does not emphasize since it is despised by many. I could similarly comment on McCain and Palin, but my politics are irrelevent to what should or should not be included. Tautologist (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Then I'm even more baffled on the significance of including the Witch Doctor story in here. It seems like we have a far greater appetite here for this less than sensational event than the event itself represented in this person's life or story. Unless, of course, it's actually your belief that Muthee's blessing is responsible for her success? :-\ Fcreid (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ha, I yield to Fcreid's humor. Tautologist (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Gotta keep a bit of levity, Tautologist. :) Hey, I'm not saying it's not an *interesting* tidbit. It actually is. I could even craft the Trivial Pursuit 2010 Edition question, "Which VP nominee once received a blessing from an African cleric who may have been a witch doctor?" However, interesting is not necessary notable. As a WP neophyte, I use the "Marathon Yardstick" myself that I learned here. Question: "Which VP nominee once ran a marathon in under four hours?" No clue? You won't find it in this article either, because the consensus was such an event was trivial and insignificant to her biography. One could certainly argue Palin's direct involvement in that event was far more significant than her relationship to the Witch Doctor, but it still didn't reach the criteria for inclusion. Fcreid (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin’s “non-denial denial”, regarding praise for a known witch hunter

Reliable mainstream media reported on and showed videotapes regarding Palin’s recent praise for internationally known (and self and WAoG church-described) witch hunter Muthee, as well as Palin’s recent attendance at a sermon by David Brickner. Palin, through the McCain campaign, denied foreknowledge of Brickner’s views regarding Jews, but was silent on her reported foreknowledge of Muthee’s history of publicly accusing women of causing fatalities via witchcraft. This would argue for inclusion of Muthee related info in this article, but not Brickner related info. Tautologist (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Still emphasizing witches killing people and needing to be hunted as a position of Palin? Does not work. The argument consensus, as I read it, is that this entire topic does not belong in a BLP, does not belong in an article on Palin, does not belong in WP. Collect (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no frim basis so far cited to include an assertion that Palin believes that a witch caused any traffic fatalities. There is reason to include that she made a special trip to her former church to see a pastor who was known for successfully running a woman fortune teller out of her home, by accusing her of causing traffic fatalities because of her witchcraft, and subsequent praise for a pastor known to be engaged in such activites. Tautologist (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus developing re - not including specifics of prayer for "protection from witchcraft" in article

"Sarah Palin ‘witchcraft’ flap all smoke and no fire" . When the Boston Herald debunks a claim, it is pretty much debunked. Collect (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well put, Collect, as Fcreid put above. Your citation is a much better argument regarding standing there silently than some of the above comments by editors. It argues well for not including the particular prayer quote on “protection from witchcraft” in the prayer. Since it seems dispositive of this particular component of the thread, I put it in a separate sub-section header, so we can delineate what is likely to be consensus based on your good “argument by source” on the specific point. (This assumes no further source info arises which would argue to include it). However, it does not yet address the foreknowledge and praise issues in the next section. Tautologist (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually -- it does. A guest from another nation gave a prayer in the form that he would use in his own church. Palin did not seek "protection from witchcraft." She did not praise the preacher as a "witch hunter" and she gave no indication that "witches" were in any way, shape, manner or form a part of her religious concerns. In short, the Boston Herald article ratifies the position held by the majority writing here that this has no business being in a BLP at all. Collect (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I cited the same article three days ago and before you began embellishing this discussion, Tautologist. Note the quote I provided above. Fcreid (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Fcreid, lots of stuff here, so I am tried to organize to have meaningful focused discussion, as threads sometimes wander into attacks on editors and rants from both sides, whereby forceful source citations like yours can get lost. I changed my comment above to acknowedge your original contrib. Tautologist (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus re other Muthee related topics still being debated

• User:Fcreid , User:Collect, and User:Tautologist agree in the above section against inclusion of specific prayer quote re “protection”, (unless new info that Palin specificly went for protection). Fcreid Collect has conclusively disposed of this particulaar issue, in my opinion.
• User:Geo Swan, User:Edison, User:≈ jossi ≈, User:Tautologist, (and unsigned editors, whose comments should not be counted unless signed), argue for inclusion of special trip to see known and self described witch hunter, praise for known witch hunter, and not peaking out against witch hunting practices. Zsero argues that mainstream Americans do not denounce witch hunting as a practice.
• There is consensus that two journalists at MSNBC reported Palin made a special trip to her former church to hear a pastor who is church-described and self- described as a witch hunter. There is not yet consensus on the reliability of the various journalists reporting this. There is not consensus on whether to include the MSNBC and other repots on the foreknowledge. Since Wiki is not news, there is no hurry here, so I suggest leaving this talk page section open until a consensus is reached one way or the other on the remaining issues. Tautologist (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Kindly note that my actual position is that Muthee is absolutely irrelevant to this article. Collect (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Zsero argues that mainstream Americans do not denounce witch hunting as a practice. Americans certainly would react to the term "witch hunting", because of the specific history it has in America. But nothing here has suggested that that term was used of Muthee within Palin's hearing. However as far as I know mainstream Christianity, and other mainstream religions in America, do believe in the existence of witchcraft, and it's not at all remarkable for someone to accept a blessing against it. If a normal American were to hear that an African pastor had "fought witchcraft" in his native country, or even that he had "exposed witches" there, I don't think the first thing that would come to their minds is that he "hunted" or "persecuted" anyone. -- Zsero (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Collect, 'Kindly' is "above my paygrade", to borrow an expression from a recent remark by a wishy-washy presidential candidate at a church conference. But see the next section, for an attempt at it. Switch-hitingTautologist (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how, in the 21st century, association with a man like Muthee is considered not to be a significant matter. Charges of witch-craft often results in death in Muthee's country, as evidenced in last May's burning of 11 accused witches. Refusal to include Muthee's connection to Palin demonstrates what's wrong with Misplaced Pages. 71.176.120.66 (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Noncontroversial Consensus alternative Muthee inclusion relevant to Palin article

• I propose including this -

"Palin made a special trip to her former church to be at the sermon of a visiting African pastor, well known for being involved in the creation of about 400 churches in Africa. There are no black churches in Wasilla."

• This is neutral and well sourced (see Wiki article on Muthee) and is informative and notable for a politician in rural white Alaska, being very informative regarding her racial attitudes. It is especially notable given left leaning media commentators complaints that right leaning media was insensitive to the standards at black churches regarding Wright. – Switch-hittingTautologist (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Eskimos outnumber blacks in Wasilla might have an effect. At this point, I demur on any mention of Muthee. I find no support voiced for this iterated attempt at inserting irrelevant junk into the article. Collect (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No. "Made a special trip" implies some kind of journey. All that happened is that she visited a church where she'd once been a member, to hear a visiting preacher. People do that. I'm quite sure that the audience for Muthee's talks was higher than the usual congregation at that church, because people who didn't usually worship there came to hear him. -- Zsero (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Zsero, how about "Palin returned to her former church to be at the sermon of a well known visiting African pastor." It is illustrative of her values and attitudes toward minorities, not universal in rural towns, a worthy subject of a bio. Tautologist (talk)

I also don't understand the relevance of the absence of black churches; does it imply that if there had been any, Muthee would have preached at them instead? It may be news to you, but the overwhelming majority of American Christians are not racist, and visiting African preachers have spoken at mostly-white churches for over 200 years. (I seem to recall a mention of one in Fanny Trollope's Domestic Manners of the Americans, but I may be mistaken.)-- Zsero (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but from watching the left leaning and mainstream media counter attacks regarding Wright, one might think that no one on the right understands anything about black pastors, or has any exposure to them, which is not the case.Tautologist (talk)

I still don't see why the article needs to make any mention of this at all. -- Zsero (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Just as the negative information on Muthee would go to her character if she knew his history, which is hard to describe in an objective bio, this positive information illustrates something about her, which is the purpose of a bio. Tautologist (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My position is the same as if the same comments were made about Obama. It has nothing to do with "positive" or "negative" -- I am trained as a scientist, and thus tend to regard irrelevant stuff as ... irrelevant. Collect (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If Obama went to see Muthee, the witch hunt stuff should be in his article. But going to a black church would be less notable than in rural Alaska. There is a lack of knowledge about rural America, and an encyclopeida article is a good place to find out about historically changing values and attitudes. Tautologist (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems there’s no reliable evidence that Palin believes in witches and witchcraft (a belief that would be notable in a vp candidate). Of course she may. She may also believe in Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy. But "may" is not sufficient for an encyclopedia entry.

She heard a black pastor preach. Tautologist speculates that this is "very informative regarding her racial attitudes." Quite so. Had the preacher been white, we could be pretty sure that Palin goes out at night in a white sheet and a pointy hat to indulge in a spot of cross-burning.

No. Palin’s a God-botherer. You tend to find God-botherers in churches. Palin went to church. So what?

A friend of a friend says Palin believes the world was created at lunchtime last Friday, and that from Alaska you could see dinosaurs munching Russians on that day – now that's notable. I’m searching for qualifying sources, natch. But until I find them, Collective common sense should prevail and the church trip should be dropped. That is, if we want to preserve what shreds remain of WP’s credibility. - Writegeist (talk) 07:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism! I've been working that story for weeks and was just about to break it in the mainstream! :( Fcreid (talk) 10:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoops. Of course I meant I've been working it only since last Friday. Fcreid (talk) 11:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Bachelor of Science ????

How does someone get a Bachelor of Science in Communication-Journalism? I think this might be wrong and may need to be corrected to reflect Bachelor of Arts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.195.245 (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The University of Idaho offers both degrees, I assume depending on the stream the student follows. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually lots of unis grant BS degrees in journalism. -- Zsero (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably much the same way Caltech offers a Bachelor of Science in English, and UC Berkeley only offers BAs and MAs in physics despite being one of the top physics schools in the country. Sometimes the labeling doesn't really mean much. Dragons flight (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, no picking on Caltech, now. Tautologist (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"The B.S. is also frequently used for professional areas of study such as engineering, journalism, accounting, and advertising."--Loodog (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus to leave as Palin having a BS degree. Tautologist (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridges Chapter 45

Kossack4Truth made this edit, that goes into incredible detail about Ketchikan. I reverted for the sake of summary style, only for it to be reverted again. Grsz 16:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It could be shorter, but if you want a reference to Gravina's population of 50, then it must be offset by Ketchikan's population and the airport's throughput; there must be enough for the reader to discern that the bridge was not intended to serve 50 people, and that the "nowhere" label was always unfair. If you want to omit that then you must also omit the irrelevant reference to those 50 islanders. -- Zsero (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at what I changed and let me know. Grsz 17:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding 50, the article says that's why it was called nowhere, nothing else. Grsz 17:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hell i'll just put it here. My proposal is such: "The Gravina Island Bridge proposal became nicknamed the "Bridge to Nowhere" because of the island's population of fifty. Less often, "bridges to nowhere" has been used to refer to both proposals. The goal of the Gravina project, according to the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, was to "provide better service to the airport and allow for development of large tracts of land on the island.""

This leaves the 50, as that's the reason for the nickname. It also leaves the DOT explanation of the project, but cuts out unneeded mention of the regions population. Grsz 17:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Not good enough, because the reader is still left with no clue as to why the nickname was so utterly unfair. As soon as you mention the 50 people, the reader thinks the bridge was to be built for their benefit, so you must balance that with the 200K passengers a year who go through the airport and need to get to/from Ketchikan, or the 350K passengers a year carried by the ferry which the bridge would have replaced. -- Zsero (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I moved the ferry info so that it flows better and isn't just stuck in. Grsz 20:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Zsero gets it. I think mentioning the populations of Ketchikan and the island it's on, as well as the location of Ketchikan International Airport, is sufficient to neutralize the rather anti-Palin, smear-like mention of Gravina Island's mere 50 inhabitants (as though they were the only consideration). In the alternative, I suggest that we could simply eliminate the mention of Gravina Island's population. I would like to know which option Grsz11 would prefer. Careful, Grsz11: insisting on keeping the "50," but tossing out all the other population numbers, will confirm for all observers that your edits are guided by a political agenda. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

What isn't a smear to you Kossack? It's not a smear, it's the reason why it was called a bridge to nowhere. How dare you question my intentions. I atleast had the decency to bring it to the talk page. Grsz 02:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Grsz11, if you're going to include the number "50," or any other indication that Gravina Island is sparsely populated (thereby citing an argument against the bridge), then to balance the paragraph, some description of the argument for the bridge is required by WP:NPOV. Very simple. Either mention talking points from both POVs, or none at all. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Ya, to hell with the fact that it stood for weeks until someone with such an incredible bias as yourself came along. Grsz 02:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I could mention a fellow whose Misplaced Pages bio falsely accused him of being involved in the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy for about six months without anyone noticing ... My point is that sometimes obvious policy violations exist around here for some time without being corrected. You don't have consensus. There's a reason for that. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Whenever I want to include the slightest additional information that could be construed as negative toward Palin, I hear all about WP:SS and how "that's in the daughter article." Now, when it comes to pro-Palin information, we have agitation for larding her bio with all the pro-Bridge to Nowhere information. On this view, we have to go out of our way to make sure that the reader understands that criticism of Palin's prior position is "utterly unfair". To which I reply, quoting numerous Palinistas in other contexts: That's in the daughter article! If we include how many passengers the ferry carries, then, to be complete, don't we have to include how long and how expensive the ferry ride is (not very long and not very expensive)? Don't we have to include a precis of other transportation projects that could arguably make better use of the money? This particular project has a famous nickname that must be briefly explained. It doesn't matter whether the nickname is unfair; what matters is that the nickname is famous. JamesMLane t c 17:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay... So what's wrong with saying the reason why the Gravina Island Bridge was nicknamed the Bridge to Nowhere because of Gravina Island's low population... That is why the bridge was called that. --Bobblehead 23:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with saying that, so long as you also say why it was utterly unfair to do so. Otherwise you're left with an implicit endorsement of the nickname. -- Zsero (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead, either the population of Ketchikan and the island it's on stays, or the population of Gravinas Island goes. Take your pick. If you're going to include the argument for the anti-bridge POV, no matter what Trojan horse the argument is presented as, WP:NPOV requires that the argument for the pro-bridge POV must also be included. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It is an undeniable fact that the bridge was called by its opponents "the Bridge to Nowhere". It is an undeniable fact that Gravina Island has a population of about 50. As far as I know, there's no dispute that the sparse population of the island was the basis for that nickname. Zsero's assessment that the nickname was "utterly unfair" is an opinion. We are not required to include, in the Palin bio, every single fact about the bridge that supports every personal opinion about the bridge. Palin's opinion is relevant, and we quote her as criticizing the term "nowhere" and as deriding bridge opponents as "spinmeisters". For the Palin bio, that's the appropriate level of detail about the merits of the bridge project. Kossack4Truth, NPOV doesn't require us to include in the Palin bio all the pros and cons of everything that's mentioned. If it did, I'd have QUITE a bit of information to add. For example right now we state Palin's opinion about global warming but we don't give any of the facts that contradict it. On global warming, the Bridge to Nowhere, and a host of other subjects, we rely on wikilinks. JamesMLane t c 22:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"Bridge(s)to Nowhere" has the same customer recognition today as "stained blue dress" had a few years back. It has become a part of the general American lexicon. Fair or unfair doesn't matter. By now, the reader probably has some prior knowledge of the Bridge projects or will research themselves based on interest. Any attempt to balance what "Bridge to Nowhere" MIGHT convey is needless and political. It strains the meaning of NPOV.--Buster7 (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

SemiProtection

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep it semi-protected until after the election, maybe. Baseball Bugs 19:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stance on preconditions - Kissinger reference

75.172.102.241 (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I believe the statement "Palin has criticized Barack Obama for saying he would meet with leaders of Syria and Iran without preconditions, notwithstanding that Henry Kissinger has a different opinion." should be edited. The wording "notwithstanding that Henry Kissinger has a different opinion" fails to capture the context of the comment and the underlying faux-paux in her commentary. A quote from the cited NY Times article:

"...Barack Obama for saying he would meet with leaders of Syria and Iran without preconditions, Ms. Couric reminded the governor that she recently met with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who supports direct diplomacy with both countries. 'Are you saying Henry Kissinger is naïve?' Ms. Couric asked. Ms. Palin replied, 'I’ve never heard Henry Kissinger say, ‘Yeah, I’ll meet with these leaders without preconditions being met.’'

After the interview, Ms. Couric faced the camera and added a postscript. 'Incidentally, we confirmed Henry Kissinger’s position following our interview,' she said, explaining that Mr. Kissinger supports talks 'without preconditions.'"

Maybe I'm thick, but I don't get it. Are we equating Henry Kissinger to Syria and Iran and saying Palin met with him and, thus, would meet with the others by proxy? What the heck does what Heny Kissinger think have to do with Palin? Fcreid (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is that Palin acused Obama of being naive for supporting negotiations without preconditions and yet meets with and apperently respects Kissinger who hold the same "naive" posistion. --Leivick (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

She said she respected his position on meeting with Syria and Iran without precondition? :-\ Fcreid (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems like we're saying that she either knows him (does she?) or respects him, and that automatically means she accepts every position he holds? This doesn't make sense. Fcreid (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

She met with him a couple of days ago to discuss foreign policy imply at the very least that she does not consider him naive. However she has called Obama naive for holding an identical position to Kissinger. --Leivick (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That's ludicrous! Whatever. That's utter nonsense. I'm sure there are a lot of things she and he differ on. Fcreid (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with the price of rice in China? He said, she said. Is it that she called one person naive and not the other. Shall we list everyone she hasn't called names? I think the last half of that sentence, the part about Kissinger, is irrelevent and should be removed. The fact that others disagree with Palin should be part of the campaign articles, but have no place in a bio.Zaereth (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually watched the debate tonight. I fault WP for me caring about such things! Anyway, I heard McCain say to Obama that, as his friend for 35 years, he can guarantee that he wouldn't recommend a president sit down unconditionally with Iran, Syria or North Korea. Anyway, as stated above, the inclusion here of Henry Kissinger in any context is silly and contrived. It needs to be removed, if it hasn't been already. Fcreid (talk) 03:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)The present article says: "Palin has criticized Barack Obama for saying he would meet with leaders of Syria and Iran without preconditions, notwithstanding that Henry Kissinger has a different opinion." Turns out that Kissinger actually supports Palin on this one:

Henry Kissinger believes Barack Obama misstated his views on diplomacy with US adversaries and is not happy about being mischaracterized. He says: "Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality."

I'll adjust the article accordingly.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Best to just remove it. Watch out for positions that are really the McCain/Palin campaign positions. (Being that this is a summary.) Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 06:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, exactly. If she states a position we're supposed to be skeptical it's really her position?Ferrylodge (talk) 06:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it is really a campaign statement against Obama, and whoever put it in there made it NPOV and did some OR by saying Henry KissEnger agreed with Obama. In the summary, we should be careful about he-said-she-said material. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine leaving it out of the article, I guess, and would also be fine with mentioning it in the article. But saying that Kissinger agreed with Obama sounds to me like a statement for Obama rather than a statement against him. And there was no OR seeing as how the whole thing was in the cited source. Whatever.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That what I was saying, that the statement was used to support Obama in a way that most sources don't. Henry was thinking as a Secretary of State when he said would meet with enemy leaders, but he thinks Presidents shouldn't. Adding all these nuances will invoke undue weight in the summary. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with just saying, "Palin has criticized Barack Obama for saying he would meet with leaders of Syria and Iran without preconditions." (that's a "full stop" there) -- Rlparker (talk) 07:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Over detailed interview paragraph is not part of *reception*

So, when did this article morph into a Henry Kissinger bio? Why the hell do we care what Katie Couric *thinks* Kissinger said, and why does that relate to this article? The entire paragraph needs to be axed as irrelevant to this article, unless it's our intention to list every person of national prominence with whom some reporter contends has a differing policy on whatever topic (regardless of the obvious disparity that Kissinger himself has subsequently stated he agrees with Palin on the issue). It doesn't belong in here. Fcreid (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is not biographical material. It is appropriate for a newscast or a blog posting, but it has nothing to do with an encyclopedia biographical article. The material should be discussed in an article on the campaign.--Paul (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is out of place. I trimmed details from the interviews paragraph. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi reinserted it with the edit summary "why was this deleted"?--Paul (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I had removed it from the sub-section *Reception* in the campaign-related section, as it was irrelevant detail for the section. I didn't realize it was in the article twice (also *Political position* section). It might more readily fit there. I don't know. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Couric was wrong, and Kissinger corrected her misunderstanding. Palin was right to say she never heard Kissinger say he supported meeting without precondition (implicitly at the presidential level), and that is all that is relevant. For all we know, the topic never even surfaced during their meeting. Regardless, and with all that said, Couric's misunderstanding of Henry Kissinger's position has ZERO relevance to an article on Palin! Would every notable person who feels it wrong to meet without preconditions be included in the Obama article? It's just more silliness. Fcreid (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

One final note. This is her campaign's position. It seems like we're trying to create a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario in the Palin article that even the general public would see as transparent. Let's assume Palin and Kissinger actually discussed the matter (unlikely), and that Kissinger had actually stated he supported such meetings (now an incorrect factoid by Courice, as we know). If Palin had said, "Yes, I agree with Henry" and put herself at odds with her own candidate, don't you think that would be silly? I hope this exposes the nonsensical nature of including this stuff. Fcreid (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Content of Palin's Convention Speech

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

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

In her convention speech, Palin quoted Westbrook Pegler:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Calls to withdraw

Should we include mention of the increasing calls by conservative commentators for Palin to withdraw from the campaign. I'm a little on the fence as this has only started in the last few days, so I'm not sure if it is real, or just the media echo chamber in action. I'm also concerned at the complete lack of mentioning of Palin's poor performance in her interviews with Gibson and Couricd. I'm not sure if there has been criticism/praise of her interview with Hannity, (most seem to pretend that one doesn't exist) but there should at least be a mention that she didn't exactly have a good performance with Gibson and Couric... --Bobblehead 23:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

First point to some such calls. I haven't heard any yet. The withdrawal rumours — and that's all they are — are all about Biden. Oh, and the poverty of her performance is your opinion, not a fact. Lots of people think she handled herself well, and look forward to seeing her demolish Biden. -- Zsero (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Zsero. Also, detailed characterizations of the Gibson and Couric interviews would be difficult for us to agree about. For instance, I would favor discussing Gibson's BS gotcha question about the "Bush Doctrine", as if that term has an unambiguous meaning. Plus we could mention Couric's BS about Kissinger's positions on negotiations with rogue states; Couric got it completely wrong, and slimed Palin in the process.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a lot more about Biden than Palin. Biden himself said that "Hillary might have been a better pick than me" which is quite an extraordinary statement in itself and could very well fuel some withdrawal rumors. Hobartimus (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen a single one about anyone asking for Biden to withdraw, at least, not since before the convention. I'm also thinking that the press I've been seeing about her needing to withdraw are based on this opinion piece by Kathleen Parker saying she should drop out as even the articles I've found so far that say there are rising concerns about her are by and large quoting her as saying Palin should withdraw, or mentioning the nebulous "conservative columnists" so that very well could be Parker's op-ed piece as well. As far as the Couric interview, I've been going through google news and I haven't found a positive review of her performance yet. Here's a Seriously.. I'm going through google news and I'm not finding a positive review of her performance on Couric. As far as her performance in Gibson's interview, it seems most of the criticisms were related to her not being able to answer the "Bush Doctrine" question. --Bobblehead 01:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"I haven't seen a single one about anyone asking for Biden to withdraw" - really, I mean really? I find that odd considering the incredible amount of Gaffes Biden produces daily. How about Biden saying "Obama will have a problem" if he tries to take away Biden's beretta, saying president Roosevelt went on television in 1929, only he wasn't president and nobody had television at the time. Asking wheelchaired person to "stand up Chuck, let them see ya!" and "Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America," and "Quite frankly it might have been a better pick than me." In Fort Myers, Florida he referred to the "Biden administration," before quickly correcting himself to say the "Obama-Biden administration." I mean the list goes on and on and on, its just endless... Clearly there must be calls to withdraw if nowhere else then himself saying it was a bad pick and it should've been Hillary... I think you missed the direction of these withdrawal rumors it's clearly about Biden. Hobartimus (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference, or it never happened. At least one established conservative (Parker) is on record calling for Palin to withdraw. Others have either questioned her ability to lead or said outright that she is not an appropriate choice. See Krauthammer ("...the choice of Palin remains deeply problematic... Palin is not ready") and Will ("The world is a sweeter place because Sarah Palin has increased the quantity of love, but this is not a reliable foundation for John McCain's campaign.")

I figure it ought to be mentioned, at least in passing. Anything on record like that for Biden, from his own camp? If so, that ought to go in a Biden article. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus, I never said that Biden hasn't "gaffed". But as noted above. Unless you can provide a reliable source saying that Biden should withdraw as the VP candidate, your original research isn't convincing. --Bobblehead 03:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. Just read your own comment Bobblehead. It's a jumbled together newsfeed of negative opinions about one recent interview. Biden's comments are all sourced to Biden and they are real and they do not come from political adversiaries. Hobartimus (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Provide a source that isn't a blog of someone that is not associated with the McCain campaign that said Palin did a good job in the Couric campaign. I haven't been able to find one yet. --Bobblehead 04:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Biden himself gave a good reason for his own withdrawal, namely that Hillary would be a better pick, which is a direct reason as to why Biden should withdraw. Palin made no such statement, critical of the pick of herself, gave no such reason as to why she should withdraw. There is no comparsion here, if anyone's withdrawing it's Biden. Hobartimus (talk) 04:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

← I'm sure you're going to provide a valid point at some point. Can you stop bringing up your unrelated original research and get around to providing a source that says Palin did a good job in the Couric interview? --Bobblehead 05:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Care to elaborate on your insistence towards talking about an interview in a section titled "Calls to withdraw". It was already pointed out that "withdrawal" is a topic associated with Biden in light of his comment about him being a bad pick compared to Hillary, a direct reason for withdrawal. An interview is not comparable to a direct reason from the candidate's mouth. Hobartimus (talk) 06:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Biden saying HRC would have been a great ("maybe even better") choice is definitely NOT the same thing as having pundits from one's own political camp openly and publically calling on you to withdraw. Not even the same neighborhood. At the same time, I would not be surprised to learn that some Dem pundit has openly called for Biden to step down. But in the end it's all about sourcing. Reference or it never happened.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevance

The purpose of this page is discussion of how to improve Palin's article. A certain small amount of discussion of Palin is probably necessary. The occasional sentence or two about Biden may be as well. However, I'm puzzled to see soapboxing about Biden here. If one or two Palin's diligent defenders here want to beat up on Biden, then blogs and the like hosted elsewhere will welcome their contributions. -- Hoary (talk) 04:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

When one user comes up about "rumors of withdrawal" about Palin it is correct to point out that such rumors exist about Biden and not Palin. Remember that from a position of being far out on the side a neutral position in the center and adherence to established wiki policies like BLP, will seem like "diligent defense". Hobartimus (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Your second sentence is incoherent; your first makes a point that's flat wrong. If somebody here wants to edit the article to reflect what you think are vacuous claims about rumors that Palin will withdraw (or similar), go ahead and demand precision or sourcing or both. If you want to make some claim here about Biden, don't. Simple as that. If you want to improve the article on Biden, discuss your proposed improvement on that article's talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"If you want to make some claim here about Biden, don't." So claims about Biden a fellow VP candidate and opponent in the upcoming VP debate in a few days, shouldn't be made even on the talk page right? But Palin's daughter's unborn child's father should be covered extensively in the article itself, including several quotes originating from myspace.com . Your edit summary there "a futher word of wisdom from the young gent, properly sourced" inserting the qoute "Ya fuck with me I'll kick ass." was certainly an intresting one. I'm trying to understand your position here, tangential issues, or anything similar shouldn't be covered and talked about even on talk or is Biden a special case somehow? Hobartimus (talk) 06:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Too bad FoxNews is not a reliable source. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Johnson/Johnston was experiencing minor celebrity at the time. Via some process that didn't involve me in any way, his name was turned into a redirect to this article, which in turn said nothing about him. About all that was then (or is now?) known about him were the comments he'd left on the web. Thus my tentative addition of a reference to these comments. When this was deleted, I didn't much care. Meanwhile, Biden has his own article. Go ahead, make brief comments on Biden here, when they have a purpose. But this isn't your or anybody's soapbox for speeches on how ghastly/wonderful Biden/Palin is. -- Hoary (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

A few *MAJOR* changes

needs to be done.

How she is beeing cacooned from the media has been widely ridiculed by a variety of highly notable people in the press - same goes for people on both sides of the political spectrum. Also, when she does gives interviews (Charlie Gibson, Katie couric) she gets criticized by a significant amount of people, again, from the media and both sides of the politcs. Why the hell isn't this included?

She gave a speech (maybe even mor than one) at an alaskan separatist movement, along with the words 'god bless you' to them.

As mayor, employed a lobbyist who also worked for Jack Abramoff to secure $27 million in pork spending for Wasilla — more than $4,000 per resident. In her two years as governor, requested $453 million in earmarks. Alaska ranks first in the nation for pork, raking in seven times the national average. This is after she said "We ... championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress"

Look, I could go on and on but the bottom line is she is laced with a significant amount of controversy and you guys are not including this in. You guys have three days to include this, or that's it, I will. Fourtyearswhat (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh-oh. The gauntlet has been thrown by Joe Single-Purpose-Account who figures he can come in after three weeks of discussions and negotiations and lay down the law here, else he'll fix things around here himself. He's a maverick! Fcreid (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Fcreid: total contributions to date: 315; all of them pushing a Saint Sarah agenda. And Fourtyearswhat is "Joe SPA"? Oy, such a sense of humor! - Writegeist (talk) 00:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You and I differ on what constitutes "Saint Sarah", Writegeist. I'm only waiting for the hot oil wrestling. What you will notice is that I provide contributions here on the talk page (and not in the article), and that I don't "polish" things here immediately after leaving another candidate's page where I "tarnish" there. Take a hike. Fcreid (talk) 01:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There's hot-oil wrestling? Sweet! --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Its omission from the Women's Extreme Wrestling article is an inexcusable oversight. Or at least the omission of pictures is.

"Fcreid" please see your talk page. - Writegeist (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. My wife says I'm obsessing, too. Fcreid (talk) 04:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You say: She gave a speech (maybe even mor than one) at an alaskan separatist movement, along with the words 'god bless you' to them. I believe that you're referring to a speech to the Alaskan Independence Party. This article in the NYT discusses it. Well, Palin does seem to mention god rather a lot. Maybe -- as incumbent, if not as candidate -- she'd even invite the Big Man Upstairs to look after a group of Democrats: offhand I don't know, but I'm willing to be persuaded either (a) that Palin was attempting to invoke divine help for the AIP (in what would thereby become a jihad?) or (b) that she just thought it was the polite thing to say. I've read a fair amount of chuckling and denial about this (non?) issue, but never any dispassionate analysis of the role of "god bless you" within the Palin idiolect. Have you?

And that's just one of your points. If you want to add material such as this, you're going to have to (i) be very precise and (ii) provide impeccable sources. Otherwise your attempted additions will be ripped to shreds by a certain, extraordinarily energetic faction of Misplaced Pages editors, whose efforts may not be entirely unwelcome in the McCain/Palin campaign organization. -- Hoary (talk) 04:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The fact remains she praised a very hateful Alaskan secession movement very, very highly. And there are a variety of highly credible sources to back this up, the NYT for one. Fourtyearswhat (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The AIP is a mainstream political party in Alaska, just like the Democratic Party, and no more disreputable. -- Zsero (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The NYT did a retraction of its main AIP story on Palin. Collect (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of the cocooning is mentioned, although it's attributed solely to a couple of media outlets. A better statement would note that the media corporations have been broadly critical and that individual commentators have argued that this unusual course shows Palin's unpreparedness. It would also note that the practice for newly designated candidates in both parties has been to the contrary. Palin's hiring of lobbyists to go after earmarks is also included. Criticism of her inept appearances with Gibson and Couric could reasonably be included but it has to be done consistent with WP:NPOV, and the drafting is difficult. JamesMLane t c 23:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone "inept" is prima facie POV. Desiring to add extraneous POV material is highly unwise in a BLP. Collect (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Such (sourced) criticism could be balanced by other sourced material criticizing the choice and wording of questions asked, for example, Gibson's question on "Thee Bush Doctrine", or Couric's insinuation that Kissinger's position on talks with Iran somehow vindicated Obama's (which it didn't). That is what I think of when I think "NPOV". It's not supposed to mean "No point of view"... just a balance struck between the opposing points of view, which are impossible to escape.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Palin's "lobbyist" was not employed in any manner by Abramoff until after she was no longer Mayor of Wasilla. Unless you credit people with ESP, knowing who will hire someone is a tall order. This, by the way, is also in an archived discussion here. Collect (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Abortion

The current entry states:

"Palin supports a constitutional amendment to make abortion illegal in all cases, including rape and incest, except if the life of the mother is endangered."

I do not find support for attributing to her such a radical position, neither in the pages cited nor anywhere else. (Many people believe Roe is questionable, and that the matter should be left to the states, but a constitutional amendment to ban abortion is quite another thing.)

By reputation, and according to one of these and others articles, she has actually said that she would not seek to impose her personal choices about abortion onto the public, nor use a litmus test when appointing judges. This comports much more with her record as well as the answer she herself gave to the question here:

Question: If Roe v. Wade were overturned and states could once again prohibit abortion, in your view, to what extent should abortion be prohibited in Alaska?

Palin's answer: Under this hypothetical scenario, it would not be up to the governor to unilaterally ban anything. It would be up to the people of Alaska to discuss and decide how we would like our society to reflect our values.

http://community.adn.com/adn/node/130090

Therefore, I believe the entry as it currently stands is an unsupported misrepresentation of her position, and something more reflective of her own answer to the above question would be more appropriate. 76.184.219.98 (talk) 07:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- Zsero (talk) 08:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You're correct that there's no documentation that she's ever specifically said she supports a constitutional amendment banning abortion. However, she is on record stating that she thinks abortion should be banned. This is stated in the source that was already cited. Edited the article to reflect this.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Since she is on record as saying this is something the States should decide, I suspect no one is going to find her advocating a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. Also, I have yet to see a verifiable source where she is quoted as wanting to outlaw or ban abortion. I see opinions from others or statements from political opponents, but nothing yet from Palin stating such a position. Given her opposition to abortion, I wouldn't be surprised to see something surface, but in four weeks of editing this article, I haven't seen anything yet.--Paul (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's just because nobody bothers to read the interview transcripts. She is on record saying she thinks it should be banned except to protect the life of the mother. This is now fully documented. However, I did remove the claim about the "constitutional amendment" because she does not appear to have ever made any such claim. (It is conceivable, however, as a common strategy in response to courts declaring a law unconstitutional is to respond by inserting that law into the constitution so it cannot be declared unconstitutional.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's "fully documented" then there should be a quote somewhere. Maybe there is — it wouldn't surprise me in the least, nor bother me, because I agree that it should be banned — but I haven't yet seen a quote actually saying so. I think she's on record against any federal ban, though, and she is running for a federal position. -- Zsero (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

None of the provided sources support any language near "ban" or "outlaw." As far as I have seen, Palin has never advocated legislating against abortion. Since Palin is running for the Vice President of the United States, using language like "ban" implies she would outlaw abortion. It is not accurate to say so. All we have documented is that she opposes abortion in all cases except to save the life of the mother.--Paul (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has included a claim that she "would ban abortion", "has tried to ban abortion", or "as VPOTUS/POTUS, would have the power to ban abortion." However, her statements on the record clearly confirm that she opposes abortion, supports banning it, and thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned, thus allowing it to be banned. This is all perfectly accurate; you are arguing what the meaning of the word "is" is. The language used in the article is that she "believes abortion should be banned in nearly all cases" and this is substantiated both by direct quotations and analysis by reporters working for reliable sources.

And it's quite relevant to her VPOTUS candidacy as that inherently carries the possibility of appointing Federal judges... and possibly SC justices... both of whom hold power over the issue. The likely inference is simple: she opposes abortion in nearly all cases, thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned, supports the rights of states to ban abortion, and, if elected, may be put in a position to influence the judicial handling of the issue all the way up to the Supreme Court level. Hence the serious and direct relevance to the campaign.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I added a couple details from Anchorage Daily News about anti-abortion legislation Palin has supported while governor.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Refer to:http://cspanjunkie.org/?p=407 I'm sure you have seen this, but around 11:50 -12:20 into the debate, Ms. Palin responded to a hypothetical question about supporting a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion and she responded that she would support constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion even in the case of rape or incest and a few minutes later around 13:20 in a follow up question she clarified that the only acceptable exception would be if the mother’s life is in jeopardy and said she has gone on record with that view. Cyngl (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I hadn't seen that before, but it is clear enough. I'll put it back in, and source it to that video. I hope the link isn't blacklisted or something. -- Zsero (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the video link to that debate. Can we clarify that the hypothetical given was in regard to whether she as a governor would give her personal support to a proposed state constitutional amendment, and not a federal one? This is a critical distinction for those of us who agree with Palin, as she stated, that these matters should be determined at the state level. Thanks. 76.184.219.98 (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's an interesting question. At first it would seem obvious she was talking about the state constitution, since she was running for state office, but as governor she would arguably hold influence over the state legislature, which would almost inevitably be involved in any amendment of the US constitution.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt very much that Palin had the prescience to believe she would ever be in a position to impact federal laws! :) Fcreid (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Read my comment. As governor, she would have influence over the legislature, which would normally be the entity that would ratify an amendment to the US constitution. In theory, state legislatures also have some power to introduce such amendments.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it is absolutely clear that the question was about whether she would lend her political support to an amendment to the federal constitution, should one be introduced by a federal congressman. If you're in doubt, watch the video. -- Zsero (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Comments from other posters seemed to imply that the video itself left this question unsettled. Without an idea of where to further research the issue, I was simply pointing out that it was at least conceiveable that she could have been talking about the state constitution.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Warming

Palin's statements on the theory of anthropogenic global warming before and after her nomination have been the topic of commentary. A lot of people seem to think that her post-nomination statements contradict her previous position. Just now User:Quota made this edit, reflecting that view. But no matter how many people think this is a reversal, it just ain't so. Her previous position was that we couldn't be sure the warming Alaska has experienced recently was man-made. Now she says we can't be sure it wasn't. Where's the contradiction? -- Zsero (talk) 09:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

We do know that she now thinks it is a cause for action, as she said here: "Regardless, though, of the reason for climate change, whether it's entirely, wholly caused by man's activities or is part of the cyclical nature of our planet — the warming and the cooling trends — regardless of that, John McCain and I agree that we gotta do something about it." Switzpaw (talk) 11:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

During her governorship, did she not take action to prevent global warming because she didn't believe man's activities contributed to it? That part is unclear. As it stands, I don't see any reason to doubt the conclusion presented by the AP article that what she is saying now is "at odds" with what she was saying then. Maybe "reversal" isn't the appropriate word to use, but it seems to fit more appropriately than "clarify". Switzpaw (talk) 11:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There's some politicianly parsing going on there. She agrees that we should do something about it, if we can; but what? I haven't heard her say that she agrees with McCain that we ought to cut down on CO₂ emissions. Has she said that? I mean, I wish she'd just come right out and say he's wrong about it, just as she does about ANWR, but the reality is that as his running mate she owes it to him not to allow more space between them than she absolutely has to, and maybe they agreed on this formula, which can be understood as supporting CO₂ cuts without actually saying so. At any rate, until you find a statement of hers on the subject that flatly contradicts her earlier position, I don't think the article can call it a reversal. -- Zsero (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

A reliable source (the AP) has noted that Palin's various statements on global warming are "at odds" with one another. That is the basis on which such information would be included. It's not our place as editors to try and juxtapose her various quotes and insert our own conclusions about their consistency. MastCell  17:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not a fact but the AP reporter's opinion; when it comes to opinion the AP is no more reliable a source than any of us. The fact is that the two statements do not contradict each other, no matter how many reporters claim they do. -- Zsero (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think that line is going to fly; and if you think the AP is "no more reliable than any of us", you're in the wrong place (see WP:V, WP:NOR, etc). It's not an "opinion" piece; when a respected news agency with a record of objectivity and neutrality reports a contradiction, then that is notable, just as the contradictions between Palin's record and claims are notable elsewhere when reliable sources have pointed them out. MastCell  19:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The two statements do not contradict. Working for the AP does not turn someone's opinion that they do contradict into a fact. What matters is not whether it's an "opinion piece" or a "news piece" but whether the specific words cited are opinion or news. "Pointing out" a contradiction that doesn't exist is by definition opinion, not news, even if it appears in a news piece, just as citable facts appear in opinion pieces. I'm going to be off WP for the next 2 days so I can't stop you adding it again, but if I see it in the article when I come back I will delete it, because it's not true. -- Zsero (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"Adding it again"? I haven't touched this article in some time, and I don't intend to, because I value my mental health. I appreciate your willingness to edit-war, though. I'm just saying that WP:V applies even when you personally disagree with the verifiable items in question. MastCell  05:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The paraphrasing of the Newsmax article was OR. I have removed it and replaced it with direct quotations from the article.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Putin rears his head

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

Yes her extensive foreign experience she explains should be talked about

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

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

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

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

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

Prodigious amount of backlash on Sarah Palin from GOP

A little backstory. Ever since the Charlie Gibbson interview, and now the widely ridculed Katie Couric interview, the media has been criticizing her left and right. Ever since day one of the VP choice there has been concerns about the VP choice from Sarah Palin, but now the amount has risen exponentially and notably.

Here's one example, titled "Calls rise among Republicans for Sarah Palin to step down from GOP ticket" : http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/09/27/2008-09-27_calls_rise_among_republicans_for_sarah_p.html

Here are hundreds upon hundreds more examples: http://news.google.com/nwshp?tab=wn&ned=us&ncl=1251026514&hl=en

There are a varity of politicians on Misplaced Pages that have a "controversy" section, or a "criticism" section. If any politican, you'd think Sasrah Palin would have one as well. Again, you guys have three days or I'm adding the section in my self. And yes, there will be a mountain high list of sources to back up all my claimes ranging from CNN, Fox News, Washington Post, MSNBC, New York Times, etc.

Fourtyearswhat (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Why wait? Have at it, Fourtyearswhat! - Writegeist (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that BOTH the Gibson and Couric interviews (the TV versions) were HEAVILY edited to make Palin look less convincing than she really was. In particular the foreign policy part of the Couric interview. Now, compare that to the fact the O'Reilly/Obama interview was aired UNEDITED. It's obviously to me that the media is intentionally trying to make Palin look bad. 75.81.214.73 (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources who compared the actual interview with the allegedly edited broadcast version, so we can be sure you are not engaging in original research and POV spin-doctoring. Then we can include those reliable sources in the article. Edison (talk) 06:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's going to be awfully hard to get relief on such a concern, especially in the small amount of time remaining before this article becomes partially or fully moot on Nov 4. A bias pervading the entire "media" would be difficult to demonstrate, let alone compensate for. At that, avoid over-generalizing. Bill O'Reilly is a member of "the media" too.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Again. You guys got three days or I'll do it myself. I'll add an exceptionally large criticism and controversy section to her name. It won't be pretty, and it'll be provided with a very large amount of credible sources. Fourtyearswhat (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

...and unless you get consensus for it, the material will immediately be reverted as an NPOV / WEIGHT / COATRACK / CRITICISM violation. Instead of announcing deadlines and making threats, and setting yourself up in opposition to other editors here, please respect the collaborative nature of the encyclopedia and use the talk page to make any specific proposals you may have for improving the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Re;3 Days Notice to shape up or ship out. To enter into an on-going discussion with abrupt demands and unreasonable declarations is contrary to WP:AGF, WP:Civil, and I'm sure many others. It implies that existing editors are incompetent which is FAR from the case. Fourtyyearswhat...do your edits, but don't expect to have them excepted with open arms. And, when fellow editors have a problem with them, be willing to take some responsibility for the manner in which they were presented.--Buster7 (talk) 12:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Be bold. Go ahead and make your edits. Insofar as they are reasonable, well-sourced, and compliant with guidelines, a bit of opposition from other editors will not keep them out. Just be prepared to justify your edits.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

question?

I'm embarrassed because this is probably a question any poli sci 101 student would know; but what would happen if McCain died before the election? Cyngl (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If it happens before the election, the RNC chooses another candidate, who would probably not be Palin. Congress could delay the election, but it would almost certainly not. Ditto if it happens after the election, which he wins, but before the Electoral College meets on December 15. If it happens after the EC meets, but before its votes are counted on January 6, then Congress could ask the EC to meet again and send in new ballots to replace the old ones; I don't know whether it would do so. Once the votes have been counted, if the President-Elect dies the VP-Elect becomes President-Elect. And of course if it happens after inauguration on January 20, the VP becomes President. -- Zsero (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify the above response, in the U.S. presidential elections, we do not vote for a candidate, but a slate of electors, separate slates for each state, who have pledged to vote for that candidate. Those pledges are not binding and the electors could vote for anyone. They might actually do so even if their candidate was alive but, say, incapacitated by a stroke. --agr (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not clear that Congress has the authority to delay a Presidential election. Edison (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed rewording of last paragraph in reception section

I'm really thinking that we should mention Palin's performance in the three sit-down interviews that she has had so far, especially the Gibson and Couric interviews. I haven't really found that much about her performance in Hannity's interview except for as a side mention about it being an "informercial" or "easier interview" than Gibson's, but I did find mention of it in an article about her Couric interview. All in all, I'm throwing the following out as a starting point, feel free to hack and slash as you see fit. --Bobblehead 19:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin appeared on the covers of Newsweek and Time, which had been critical of the level of media access to Palin allowed by the McCain campaign. Her first interview with the press was with Charles Gibson of ABC News and aired on September 12. Palin's performance in the interview received mixed reviews with her most confident answer being that she was ready to be vice president and a stumble when asked about the Bush Doctrine. Her interview five days later with Fox News's Sean Hannity went much smoother with Hannity focusing on many of the same question's from Gibson's interview. Palin's performance in her interview with Katie Couric of CBS News on September 24 was heavily criticized by the media and began to raise concerns among conservatives about her readiness to be vice president. Apart from these interviews, the press has had relatively little access to Palin, with an attempt to limit access to Palin's appearance at the United Nations prompting protests from the Associated Press and CNN.

1. Calderone, Michael (2008). "Sarah Palin has yet to meet the press". Yahoo News. Retrieved 2008-09-09.
2. Rutenberg, Jim (September 12, 2008). "In First Big Interview, Palin Says, 'I'm Ready'". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-09-12.
3. Stanley, Alessandra (2008-09-25). "A Question Reprised, but the Words Come None Too Easily for Palin". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-09-28.
4. Sarah Palin and Couric interview, by Glenn Greenwald, salon.com Sept 25, 2008.
5. "Palin gets media savaging after faltering interview". AFP. 2008-09-27. Retrieved 2008-09-28.
6. Sara Kugler (2008-09-23). "Palin meets Karzai without usual reporters in tow". Associated Press. Retrieved 2008-09-23.

The Greenwald piece doesn't quote any conservatives that I could see. The AFP piece cites one conservative calling for Palin to be replaced by Jindal — as if he wouldn't have been savaged just as badly by the media. (Greenwald's not a reliable source anyway - a cabal of lefty minions have kept details of his sock-puppetry off his article, but there's no doubt whatsoever that he was caught red-handed. But that's neither here nor there, as the piece cited here doesn't support the text it's cited for anyway.)

The real question, I think, is how notable it is that the MSM didn't like her performance - does anyone imagine that there was the slightest chance they would like it, even if she'd performed like Reagan at his best? It seems more like "sun rises in the east" material.

Oh, and the Bush Doctrine thing was only a stumble if you were determined to see it that way. Turning an ambiguous question on the questioner, and refusing to answer it without first pinning the questioner down to one definition, seems pretty smart to me. (Not that I think it would matter if she hadn't recognised the term.) -- Zsero (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's a conservative who is critical of Palin: Kathleen Parker in National Review, hardly MSM or a hotbed of liberalism, that could perhaps be included for balance of sources. Tvoz/talk 22:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, did you not read my comment? I said that the AFP piece does cite one conservative. -- Zsero (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The Greenwald piece is not being used to support the conservatives criticizing Palin's performance, just that she had one where her performance wasn't exactly the best. If you would like, I can replace that one with the other articles. Here's one from the The Daily Telegraph, another from Fox News that includes multiple conservatives saying she needs to go, or is out of her league and a Politico article covering even more conservatives. Also, if you'll re-read the sentence, I'm not saying the conservatives are saying she needs to be replaced, just that they are questioning her readiness to be VP. If you would like, we can reword the sentence to say that her performance has "caused conservatives to be concerned about her readiness" and leave it at that. --Bobblehead 23:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• There are a number of editors who don't think this should be in the article at all: Talk:Sarah Palin#Over detailed interview paragraph is not part of *reception*--Paul (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're talking about a different section? The edit you linked to seems to be about an extensive coverage of Palin vs. Kissinger vs. Couric vs. etc that existed in the section. If you'll note, there is absolutely no mention of Kissinger in my proposed wording. I tried to focus the paragraph as much on the reaction to her performances as I could. The only detail I have about the interviews was that she confidently answered that she was ready to be VP and that she stumbled on the Bush Doctrine question and that was because there was such mixed reviews on her performance there. I haven't found a source that said she answered the Bush Doctrine question successfully. Even the ones that were criticizing Gibson for "trapping" Palin with the question said she came off in a less than positive manner. --Bobblehead 22:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

reject the Bobblehead proposal, any interview is not going to be notable in the long run. In just a few days the debate will blow away all coverage of any of the past interviews. Hobartimus (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Hobartimus on this one. Collect (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I trust you have an opinion that is actually defensible by Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, or are you just firing up your crystal ball? The McCain campaign has kept Palin almost cloistered since her selection as VP and have only wheeled her out for photo-ops, campaign speeches, or fundraisers (and they've been cancelling those appearances left and right of late). As far as the notability of the interviews, you're probably right that no one will remember Hannity's interview (most don't remember it now), but her poor performance in Gibson's and Couric's interviews are certainly notable in that they reinforce the meme that the reason why they've been so protective of her is because she's not ready for prime time. Even if Palin does well in Thursday debate, the storyline is not going to be just that she did well in the debate, but rather it is going to be that after two weeks of poor performances in interviews, she rose to the occassion and did well in the debate. On the other hand, if she does poorly in the debate, the clamor for her to drop off the ticket is only going to increase. But either way, speculation of her performance in the debates is just crystal balling and is not an acceptable reason to not include something in the article. --Bobblehead 02:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I invite all editors to look at the above comment by Bobblehead and decide for themselves if it's rooted in and based on a deep respect for "Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines" or is just a large amount of personal opinion presented for our benefit. With special attention to the usage of such phrases as, "reinforce the meme", "the storyline is not going to be" "photo-ops" and others. Hobartimus (talk) 06:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this as a BLP issue. However, like Hobartimus I question whether the statement that many consider Palin to have done poorly in the interviews, even if true and sourced, would rise to the level of being notable to her life and career. It suffers from WP:RECENT, so I think we can afford to leave it out of the encyclopedia until and unless it becomes such a major thing that it would pass WP:WEIGHT. Because I think it's too minor a thing to include I won't bother addressing the sourcing or neutrality/POV question. Wikidemon (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If the interviews themselves are worthy of inclusion in this article, I'm having problems sussing out how reactions to those interviews are not equally worthy of inclusion. Seriously, if WP:RECENT is a valid concern then the interviews themselves should be removed from the article. --Bobblehead 06:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That's true. I don't think they're that important for the bio either, although the reaction to them is a little more news-ish and somewhat less notable than the fact that they happened at all. Wikidemon (talk) 07:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

← You are aware that WP:NN does not define inclusion of content within an article, but rather whether or not an article can be created, right? Content within articles is defined by WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. I'm also unclear how increased newsworthiness of something makes it less "notable" for inclusion within the article. Yet again, WP:NOT#NEWS is about creation of articles and not about content within articles. You can argue how neutrally worded the my proposal is or if it is providing undue weight, but the content is verifiable and reliably sourced. --Bobblehead 07:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware of the issue, and use "notable" as shorthand for being of sufficient significance and relevance to the subject of the article to be worthy of inclusion. Some describe it as "weight". That is a crucial inclusion criterion that remains implicit because all attempts to create a guideline on the subject have failed. One way or another we don't include things that are tangential or insignificant. News-ish is just a comment of mine relating to WP:NOT#NEWS. Things that are just the news of the day tend to fade quickly and not be of any lasting notability (or weight, relevance, significance if you prefer). Two years from now people wanting to know more about Palin will care that she was a beauty queen, mother of four children, gun supporter, and perhaps that she was accused of bringing personal issues to the office. But they won't likely be interested in three TV interviews and how the press reacted to them, not unless it's shown to have been a significant point in her political life. Wikidemon (talk) 08:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

At this point in time, her performance in the interviews is a significant point in her political life, they are raising concerns about her general readiness to be VP among those who used to be/are her supporters and are one of the reasons her favorability ratings have dropped as much as they have. Palin's favorability rating dropped ten points in the days following Gibson's interview according to Diageo/Hotline and they've been flatlined since then. --Bobblehead 08:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this proposal was discussed enough, time to move on to more productive discussions and let others, new commenters weigh in here. I think all participants commenting above stated their view on this very clearly.Hobartimus (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

User Wikidemon (talk) correctly identifies that the neither the interviews or the reaction belong in this article because they are topical and most likely transitory. They are not biographical, and will not be of any interest to a reader five years from now. Bobblehead replies that "At this point in time, her performance in the interviews is a significant point in her political life, they are raising concerns about her general readiness to be VP" proving Wikidemon's point. "At this point in time" is not biographical, it is transitory. "raising concerns about her general readiness to be VP" isn't biographical either, it is editorial and political. I agree with Collect, Hobartimus, and Wikidemon that neither the interviews, nor the reactions (nor the debate) belong in this article.--Paul (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Collect, Hobartimus, and Wikidemon. JenWSU (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have argued before that this whole subsection is recentism and should be scrapped. However, I think, it is fine as is (i.e., brief, unembelished factual statements), now that she is no longer really being "received" but instead being "reacted to", as she activily starts campaigning. The fact and timing of the first few interviews round out the "cover girl" to "scant access of the press" transition. The reactions to the interviews should be covered in the John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 article. IHMO, "reception" to Sarah Palin's choice and nomination is over, and it is all campaigning and politics from here out. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

it is all campaigning and politics from here out--That is an understatement! Fcreid (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I would think that all this commentary and analysis would be quite relevant in five years. Put another way, a biography written in five years would probably include all of this. What else is she going to be nationally known for?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent question! Here are a few Vice Presidential candidate biographical articles. Please let me know how many references you find to press interviews, witches, and wolf hunting: Richard Mentor Johnson, George M. Dallas, William O. Butler, William R. King, John C. Breckinridge, Herschel Vespasian Johnson, Joseph Lane, George H. Pendleton, Francis Preston Blair, Jr., Benjamin Gratz Brown, Thomas A. Hendricks, Allen G. Thurman, Adlai E. Stevenson I, Arthur Sewall, Henry G. Davis, John W. Kern, Thomas R. Marshall, Charles W. Bryan, Joseph Taylor Robinson, John Sparkman, Estes Kefauver, Lloyd Bentsen, William L. Dayton, Schuyler Colfax, William A. Wheeler, Chester A. Arthur, John A. Logan, Levi P. Morton, Whitelaw Reid, Garret A. Hobart, Nicholas Butler, Charles W. Fairbanks, Charles Curtis, Frank Knox, Charles McNary, John Bricker, Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., William E. Miller, Jack Kemp. BTW, doesn't your question imply a bit of WP:CRYSTAL BALL?--Paul (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hell, it is possible that, in five years, she could be known as the President of the United States of America. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sensing some sarcasm there,Paul. Please see WP:Civility.

Anyway, take a look at Dan Quayle and all the coverage of criticism, gaffes, and blunders. Then maybe I will page through everybody in that massive list. Hell, half the people on that list pre-date TELEVISION as well as other communications media, the Internet, to name just a few. OF COURSE there will be less press material on record, as well as less public knowledge of those candidates' foibles and darker secrets.

At that, all of this will become EVEN MORE RELEVANT if she somehow ends up as VPOTUS or POTUS.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

When the initial 'reception' of Palin was very positive, the section includes the positive reaction to her convention speech, favorable polls including one on the public reaction to the negative media coverage and other details. When there is negative reaction to the very limited media access and her initial interviews, WP policies and other rationalizations are raised to keep the facts out of the section. I do not think this is fair, balanced or NPOV. If the negative material is recentism, so is the positive stuff. IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree, IP75. While I didn't actively participate in any of that, I was actually very reticent when this stuff about poll numbers, positive reactions, etc. started making it in there for exactly this reason. I think it would be fair to say (and source) her precipitous selection energized some of the conservative base that had previously been cool to McCain, as that can easily be perceived to be a long-term historical fact, but beyond that is just too fickle in today's climate. Fcreid (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Great job, and Zsero's tweak improved it, too. Nice. KillerChihuahua 19:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Killer -- I fear you have misapprehended the later sections in this talk page, which renders this paragraph not only useless, but far from consensus. Might you revisit the later discussions at this point? Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Collect - I'm sorry to hear about your fear.

This article covers very much everything we've been saying here - "the GOP's continued sheltering of its vice presidential nominee" = " I just find it astounding," Woodruff said. "I think the media has a responsibility to continue to point out that this is unlike any presidential or vice presidential candidate in memory" - "The real loser ... Palin's approval rating has dropped since she was nominated." This is in a nutshell, in one article, that Palin has been isolated; it is unprecedented, and it has affected her reception. I don't have time to see where this might fit into that section right now, but I will be back later. Meanwhile I post the link here for others to attempt to integrate. KillerChihuahua 10:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional source for "let Palin be Palin" - CNN. I prefer the Guardian; it adds a WorldView aspect rather than a US-centric appearance, but I place the CNN ref here in case others editing this article wish to examine the sourcing and/or add a reference. KillerChihuahua 11:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this post was misplaced. This section is apparently titled to discuss a proposal by Bobblehead. There are millions of articles written about Palin, the fact that you liked this particular one to the extent that you want to push for it's "integration" has little to do with this. Could try it's own section titled "Look at this great article". Hobartimus (talk) 10:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You are in error. Although the section began, and indeed is headed, with Bobblehead's rewrite proposal, the rewrite itself and the subsequent (on topic) comments concern the content of the paragraph. Offering better and more sourcing is common on WP; which is what I have done. I have never confused WP with a forum, which is where "look at this great article" might be appropriate. Hence, your suggestion is not only inappropriate and mistaken, it is against talk page guidelines, as I am certain you would have realized had you given the matter more thought. KillerChihuahua 10:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked at your article and found nothing remarkable about it, it's probably the very same with other parts of the media, all have a strong financial interest in covering Palin due to the large demand for such coverage and their needs are not being met. It's expected that some would be unhappy and whine if they want something bad and they can't have it. Gibson and the others who got in LOVE the way it's being handled. According to your article Biden gave 89 interviews yet most people would be hard pressed to recall any of them. Here you just mention Gibson and everyone knows what you are talking about. Hobartimus (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you have a suggestion for improving the article, or are you simply having some weird kind of fun calling that article "my" article and bitching about the media? Please don't spam the talk page with this kind of snide OR nonsense, thanks. KillerChihuahua 11:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I should have described it as the "article you try to bring to the attention of people in multiple threads on this talk page" I didn't think you would take offense to "your article" Hobartimus (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification - no worries, then. It did read as though you were trying to make some kind of obscure point, I am glad to hear that is not the case. KillerChihuahua 13:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is NOT NEUTRAL

So much for Wiki being a place to go to get that facts! When you leave half the facts out, that does NOT make for a balanced article. Nothing on aerial wolf hunting or her illegal bounty, nothing on her wanting to remove polar bears and the beluga whale from the endangered species list to increase trophy hunting licenses, nothing about rape victims having to buy their own rape kits, nothing about her complete incompetence in the interviews that were mentioned (Gibson/Hannity/Couric) ... echoed even by Republicans: http://afp.google.com/articleALeqM5i7lJ7uGNOkOTK964WwjybvKVDouA

This whitewash article serves as a disservice to the US and every voter that comes looking for the WHOLE truth, not just the flattering facts. Your "balance" in this article amounts to a grand piano on one side and a massless particle on the other. 11dimensions (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you to some extend but your comment can be applied to every article related to the election. You can propose reliable sourced material to this article if you wish so and contribute to WP (this way), rather than just pointing out bias on the whole article. And by the way, your link doesn't work, (at least for me). --Floridianed (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The truest sign of a good Wiki article on a controversial topic is that nobody is happy with it (except maybe balance junkies). Misplaced Pages is not intended as an outlet for breaking news or as a point of synthesis for ongoing political debate. The nature of the beast is that a truly good, NPOV article can only be written on topics where the facts are either well-settled, or at least are not changing on a daily basis. It takes time to achieve a consensus and tease balance out of a topic on which reasonable editors strongly disagree. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The mere fact that this article is now a central one to the Election means that it is nearly impossible for it to be neutral. Everybody will be trying to sway the direction of the article one way or the other, and we'll have to wait for at least a few months after the election before it (and other related articles) can be edited to be NPOV. -Rycr (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It is very important that this article not be slanted either for or against Palin, especially since it is the 7th most viewed article on Misplaced Pages. If you perceive that there is imbalance, you are welcome to cite here reliable sources which contain facts not adequately covered in the article, or things said in the article which are not reliably sourced, or aspects of Palin which are not covered in an NPOV manner. This must not be an attack article, and it must not be a puff piece. Edison (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with Factchecker's test for article quality, because it exposes us to the "working the refs" style at which, on the national scene, Republicans have become particularly adept. Pretty much regardless of what the media say, you can find prominent Republicans professing to see a liberal bias. We have to look at the specifics and not be swayed by the noise machine. In this instance, the animal issues (ESA listing of polar bears and beluga whales, aerial hunting of wolves, the bounty on wolves, and the illegality of the bounty) are noted in the article. The issue of paying for rape kits isn't in the article now, but it should be, and I hope it will be before too long. The issue of her abysmal performance in her few interviews so far is tougher to handle in NPOV fashion. You should suggest specific language here and perhaps some information can be included. JamesMLane t c 01:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest those who see political bias on a partisan basis are errant. The burden is on those who want to add extraneous information to a BLP to show relevance to the article. So far, this article has attracted a multitude of editors who main interest is in adding defamatory verbiage, and don't even have references to back up their most outlandish claims (such as Palin being Trig's grandmother, etc.). WRT the wolf bopunty, it was found illegal only on the basis of which group had the right to offer it, not on any other grounds (I looked up the articles on the court decision). As for an editorial position that she is "abysmal" in some sense would seem to imply that that person has a specific POV, and such opinions belong in absolutely no WP article, BLP or not. Collect (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my analysis, although it's strictly opinion. Any article that accurately portrays Palin's positive side, or implies that some criticisms against her have been false, is going to irk her detractors. Any article which accurately portrays criticisms against Palin will irk her supporters. As with most controversial articles, the majority of parties editing the article will be interested, i.e. either a supporter or detractor. If the article is well done, all these people (myself included) will be left feeling that their axe has not been sufficiently ground. Only people (myself included) who find a balanced article inherently satisfying, or enjoy the process of giving their opponents a fair reading, will really be happy with the result.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems you included yourself in too many groups there, being really happy and unhappy at the same time. Hobartimus (talk) 02:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No contradiction IMO, this article will never reflect my views on Palin, yet that is exactly how it is supposed to be. There's a certain beauty in that and I appreciate the editorial process and guidelines which attempt to foster neutrality here even as I admit that I have a specific POV with respect to this article. I think most of us do.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Factchecker wrote, "The nature of the beast is that a truly good, NPOV article can only be written on topics where the facts are either well-settled, or at least are not changing on a daily basis." When it comes to the typical encyclopedia article, I would normally agree with this. If this were the article on Abraham Lincoln it would be pretty easy to follow this principle. But Misplaced Pages articles do not all fall into that category. Many of our articles are explicitly on current events - this is one of Misplaced Pages's strengths, that it can always be current (unlike traditional encyclopedias which are revised only many years apart). And articles that have significant content on current events cannot by teir nature follow Factchecker's standard. Let's be honest: if Palin were not veep candidate, we might still have an article on her; given the nature of her career, a lot of details just would not go into the article because they are not notable. But a great deal of this article is driven by the fact that she is currently one of the veep candidates and therefore in the news on a daily basis. That's the whole point - it is precisely because what she says and does is newsworthy that it rises to the current events standard of notability. And this means that, yes, some elements of the article will change on a daily basis. Some facts may appear to be correct today and need correction tomorrow - but hey, we can handle that, again, that is the genius of Misplaced Pages, constantly being revised/ And just because other fact are in dispute does not mean that they shouldn't be introduced into the article. The question is, is the dispute over facts itself notable? And if the dispute over facts is a topic on all major media outlets, well, that certainly establishes sufficient notability for an article, or portion of an article, that covers current events. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me phrase my opinion another way. Consider the rate at which new information is either being put out, or being discovered. Consider also the rate at which editors are making changes, and the rate at which new editors are joining this article. Finally, consider my *opinion* that while some of us are less (or more) experienced and well-versed in Wiki guidelines, nearly all of us have a non-neutral opinion of Palin as a political candidate.

There are 1,440 minutes in a day. For how many of those minutes, on a given day, is this article immune to POV objections due to its inherently well-balanced nature? I think most people would say "not too many" and some people would say "zero". It's not just that we're dealing with dynamic, current events. It's also a highly controversial and charged topic on which nearly everybody has an incomplete or even incorrect reading of the facts. I'm not trying to say we can't get near NPOV, only that we can't achieve an exemplary level of NPOV due to the fluidity and inherent controversy.

Metaphorically, it's like being at a pool surrounded by a concrete deck, in the rain, and constantly trying to squeegee the rain off of the deck and into the pool. You could do a great job of it but there would always be some water that's on the deck and not in the pool... until it stops raining. Really it was just a philosophical point, in response to 11dimensions: anybody coming here hoping to find a political version of "the truth" about Palin is going to be disappointed... because "the truth" is inevitably some POV that is balanced or contradicted by someone else's version of "the truth".

What Misplaced Pages helps us establish with an article like this are the undisputed facts and a certain range of documented, widely held views on both sides. Until these stabilize (not anytime soon, to be sure), it's my opinion that this article will nearly always contain some POV pushing.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

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

I just added this to her Misplaced Pages entry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opinions on availability?

"Apart from these, the press has had relatively little access to Palin, prompting protests from the Associated Press and CNN. " does not, to me, seem to belong in a BLP. It is, in fact, editorial commentary. Is there any consensus on this? I would support the removal of the commentary which is not biographical information. Collect (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Or potentially of interest in the campaign article. However, I would agree in your assessment of the editorial nature, as it somehow presumes that meeting with CNN or AP is among her duties. Fcreid (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, please write here, instead of simply reverting. I am trying to avoid anything other than a consensus. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The magazine covers, the timing of intial interviews (at least the 1st one) and the complaint by the press that they lack access are all valid "reception" issues dealing with an information-starved press (resulting from Palin being a relatively unknown) that put a cap on the section. The paragraph has been more fully discussed above at Talk:Sarah_Palin#Proposed_rewording_of_last_paragraph_in_reception_section. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Her interviews have been lambasted from all sides - even the right - and commentators think she should drop out. And yet this article makes no mention of this. The Couric interview was laughable. Palin just talked gibberish. Why isnt any of this in this article? Quotes like this need to be seen to be believed: "It's very important when you consider even national-security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the airspace of the United States of America. Where—where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to—to our state." What is she on? Why isnt this in the article? It's her own words. 90.231.2.252 (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree. My concern is this all seems like campaign-related information, including the "Reception" section. Certainly, the beef that CNN/AP have (valid or not) is solely with the McCain campaign, as Palin is on their "leash" for that schedule. Moreover, I don't know of any objective metric for what constitutes "adequate" press accessibility for a candidate, e.g. a notional number of interviews per month, what news organizations must be included, etc. From what I recall, her first interview (with Gibson) was actually sooner than Biden's first press interview after his selection. Given the scant time between selection and election, it seems that would be the least of one's concerns. Fcreid (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Again, I'd previously argued to remove the entire *Reception* sub-section per WP:RECENT. However, it is a subsection of the vice-presidential campaign section, and the intense focus on her (as opposed to Biden or even Obama, at this point) is because relatively little was know about her when she was nominated. (I can't remember: Did Biden get any Magazine covers?) Now the expansion of the section should really be over. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Biden has given 90 interviews. Palin has given 3, and they were tightly controlled. Without suggesting any specific guideline for how much press access is "adequate", I still feel pretty comfortable saying Biden's level of press access has been adequate and Palin's has definitely not. I don't really think it's relevant, though, except insofar as it may be the subject of on-the-record commentary by reliable sources. In Palin's case, her unwillingness to be interviewed has sparked protests by some of the most established and reputable news organizations in existence. Given the current scope of this article it should definitely be included in my opinion.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect Obama wishes he'd have had about one-tenth of that number, Factchecker! :) Fcreid (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Collect on this. The info is certainly relevent to a campaign article, but serves no purpose in a bio.Zaereth (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you taking about just that sentence or the entire Sarah_Palin#2008_Vice-presidential_campaign section? --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to completely disagree with Zaereth and Collect. Other BLPs of political figures include coverage of their political careers, campaigns, positions, criticisms, gaffes, etc. I don't see why this should be any different.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Factchecker, I just checked the Biden article. It doesn't have any mention of the number of interviews he's provided to the press since his selection as VP nominee, and it also has no mention of any of the gaffes during that campaign. What "standard" are you using for comparison? Fcreid (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Searching for consensus. As I look over the comments on this section, I find Bobblehead, Factchecker and IP90 to strongly favor the comments. EDV-Wiki appears to favor the comments if the section on "Reception" is retained, but would favor removal of that entire section. Zsero, Paul, Hobartisimus, Collect, Wikidemon, JenWSU, Fcreid and Zaereth appear to believe the commentary ought not be in the article. Does this fairly represent each person's views? Thanks! Collect (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct on my part.Zaereth (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I thought/think Fcreid was agreeing with me. Maybe, I'm wrong. And I'm not sure I favor removing the entire section anymore. It may no longer fall under WP:RECENT. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You're correct, Evb. I don't know exactly which portions belong here (i.e. are biographical), but it's clear some portions (and any expansion) should probably go to the respective campaign articles. I know it's hard to differentiate in the thick of things as we are, but if you asked an average joe to read it, and his response is "why do I care and what does it have to do with the subject", it's a pretty good indication it doesn't belong. If we could see six months (or even six weeks!) in the future and say it still belonged, then it's biographical. Fcreid (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We have sources that can cite AP and CNN being pissed about it. What's the issue here? It's very obvious that she's being shielded, it's gained attention, and we have sources to prove it. Even after the debate, the campaign refused to let her be interviewed, and instead offered Guliani. Grsz 19:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

At this point, we have 3 named editors and one IP backing keeping the commentary. 2 in favor of moving things into campaign articles (forgive me if this is incorrect), and 7 in favor of removal. Anyone else weighing in? Collect (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Gov. Palin is "on a short leash" and is not available to the press at the same traditional levels of past VP candidates is noteworthy in her BLP. I favor inclusion of her lack of availability until she is not protected from openly communicating with the Press. --Buster7 (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Through inference, many have concluded that Palin is being sheltered from the press because she is unready to handle them, I presume? Could it not also be that she simply hasn't had time in her schedule (60 days from notification to election) to prepare and hold many of those conferences? In fact, there are actually several other plausible possibilities, and I'm not suggesting which is accurate or which I personally believe, but any mention in her biography here has to be attributable to her. As far as I know, it is the campaign driving her schedule, and that is why I believe it belongs there. Fcreid (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Making 4 named editors and 1 checquered IP for keeping the commentary, 7 agsinst, 2 with a position which would prefer seeing the commentary in a campaign article and not in a BLP. Last call -- at this point I would suggest the consensus is opposed to the commentary remaining in the article. Collect (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You continue to mis-read my comments. At this time, I favor keeping the entire unembellished final paragraph in the *Reception* sub-section AS IS. Compare with the proposal set forth here. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not intend to misread your comments. I ascribed a position which I thought was commonly hed by you and Fcreid as presented above. Collect (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

AP's and CNN's self-interested protests at la Palin's inaccessibility are matters of piffling insignificance where her BLP is concerned, and should be dropped. The inaccessibility itself might be sufficiently notable for inclusion in an article about the electioneering/campaigning, but that would also depend on sources. So I side with my esteemed SPA friend and Saint Sarah's faithful flock on this one.

90.231.2.252, the revealing passage you quote is in the Political Positions of Saint Sarah article, or it was when I last looked. — Writegeist (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, this isn't just stuck somewhere in the middle of a biographical article. This is contained in a section specifically dedicated to addressing the campaign, i.e., Sarah_Palin#2008_Vice-presidential_campaign. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I would simply add my opinion that if achieving a substantive editorial consensus somehow involves editors "voting" on something, then we need some kind of quorum call.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As I did not call this a "vote" I wonder what your problem is when one editor seriously tries to find the consensus of editors involved in an article? I truly hope you do not think consensus requires that your position prevail? Collect (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a little early to shout, "Last Call". Isn't this establishment open 24 hours?--Buster7 (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith, if you don't mind. In my experience with Misplaced Pages, what I've called a "consensus" has been when all of the interested editors eventually agreed upon some compromise that didn't fully satisfy any of them. Maybe that was a luxury due to editing articles that didn't attract so many people, but I've never thought of it as taking two camps of people who substantively disagree on something, and then simply measuring which camp appears to be bigger and going with their preferred course of action. But if that IS the case then I think this ought to be submitted to administration or the larger Wiki community rather than simply take a head count of a bunch of interested inviduals that are currently working on the article.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not intend it as such. The fact is that the editors who have been here the most have all weighed in, and the arguments for keeping something in an article are generally considered to have high importance. Alas, I did not find the arguments compelling. There is an old adage "when in doubt, leave it out" and that would seem to be applicable here as well. From WP:CONSENSUS "Opinion has more weight when you provide a rationale during a poll, not just a vote. Convince others of your views, and give them a chance to convince you. Pure argumentativeness rarely convinces others." Thanks! As for any suggestion that a formal Request for Comment will work -- the history here was that the person who called for it ignored the results. Kindly note that I refrained from any hasty action, and I would trust you will afford me the same benefit of good faith as I afford you. Collect (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

First, I don't think a majority "tabulation" signifies consensus. Second, I think her strained relations with the press belong in her Vice-Presidential Campaign section, as it is one of the primary themes of the campaign. Aprock (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The fact is that she's given three interviews, which is highly unusual and has greatly limited reporters' and voters' ability to evaluate her as a candidate, and her reception thus is something of a questionable item, with a great reaction to her speech and varying reactions to those three interviews. That's all there is, so yeah, its notable. Biden is not an unknown; he's given almost 100 interviews since he was named by Obama and of course thousands in his 30+ years as a public figure on the national level. Hence, his article does not have the same requirements as this one. Apples and oranges. Now, it may be arguable that it might "fit" better in a different section - but it is not realisitcally arguable that it does not belong at all. A brand new face as the co-runner for the highest offices in the land? Reception is noteworthy and important. KillerChihuahua 21:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I can think of 30 editors of long standing that have been working on this article that have not "weighed in". Let's be courteous and wait a bit. What's the rush? We can omit when Gov. Palin begins to give an ordinary number of interviews and comments. Her lack of input is noteworthy, the reader can infer what ever they choose, pro or con. The article is about Sarah Palin, today. And today she is unavailable, which, for a polititian running for the Highest Office in the land is unusual--Buster7 (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You have stated that editors here are paid by the Republican Party. I would like to disabuse you of that bad faith assumption in no uncertain terms, and would think you will admit such. Thanks. Collect (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

@ Collect...Let me clarify. Common Sense tells me that BOTH the Republican AND the Democratic parties have paid advocates here. Are you surprised?--Buster7 (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My Dunninger pills have worn off. Were campign workers here before? Maybe. I have no proof of that at all. Do I believe anyone currently here is being paid? I seriously doubt it. And to make a specific charge about one party is wrong. To imply that people currently involved are being paid is contrary to any sort of respect due all the editors. Collect (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My problem here is the statement of the obvious. The fact that she has been shielded from the press is no secret, and may merit inclusion, but do we need to actually state that the press is pissed? Wow, no kidding. And the sky is also blue. It doesn't seem to be necessary.Zaereth (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact she is shielded (even if true) is not "reception". The press's belief and reaction to the perceived sheilding is "reception". That's the purpose of this sub-section. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Would removing the "Reception" header or moving the paragraph out of "Reception" section into the VP section proper help, Evb-wiki? A reception section may have been applicable in the days following her initial announcement, but the purpose of that section is past and it may be more appropriate to interleave the reception section into the VP section proper.--Bobblehead 21:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

So if we just say the press believes she is sheltered, is that acceptable? I'm not understanding you're objection. Grsz 21:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

A possibly interesting proposal? "Some members of the press have claimed Palin has been sheltered."? Collect (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I still think it might be fruitful to try RFC again even if it has already failed in one instance. However, I am not familiar with that process.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sheltered from what?--Buster7 (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Possibly: "Some members of the press claim Palin has been sheltered from the press" Though I think redundancy repeatedly is too many times. I really doubt the longer version is more clear, though it is funnier. As for expanding anything -- nope. Collect (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This is supposed to be a biography, not a blow-by-blow account of the campaign. This kind of trivial information should go into a related article like Public image and reception of Sarah Palin or John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, if its included at all. Mr.Z-man 22:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This is both biography and reporting on a highly notable current event, something Misplaced Pages does all the time and should excell at. I agree with Killerchihuahua. One reason this article is notable is because she is in the news right now. And the controversy over the access she has given the press - and let's be clear, this is not about whether she should or should not give access to the press, and it doesn't matter what any of us think on this question, this is about the public controversy concerning this question - is notable. I don't see the BLP objection but I am sure we can craft a version that is consistent with our BLP policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood my comment entirely. I'm not saying the sentence violates WP:BLP. I'm saying this is a biography, a person's life story. While the reason for her current media coverage is obviously one of the things she's notable for, in 2 months, or possibly less, this trivial tidbit of information will likely be totally irrelevant to her life. However, as I pointed out, we conveniently already have an article dedicated to the public image and reception of Sarah Palin, which would seem to be a much better fit for this information, or possibly an article about the Republican campaign, as the information is about more than Palin. Mr.Z-man 01:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I would dispute the idea that any of this would become irrelevant, I see the point of view that the other subarticles are more appropriate for most of this material. At the same time, Wiki is an inconsistent mess and it's a lot of messy work to achieve what you're talking about. I brought this up already, but see the article on Dan Quayle. This guy has not been especially relevant for a long time, yet nobody has found the time to separate that article into a straight biography and "political life of Dan Quayle" type of article. Is it worth the effort? Can it be done? If so I think the only solution would be to lock the article for 24 hours or some sufficient period for an admin or team of admins to do a full range of housecleaning. But I think that would almost be counterproductive and in any case I'm not sure it would ever be practical in the time remaining before the election. Let's be honest, nobody is coming here to read a dry factual biography of Palin. For that reason alone, I think this article should remain something of a catch-all.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You really think that 2 months from now after the election, or 2 years from now, people are going to care that Palin didn't want to talk to reporters as much as those same reporters thought she should in September 2008? Is this little fact so interesting that it omitting it would make this into just another dry, factual biography? But adding this little tidbit turns it into so much more?

Just because things are currently inconsistent and done in inefficient, illogical ways doesn't mean we should continue to do so out of tradition. I don't really see what would be so hard about using a subarticle for Dan Quayle. The article isn't excessively long, so it probably doesn't need it, but just move chunks to a subarticle, summarize what was moved, and add a little hatnote template in each section. There's not even a lot of refs that would potentially complicate things. You don't need to improve it to FA status at the same time.

With Palin, such subarticles already exist, so I don't see how arguments about getting it done before the election make sense (when its basically already done), or why it would have to be done before the election. Are we on a deadline? Mr.Z-man 05:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of fact, I think this will be one of the primary things she is remembered for... refusing to talk to the press while campaigning for VPOTUS.. just as Quayle is primarily remembered for his gaffes. As for the Quayle article I was only pointing out that this article, like that one, has become a defacto synthesis of political material and that as long as it remains that way it will remain that way. It will certainly not become a place where there is some bias against inclusion but only if the material is critical. Yeah, fixing the Quayle article would be easy. Fixing this one would not. I don't even personally have time to edit it anymore (just talk) let alone overhaul it. You say it's basically done anyway? Are you serious?

As for a deadline, yeah, I think there is a very real chance that this article will cease to be widely viewed after Nov. 4. Misplaced Pages's visibility is somewhat serious business, and thus the article has heightened importance at the present time.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 05:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This page is already split into subarticles, what's to fix? All I'm suggesting is that this one factoid be put into one of the subartcieles, that does not mean we have to completely overhaul the article. Mr.Z-man 13:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

New phrasing proposals

My proposal is as follows:

Some news media outlets, especially the Associated Press and CNN, have accused the McCain campaign of attempting to shield Palin from the press. Palin has only given these three interviews since being nominated, and did not appear on any news coverage following the first presidential debate, instead being replaced by .

NOTE: I've updated this for context. Ottre 00:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously since we can cite that objections have been presented, it's relevant and needs to stay. Grsz 22:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This source can also be used to describe how Guiliani appeared instead of Palin after the McCain/Obama debate. Grsz 22:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My name is Buster7, and I approve this proposal.--Buster7 (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I second. That looks reasonable. Still seems not biographical in nature, and certainly won't stand the test of time no matter what outcome, but at least it's presented in an objective and factual manner. Fcreid (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that "only three interviews" be emended to "three major interviews as of (date?)" and remove the press bit about the UN where press access is routinely limited. And place "some" before "media outlets" lest it appear we are ascribing unanimity when CBS, ABC and Fox would disagree. Thus the wording might be "Some media outlets, such as the Associated Press and CNN, have accused Palin of having too few interviews. As of 29 Sep 2008, she had held major interviews with CBS, ABC and Fox reporters." As I noted, press access at the UN is generally muted. Collect (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Rephrased some and added a possible mention in italics. Grsz 22:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned lest some feel that a major edit removes the importance of trying to find consensus. Absent consensus on wording, which I have gone about as far as possible for, the issue of the entire paragraphs is in question. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

particularly → especially. Ottre 22:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I like it even better. Democracy in action! Fcreid (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"only" clarifies that there is a difference from what is normal. "Particularly" is a gentler way of enumerating which media source(s) have accused "sheltering". Also, press access is not limited or muted as one enters or leaves the UN building. Gov Palin did not allow interviews, not the UN.--Buster7 (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"Particularly" creates an informal context. Ottre 00:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I like this new wording. It seems both accurate and fair.Zaereth (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This is very productive. Some editors may not like it, but that happens all the time. I can't see any policy-based objection, so I am for it. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I can live with it. I'm still not sure what's wrong with the current version. It says pretty much the same thing, just with less words. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow! What happened to that simple 4 sentence paragraph discussing magazine covers, 3 interviews and the perception of Palin's shielding? --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added Romney's relevant quote in The Guardian issue of 30 September. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Writegeist (talk • contribs) 00:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that things are officially out of hand -- and very quickly. I am dele-ing the Romney stuff as it definitely makes this section untenable. I can live with consensus only when people abide by it. Collect (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has become somehwat muddled. Is there extant a proposed replacment of the current third, fourth, or fifth paragraph of the reception section? Additions only? Removals only? All of these being bandied about pall-mall? KillerChihuahua 01:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Collect: d'accord. - Writegeist (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Writegeist: Merci bien. Collect (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The intent was to stop wholesale additions to this section. Pandora has nothing on some of the folks here. In my humble opinion, less is more. Some folks think more is more, and keep adding and adding. If a section takes more than 5 sentences, I would like it pruned. When it gets to 5 paragraphs, you can imagine my opinion. Collect (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yebbut:

• encyclopaedia n ... giving information on many subjects, or on many aspects of one subject.
• encyclopaedic adj (of knowlege or information) comprehensive. (OUD.)

— Writegeist (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO this sub-section and the section above have degenerated into uselessness and should be left alone to die and be archived. As it is related, however, I mention here for those who may have missed it my comment in Proposed rewording of last paragraph in reception section on this page, offering a new source which helpfully covers all the individual bits, adding a source and removing any concerns about SYNTH in one fell swoop. KillerChihuahua 11:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I demur. I know you had been involved previously in controversies in this very artcle (I read archives) , and would strongly urge that you reconsider the addition of the Romney quote. It belonhs, at best, to a campaign article, and is not biographical in nature. I also demur that where your position is not supported by a clear consensus that it is right for you to judge when a discussion ought to "die." I had been dooing my damndest to reach compromise and consensus, and you seem to impose something further from consensus that we had alrseady reached. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect that I have been involved in any controversy regarding this article. While I am delighted that you have chosen to become more involved in Misplaced Pages, increasing your annual edit rate from 9 in 2006, 7 edits in 2007, and 5 edits in 2008 prior to arriving here on Sept 12, I suggest that your limited experience on Misplaced Pages has not been sufficient for an adequate understanding of the relative weights of CON and NPOV and UNDUE are faulty; please remember that CON does not trump NPOV, that Consensus Can Change, and that you should focus on the content, not the contributor. Regarding the content, I agree that the Romney quote is not the best way to address the subject, hence my posting other links for discussion in another section - and yes, IMO this section has so many views and sub-views and variations that it hasbecome too muddled to be of any serious use to editors seeking to discuss improving the article. KillerChihuahua 13:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I am a little basffled by this desire by some people to spin material off into other articles. Thius is the article on Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin is notable enough to have an article in Misplaced Pages because she is an active politician and is currently seeking the office of Vice President. There is no wikipedia policy that says "this is a dry biographical article" - what Misplaced Pages policy requires this? This is the article people will go to to learn more about Sarah Palin. Biographical information belongs, as does information about her current campaign to be elected veep. I see no basis in policy for justifying the removal of an account of any controversy over her comments concerning evolution made as councilwoman, mayor, or governor, nor for removing an account of any current controversy linked to her current political campaign. As for moving things to other articles - articles which will NOT be the ones google directs people to first - this just seems like the most disingenuous form of POV warrioring, an attempt to remove content not because it violates policy but because some people just do not want it in the more-frequently visited article. And really, does this article need sub-articles? One for her private life, one for her career in Alaska, one for the national political campaign? We usually do not break articles down into smaller articles until they get too big for many servers (like the Jesus article) and this article is nowhere nearly so long that material needs to be removed from it and put into related articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Protective Cocoon

NPR's Nina Totenberg has interviewed VP candidates from both parties since 1984. In a report on Gov Palin's campaign, Totenberg states, "It's the oddest I've ever seen." Palin's decision not to participate (NPR was denied any interview time) was unprecedented and startling. While Palin has had many 'meet-n-greet's', her staff has provided close insulation from the press. No press conferences, no local interviews, controlled photo-ops of less than a minutes duration, control of Palin's proximity to the press---all designed to keep the VP candidate "under wraps" and to maintain the unconventional tactic of secrecy. Her unusual avoidance of the newa media is worth mention since it counteracts the open dialougue that is necessary for any candidate.--Buster7 (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had actually viewed this as an extension of the third paragraph discussion, hence my posting two mainstream sources there for discussion and possible inclusion. It is clear this is one of the most unusual, in fact unique, aspects, and has led to a colder reception by the public. KillerChihuahua 12:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

long quotations in the list of references

Where a quotation is given in the text of the main article, should that entire quote then be iterated in the list of references? In at least one case, the quote is from the Sarah Palin article, and not of the source cited. Is there a policy on how long that added material should be in the list? Or is it the norm to have paragraphs of text in the references? Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Censorship

This article appropriately has stuff about censorship in two diferent sections. In the "City Council" section, we say: "According to Laura Chase of Wasilla, and former Mayor John Stein, Palin as city councilwoman, mentioned to her colleagues in 1995 that she saw the book Daddy's Roommate in the library and did not think it belonged there."

Later, in the section on her mayoralty, we say: "According to city librarian Mary Ellen Emmons, Palin inquired in October 1996 as to whether Emmons would object to library censorship. Palin later spoke publicly about the issue, saying she had no particular books or other material in mind for removal. No books were removed from the library."

All of this is correct. What is not correct is to add the following in the City Council section: "The New York Times reported (September 14, 2008) 'Witnesses and contemporary news accounts say Ms. Palin asked the librarian about removing books from the shelves." This happened when she was mayor, not when she was on the city council, and it is redundant to the material we already have in the mayor section.

The cited New York Times article says (emphasis added):

"The new mayor also tended carefully to her evangelical base. She appointed a pastor to the town planning board. And she began to eye the library. For years, social conservatives had pressed the library director to remove books they considered immoral. 'People would bring books back censored,' recalled former Mayor John Stein, Ms. Palin’s predecessor. 'Pages would get marked up or torn out.' Witnesses and contemporary news accounts say Ms. Palin asked the librarian about removing books from the shelves. The McCain-Palin presidential campaign says Ms. Palin never advocated censorship. But in 1995, Ms. Palin, then a city councilwoman, told colleagues that she had noticed the book 'Daddy’s Roommate' on the shelves and that it did not belong there, according to Ms. Chase and Mr. Stein. Ms. Chase read the book, which helps children understand homosexuality, and said it was inoffensive; she suggested that Ms. Palin read it."

The stuff in bold italics all happened when she was mayor, not when she was on City Council. The contemporary news account is here, and it describes stuff that occurred when she was mayor, not city council member.

So, I'll remove the redundant material from the city council section.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you'll move in to the mayor section. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me? The mayor section already describes this incident, so it does not have to be described in the city council section also. It happened when she was mayor.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove redundant and repetitios and iterated material. The article in toto is far too long, and needs substantial pruning to make any sense at all. Collect (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I will. It's not just a matter of redundancy. The article is now incorrect when it states that Palin questioned the librarian about censorship when she was on city council. She did that when she was mayor. What she did on city council was mention "Daddy's Roommate" to Chase and Stein. In other words, the person who inserted the redundant material on September 29 at 21:55 (i.e. User:Gekritzl) erred not just by including redundant info, but also by putting it in the wrong section.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The two statements were not redundant. By removing the material indicating that she asked the librarian about removing the books, you have skipped the censorship issue altogether. I would say we can either include both statements, or only the statement about asking the librarian about removing the books. Opinion on this one way or another?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Please look at the mayor section of this article. It says now: "According to city librarian Mary Ellen Emmons, Palin inquired in October 1996 as to whether Emmons would object to library censorship. Palin later spoke publicly about the issue, saying she had no particular books or other material in mind for removal. No books were removed from the library."

So what is the problem? We have not skipped the censorship issue. It's all included.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is whoops.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 03:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Weight in Political Positions section

There is too much on abortion relative to other issues in the Political Positions section. If my impression of the media coverage is accurate, there is a bit too little on foreign policy. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 07:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there isn't much out there on her foreign policy stance, since she's given so few interviews. I think that should change after the debate though. AniMate 08:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What about her interviews with Gibson and Couric? We can say she doesn't know what the Bush doctrine is, knows who the good guys and the bad guys are, and is significantly experienced because Alaska and Russia are separated by a small border of water. There's plenty out there, all we need to do is find it. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 15:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Bush Doctrine bit has been debated. It's debated as to whether Charlie got it right or if what's meant by the Bush Doctrine is universally agreed upon. The facts as we've got them are fairly sparse on her foreign policy views.--Loodog (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, as someone who spent two years of his life in the Aleutians, Palin was probably understating the strategic importance of her state in U.S. history. One may wish to view the Shemya and Adak_Island articles to appreciate the military significance of her real estate. I won't profess to know what a governor's role is in that, other than landlord, and I certainly hope we don't ever need to return to that kind of posture, but I can tell you it was enormously important a decade or two ago. I can also say I never saw the USSR, but only because it was so rare that one actually saw the sun! Fcreid (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Reception, take 46

The final para, currently utilizing the Guardian source (which I think is Good) and a bit too long of a Romney quote (which I and at least one other editor think is Bad) needs some reworking. I suggest these sources:

• Palin: McCain campaign's end-run around media, San Farancisco Chronicle
• Let Palin be Palin, CNN
• [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/30/uselections2008.sarahpalin Goldenberg, Suzanne. "Palin begins three-day cramming course for crucial TV showdown", The Guardian, September 30 2008
• ADDED: Google search for "Palin's Favorability Ratings" - please feel free to do more research in order to determine whether it is a general view that Palin's isolation and performance has caused her approval rating to slip. Its the ONLY view I can find, but I may have missed something - KillerChihuahua 17:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

be used to rework that paragraph. Anyone want to give a first try at the rewrite, or shall I? I mean here on the talk page, prior to moving to the article page, but of course if any one suggested edit meets with strong approval we can implement it without waiting for the entire paragraph to be done, thus "fixing" that problematic para in stages. KillerChihuahua 13:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. Time is a tyrant.--Buster7 (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed the Romney qoute so it won't be trouble any more. This whole stuff is more the campaign section, not the reception section though. Hobartimus (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As no one has objected, we may actualy have one edit everyone agrees on. I've added the Guardian to the article links above, tho, as I still feel a more Global view would be nice to have. k. I will make a stab at writing this later today, meanwhile of course if anyone else has the time and inclination feel free. KillerChihuahua 16:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian is not a reliable source concerning anything remotely related to the Bush family (which it has repeatedly linked to Hitler). A biassed "global view" is no more valid than a biassed local view. Collect (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that's incorrect. The Guardian is a reliable source for news items; their opinion articles are as useful as any opinion articles, which is to say not so much in this context. As to Bush and Hitler, the story is here. The Guardian publishes in an incredibly strict libel environment, and the Bush family undoubtedly has the means to bring legal action if they are defamed. The article is neither evidence of "bias" nor unreliability. MastCell  16:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. FoxNews hates Kerry, but they are still a Reliable Source, and should be used in the Kerry article. I'm not suggesting we use Weekly World News for crying out loud. It isn't even the Huffington Post, which IMO fails RS, but people keep using as a source. KillerChihuahua 16:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be nice if you used the same arguments elewhere! I have done my damndest to have NPOV, and it bothers me that a person who appears to have less experiemnce than I online would even think of using experience as a trump card. The Guardian has been widely described as having an anti-Bush bias, and that is a fact. BTW, the British libel laws do NOT allow the dead to sue, as I am sure you are aware. The Guardian is unlikely, therfore, to be sued by people a half century in their graves. Collect (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here goes, and yes I know it needs WORK (also please someone fix my refs if you are good at it)

Unprecedented in modern politics, Palin's limited interviews have resulted in lowered support for her among the voters, and her performance, especially in the interview given by Couric, is viewed as harming her image. Her candidacy has been called "embarrassing" her answers on the economy "gibberish".and "confused and rambling." Palin is preparing diligently for the upcomng debate with Biden, which McCain's campaign hopes will restore her initial high approval rating.

Open for criticism, suggestions, and edits - don't just tell me it sucks, tell me how you think it should be fixed! KillerChihuahua 16:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Um WP-SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:COATRACK spring to mind. Let's try:

Palin had given interviews to ABC, CBS and Fox reporters as of 29 Sep 2008. The Associated Press and CNN have claimed she is being shielded. Some columnists have decried her answers, while others have stated that the interviews have been edited to promote a point of view.

This eliminates the OR claim that her ratings are specifically affected by her interviews, eliminated "single word quotes" which are one-sided, adds the other side and removes the Guardian which has a specific and well-known editorial bias (calling the Bushes Hitlerites). And it is short. Collect (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ratings affected is from the SF article. Avoiding plagarism is not SYNTH. KillerChihuahua 17:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Prefer the one written by Collect. Hobartimus (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

So you prefer the version which omits all mention of the actual reception in the Reception section, and violates WP:WEASEL flagrantly? KillerChihuahua 17:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Watch WP:WEASEL -- this does not approach it. "WEASEL" is using vague language to support ONE side of an argument -- it does not apply to balancing statements. In fact, the editting guidelines specifically suggest balancing opinions. That you do not wish balanced opinion is regrettable. Accusations do not make for "good faith" KC. Collect (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Strike your personal attack, please. I strongly object to your entire statement after the first three sentences. KillerChihuahua 19:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I demur that I made a "personal attack." And I strictly stand by "accusations do not make good faith." Thank you most kindly! Collect (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

← I'm not crazy about the "some people liked Sarah Palin alot. Other people didn't like her at all" phrasing of the second proposed paragraph. It seems a bit empty of meaning and suggests that the reception is just a matter of partisan disagreement. It also uses "claim", a word to avoid, to marginalize the protests of two independent and respected news organizations. Let's go to the sources. There is ample sourcing for the fact that Palin has been shielded from the media to a remarkable degree; this tactic of the McCain campaign is being increasingly criticized even from the right ().

• Re: the relationship between her poll numbers and the interviews, the AP sez: "Polls show her popularity waning as she has struggled to answer questions about foreign policy in the few interviews she has given journalists."
• The New York Times: "Her halting interview with Katie Couric on CBS News alarmed many Republicans and gave fodder for a devastating parody on Saturday Night Live... Polling suggests that the number of Americans who think she is not fit to be president has increased since her introduction to the country last month. A number of conservative columnists and thinkers have publicly turned against her, or criticized Mr. McCain for choosing her."
• Also from the Times: "The rapid change in fortunes has led some Republicans to question the decision by Mr. McCain’s advisers to restrict her exposure to unscripted settings."
• Canwest: "The decision came amid widespread criticism in the media and - more distressing for McCain - mounting anxiety among Republicans over Palin's performance during an extended interview last week with CBS News anchor Katie Couric. In its aftermath, Palin's favourable ratings have fallen."

I could go on, but the point is that numerous reliable sources attest to the fact that Palin's performances, particularly in the second interview, are seen as contributing to a decline in her poll numbers and growing concern in her own Party. The McCain campaign's strategy of quarantining Palin from unscripted media encouters has been widely and independently noted and is deserving of a single, well-sourced sentence without a bunch of well-poisoning. MastCell  17:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Strongly support the version by KillerChihuahua as the only well-written and sourced version, avoiding weasel words as well. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 17:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not crazy about the selected quoted descriptions in KC's proposal - they seem a bit over-the-top. It may be better to summarize reaction (e.g. "Palin's performance, particularly in the Couric interview, is widely viewed as leading to a decline in her poll numbers and increasing concerna about her readiness within the Republican party.") Otherwise I do like KC's version. MastCell  17:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I support KC with the following modification:

Palin's limited interviews have resulted in lowered support for her among the voters, and her performance, especially in the interview given by Couric, is viewed as harming her image. Her candidacy has been highly criticized by some pundits. Palin is preparing for the upcoming debate with Biden, which McCain's campaign hopes will restore her initial high approval rating.

I think this keeps the substance without undue emphasis. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"Her candidacy has been highly criticized by pundits" is way too over-generalized. Her candidacy was initially met with surprise and, in many cases, enthusiasm. The subsequent deterioration of that enthusiasm, particularly among elements on the right, is what these sources attest to. We're best off ignoring the opinions of pundits and op-ed writers here; there are just too many to produce an accurate, properly weighted summary, and we should focus on harder news pieces in any case. MastCell  18:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I endorse Killer Chihuahua's version - would move each cite to immediately follow the quote it refers to, and would add the National Review citation as a criticism from the right, but otherwise thi k it covers it. Tvoz/talk 18:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I also think that a citation is needed immediately at "harming her image"; don't see how we can avoid opinion pieces here, as this is by definition not a matter of hard news. Tvoz/talk 18:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think KC's version is a good start but I generally agree with Mastcell's comments - MC can you propose your revision or version (I mean, make the changes you advocate and show us what the result is for the whole passage)? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Beat me to it- I was about to say the same thing, that it would be good to see the alternative. Tvoz/talk 18:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Better yet, lets try my version, with MastCell's cahnges, + try to include a "favorable" beginning sentence - perhaps based on the Telegraph article Collect links below. IMO that is what I was looking for when I said the para needed work - clearly her approval rating dropped, but from what? We need to have a strong sentence at the beginning which makes it clear she was initially met with enthusiasm. KillerChihuahua 19:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) or is that repetitive with the first sentence of the section? "A series of polls suggested that Palin gave a boost to John McCain's campaign and excited the Republican base.". Although certainly she did better in the earlier interviews than the CBS one, which she tanked badly. KillerChihuahua 19:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, this works for me too! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Mastcell's proffer

Mastcell? We are waiting with bated breath. (I wrote the first draft, its your turn surely?) KillerChihuahua 20:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Aw, do I hafta? I already broke my pledge to make zero article edits and <4 talk page edits to Palin-related topics per day. But OK: I'd propose something like this:

The McCain campaign has restricted press access to Palin to an unprecedented degree, prompting protests from CNN and the Associated Press. Palin's first major interview, with Charles Gibson of ABC News, met with mixed reviews. However, Palin's performance in her second interview, with Katie Couric of CBS News, was widely criticized, prompting a decline in her poll numbers, concern among Republicans that she was becoming a political liability, and calls from some conservative commentators for Palin to resign from the Presidential ticket. Following this interview, some Repbulicans, including Mitt Romney and William Kristol, questioned the McCain campaign's strategy of sheltering Palin from unscripted encounters with the press. Palin was reported to be preparing intensively for her upcoming debate with Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee Joseph Biden; some Republicans have suggested that Palin's performance in the interviews may benefit her in the debate by lowering expectations.

What do you guys think about the text and sourcing? I tried to use some "liberal" sources like the Guardian, some "neutral" sources like the AP/UPI, some "conservative" sources like the Telegraph and Canwest, and of course the New York Times, which is like the Communist Manifesto with a Sports section. :) MastCell  20:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I especially like "preparing intensively" - the absolute worst word choice in my version (which I hated) was "diligently", but I didn't want to use "cramming" like most of the headlines and couldn't think of anything else. I like. KillerChihuahua 21:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Change Joseph to Joe and I'm on board. Good work. Tvoz/talk 21:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"unprecedented degree" is opinion. FDR kept the papers as far from Henry Wallace as possible, for example. The Telegraph part about the ABC interview being heavily edited did not make the cut here? "prompting a decline in poll numbers" is opinion and argumentative. "some conservative commentators" is pure weasel, since I found a total of two such -- who had opposed Palin ab initio. Sort of like saying someone who hated Biden would call for his "resignation" and be given weight. In short - not conforming to any sense I would have of NPOV. At the very least add in the comment about the editing of the ABC interview and remove "unprecedented" as being unsupportable as fact. Collect (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Both opinions are widely held and strongly sourced. I'm missing what your objection is? KillerChihuahua 21:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What about the Hannity interview? I'm not too found of the hopeful projection of lowered expectations. It's just reaching. That clause could go. Otherwise, it's okay. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The hopeful future is sourced twice, and I am sure I saw it more than that. Its been fairly widely reported. One of the sourced MC used is the NYT - how strongly do you feel it should go? KillerChihuahua 21:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Not as strongly as I feel the Hannity interview should not be ignored. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Then again. Since it's commentary about what might happen in the future, maybe it's just not encyclopedic. --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The Couric interview was actually the third interview, not the second. Also, I'm not thrilled with the "prompting protests from CNN and the Associated Press", because it gives the impression they were protesting the limitations in general when the only thing they were protesting was the limitations around the UN visit. Once the McCain campaign let a producer go in with the cameraperson CNN dropped their protest and the AP dropped theirs when the campaign promised to give more access after the photo-op with Karzai. The press in general is complaining about the limited access. --Bobblehead 21:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Okie dokie. What I'm thinking is we keep and merge most of:

Palin appeared on the covers of Newsweek and Time, which had been critical of the level of media access to Palin allowed by the McCain campaign. Her first interview with the press was with Charles Gibson of ABC News and aired on September 12. Her interview five days later with Fox News's Sean Hannity went smoothly, with Hannity focusing on many of the same questions from Gibson's interview. Palin's performance in her interview with Katie Couric of CBS News on September 24 was heavily criticized by the media and prompted some conservative columnists to worry about how prepared she is.

and remove the abysmal:

Some news media outlets, especially the Associated Press and CNN, have accused the McCain campaign of attempting to shield Palin from the press.

Palin has given three interviews (to ABC, CBS and Fox) in September 2008, and did not appear on any news coverage following the first presidential debate.

and replace those two lame and weasely statements with this para. Is this making sense? KillerChihuahua 21:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, re: User:Collect's concerns:

1. You're right about "unprecedented"... it's a bit hard to support that particular word. We could instead simply say that the McCain campaign has "tightly restricted" press access, prompting protests, etc etc.
2. I do not see anything in the cited Telegraph article about editing of the Gibson interview - am I missing something?
3. "Prompting a decline in poll numbers" is supported by the cited reliable sources. Likewise with "some conservative commentators"; I named two, but could easily add more (David Frum, Kathleen Parker, George Will, and David Brooks are all mentioned in the sources I cited). Numerous sources have attested to unrest within the Republican ranks on this issue, making it notable. If you find a comparable slew of articles in comparably reliable sources about Biden (e.g. "Biden raising fears among Democrats"), then it probably warrants 1-2 sentences in his article. MastCell  21:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, should the paragraph mention that the McCain campaign just announced they are going to be releasing Palin onto the conservative radio shows starting today?--Bobblehead 21:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Where was that reported, Bobble? KillerChihuahua 21:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Argh. I knew you were going to ask that. I saw it somewhere this morning. I'll start the hunting. --Bobblehead 21:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Aha. Found it, but looks like it's only on Politico so far... Not sure it has reached the threshold of inclusion though since it is only one story (that I've found so far) and it's not full on interviews, it's just a "re-introduction tour". --Bobblehead 21:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, one blog? We can ignore that for now. Why don't you give a try on the merge I proposed, above? Isn't it your turn to write the magic paragraph? KillerChihuahua 21:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I'll give it a go, but before I do I have one question, is there a particular reason why her mixed performance in Gibson's interview isn't mentioned? The current wording goes directly from saying her first interview was on the 12th with Gibson to saying her interview with Hannity was much smoother, but doesn't actually say she had a rough go of it with Gibson. --Bobblehead 22:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, the only really rough spot mentioned by pretty much everyone was the Bush doctrine question. We can mention that specifically, or simply keep the old verbiage of "mixed reviews". Thoughts? Input? Corrections? KillerChihuahua 22:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Collect was referring to an online Poligazette - I do not think this is a notable source like the Guardian or the Telegraph - which has an essay on Charles Gibson: "They note that ABC clearly edited the interview, to make Gibson look more authoritative and stronger than he actually was. His stern demeanor, then, was not something visible during the interview itself; it became visible after ABC edited the footage." I have no idea how this is relevant to the article on Palin. The quote does not suggest that Palin's views were distorted, which is the only issue I can think of as relevant. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

In other words, editing done to make the interviewer look "more authoritative" has no relationship as to how the interview is perceived by others? I demur. Collect (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It was only mentioned in a blog, is that correct? That's like Bobblehead's Palin on radio news, above - no, not sourced even close to well enough to include. KillerChihuahua 22:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

A professionally written epaper is not precisely a "blog" but never mind ... Let's look at http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/12/abc-edits-out-palin-objection-to-holy-war-question/ regarding the editing done on the Gibson interview. How many would you like to be comprehensive in covering all opinions as is called for? Collect (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

We give it one sentence, which is probably appropriate weight considering this is the bio and not the campaign article. We give the 2nd debate not much more (2-3 sentences). That means we summarize. The FoxNews piece is one of about 1 zillion written about the Gibson interview. The Telegraph nicely summarized them as "mixed reviews"; the FoxNews piece is one of those "mixed" reviews. If we assert their claim that the interview was edited in a biased fashion, then we'll need to assert someone else's claim that she didn't know what the Bush doctrine was, and then we'll get back into a never-ending spiral... the point of my proposal was to summarize, and the Telegraph source did this nicely, I thought. Thank you for bringing it to the table. MastCell  22:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead's tweak

As requested an attempt by me. Mostly just a tweak of MastCell's offering. The only big change was redoing the first sentence to eliminate the "Unprecedented" wording, add in Hannity's interview.--Bobblehead 22:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Since announcing Palin as McCain's runningmate, McCain's campaign has restricted press access to Palin, allowing three one-on-one interviews and no press conferences with her. Palin's first major interview, with Charles Gibson of ABC News, met with mixed reviews. Her interview five days later with Fox News's Sean Hannity went smoothly, with Hannity focusing on many of the same questions from Gibson's interview. However, Palin's performance in her third interview, with Katie Couric of CBS News, was widely criticized, prompting a decline in her poll numbers, concern among Republicans that she was becoming a political liability, and calls from some conservative commentators for Palin to resign from the Presidential ticket. Following this interview, some Repbulicans, including Mitt Romney and William Kristol, questioned the McCain campaign's strategy of sheltering Palin from unscripted encounters with the press. Palin was reported to be preparing intensively for her upcoming debate with Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee Joe Biden; some Republicans have suggested that Palin's performance in the interviews may benefit her in the debate by lowering expectations.

Also, quick explanation as to why the press protest was dropped. It seemed like a detail that was better suited to the sub-article as it was just a one time thing and only over a single event rather than a general protest. --Bobblehead 22:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking good to me! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. I think I can support the compromise on this. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me too. Tvoz/talk 02:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I like Bobbleheads version. I would like to see "only" three one-on-one interviews. It emphasizes the uniqueness of the Palin 'no-free wheeling interview' tactic. I had trouble with "However' as a transition in Mastcells version but that was set aside with the Hannity interview inclusion.--Buster7 (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

On this talkpage above there was consensus that particular WP:RECENT interviews have no lasting notability(relevance, significance, suitability for inclusion for the nit-pickers out there) to be included in a biographical article covering the whole life of the subject. The solution? Ignore the past discussion and propose versions with massive discussion of the interviews that were just rejected. I strongly reject this practice and the proposals which try to ignore past discussion by attempting to push one's favoured RECENTISM into the article. Individual interviews and random comments about them simply have no lasting relevance or significance. Hobartimus (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not recall any consensus being reached. In fact, quite the contrary a discussion has taken place. It is not about the interviews that happened...it is about the 17 that didnt happen. Sarah Palin is a hidden candidate. Why? To what end? Don't know. But there is no denying that it is unusual, and so, our reader deserves to know about it--Buster7 (talk) 04:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You should read the talkpage then. I was unaware that "unusual" is a qualification for inclusion in a high profile BLP, I remember our standards and policies regarding biographies of living persons to be quite different. Surely there are countless things, all of them "unusual" that are not included in the Obama BLP. Hobartimus (talk) 04:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus, Please specifically point out when and where a consensus was reached? And what the proposal was? I can't seem to locate it anywhere. O...I find 25/30 editors having a discussion that weaves in and out of three threads relating to 3 interviews and Gov Palin's relations with the press and political voices calling for her to step down. And there are repeated references to a consensus building. But, for the life of me, I can't find where a consensus on any of these issues was reached. What was the count? Also, if unusual doesn't work for you ...replace it with...unwonted or unreasonable or unique or unparalleled or underhanded or unfortunate or impractical or impertinent or imprudent or any one of a thousand words that convey how unusual it is when a politician that wants to be elected ignores the press. Thank you.--Buster7 (talk) 06:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

see above It's about a very similar proposal put up by Bobblehead containing a lot of content about individual interviews. See Wikidemon's comments in particular explaining the rationale behind WP:RECENT interviews and comments about recent interviews not having any lasting notability, significance or relevance to the biography as a whole and thus inappropriate for inclusion. Hobartimus (talk) 07:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I recall no such consensus either, but whether there was or not, frequently Consensus can change - in addition, RECENTism cannot possibly apply to the very odd fact that Palin has given 3 interviews since being named VP candidate and there will be no more interviews prior to the VP debate. 100 years will pass and that very odd circumstance cannot change, as there are end markers between which there are only the three. KillerChihuahua 11:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)@ Hobartimus...I see that proposal but what I DON"T see is consensus. I see 3 threads that run together with editors conversing in and out with wide ranging input about each. 3 points, 1 conversation. No consensus reached on any of the three. Wikidemons comment's clearly explain his rationale. But so do other editors with opposing rationale. I'm not sure why you isolate his as the "consensus builder."

I was one of the first to "vote" on Bobbleheads proposal so I was well aware of it and watched as editors worked together (myself included) to formulate a para about Gov Palin's unusual election strategy. The para above is the result. Is that the consensus you mean? You imply that consensus was reached to NOT mention the three interviews when, in fact, a very supportive and vibrant interplay created a well-formulated, informative paragragh that mentioned all three.

Re:consensus. It has been my limited experience that as a discussion requesting consensus about a proposal is taking place, a tally is ALSO taking place. Many times an editor or editors will take it upon themselves to keep the discussion on topic. And, the proponent will keep count. That did not happen here and no clear cut consensus was achieved (except for the paragraph).

It is misleading to take it upon yourself to declare "Consensus" without specifying what had been decided. No need to comment. Let's move on! Thank you--Buster7 (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Buster, a new thread is not a free pass to ignore past opinions articulated a short while ago. You confuse the consensus process with voting with comments like "proponent will keep count" I suggest to read Wikidemon's comments on why it is not appropriate to include material that has no lasting biographical value or significance. The strength of argument is an important part of the deliberation process. I see no evidence that "odd" or "unusual" would be the standard of inclusion on Misplaced Pages, there are countless examples, the Obama-Ayers relationship is "odd" and "unusual" to such a degree that it has it's own article "Obama–Ayers controversy" meeting the standards of Afd. With it's own fully notable article it still couldn't achieve inclusion in the Obama BLP. BLPs seem to have extremely high standards as to what gets included. In a short while there will be a 90 minute prime time appearance of Palin on TV I don't see the argument that some of the newspapers make "the voters can't see Palin on TV enough" holding up much after that. Hobartimus (talk) 12:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We had a thread seeking consensus, then additional threads imposing revisions were placed here. I just hope that no one sought out people to muddy the consensus building process! For WP to get or maintain respect, it must be assiduous in even-handedness in all articles, lest MPOV be viewed as a joke. Collect (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose the Bobblehead revision which is inappropriate for all the reasons discussed above and in the other thread. Individual interviews are not notable. Reaction given the individual interviews are not notable. Hobartimus (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) WTH do you mean, "Oppose the Bobblehead version" - that's completely unhelpful. To what do you object? How do you propose to improve it? How would you fix the problems you see with it? This isn't a vote, that's in November. KillerChihuahua 15:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

For example BLP says stuff needs to get consensus before inclusion in a BLP and deleted content shouldn't be restored without consensus. I don't beleive there is consensus, as to the arguments they were stated in this thread and the other thread many many many times over. Hobartimus (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You still havent' identfied what in that paragraph you feel violates BLP. You cannot do page-blanking vandalism or blind reverts and simply yell "BLP" and somehow its covered. Please identify what in that paragraph you consider a BLP violation. Be specific, or your BLP claims are useless. KillerChihuahua 15:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The section of BLP I cited above covers all material as I read it. Basicly it's there to ensure that BLPs are written conservatively and anything only gets included if there is consensus to include it, not before. Maybe I misread the section but that's my interpretation. Basicly many people objected to excessive coverage of interviews and biased interview reactions on grounds of UNDUE, RECENTISM, SYNTH, NPOV and other grounds not just in this section but elsewhere where it was discussed. It doesn't violate BLP directly, only that it's inserted into a BLP without consensus that it would meet other policies. I'd imagine it would fall under the umbrella of wording which makes biographies a special type of article held to higher standard. Again maybe others read the text of BLP differently and controversial material can be included without consensus. Hobartimus (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I ask again, what controversial materiel? You must object to something as violating BLP, or you are, in effect, objecting to nothing at all. Either identify what you object to, or cease this as a violation of KillerChihuahua 16:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There were many objections from many editors so the others should explain theirs. Excessive discussion of interviews that lack any long term notability, biographical relevance. Excessive discussion, of the hand picked reactions to these interviews, "some Repbulicans"

"some conservative commentators" the word "some" clearly indicating the selective nature of the reaction comments included, and not the mainstream opinions within these groups. Is the mainstream conservative opinion that she should resign? Who should take her place, just the ticket should be disbanded? Without recommending someone to take her place it's not a serious comment to begin with, it's not a serious suggestion. "prompting a decline in her poll numbers" exceptional claims without exceptional sources to back them up (this would need a multitude of polls that clearly separate the interview form the 1000s of other reasons effecting the numbers, like partisan attacks, smears and the like) etc. But the main objection is that the consensus process was entirely bypassed and one controversial version implemented outright. Hobartimus (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a content dispute, not a BLP violation. A content dispute on a BLP is not the same as a BLP violation. Do you have a BLP concern regarding this paragraph? Not to belabor the point, but is there anything, anything at all - just one thing which you can name which is a BLP violation? KillerChihuahua 16:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I see no "consensus" that recent interviews should not be used or refered to in this article. On the contrary, given that this article is notable largely because of current events, recent interviews are highly relevant. Be that as it may, so what? The passage we are discussing has to do with a controversy over her availability to the press. A politician's relationship to the press is always noteworthy, all the moreso during a campaign when a politican's relationship with te press is always in part the outcome of the candidate's campaign strategy. This paragraph is not about a specific interview. It is about a controversy over one element of Palin's campaign strategy, which has to do with careful and limited access for members of the news media. This is highly relevant. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It works the other way around. According to BLP one should achieve consensus for inclusion not for exclusion, "the burden of proof", etc. So the fact that you see no consensus is exactly the point. Hobartimus (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair and Balanced, Brit view

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

section uneditable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wooten worker's comp, again

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

Another story has come out on the issue of Wooten's worker's comp, alleging that Wilkes has reversed her testimony, implicating Palin in pressuring her company to deny Wooten worker's comp. It's not quite time for me to be singing "I told you so", because the only source I have on this is not unassailable; it's Jason Leopold, who clearly falls into the category of "investigative journalist" and not "blogger" or anything, but is somewhat controversial. Still, his allegations are very specific and of the kind that would tend to be verifiable, so I would be surprised if further sources weren't forthcoming soon. Here's his article:

Palin Implicated By Witness in ‘Troopergate’ Probe

Assuming we could get an unimpeachable reliable source on some or all of this info, I propose that it merits renaming the relevant section to "Troopergate" (as this has nothing to do with Monegan), and including a one-sentence summary of this allegation in paragraph 3. Homunq (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Assuming an anonymous source is correct is like believing the "anonymous sources" who swore that Trig is Palin's grandson. Wait until a named official source of some sort says something -- I do not think rumor is proper for BLP. And for the person who says I accused him of lying -- I did not. I assume good faith on the part of everyone. Collect (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, this is not a reliable source. http://www.pubrecord.org/politics.html shows dozens of "investigations" into McCain and Palin. And Bush as well, not to miss anything. http://www.pubrecord.org/politics/252-house-committe-to-review-charges-cia-prepared-forged-iraq-911-letter.html I doubt this "source" is worth the paper it is written on . Collect (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, it is completely contradicted by this which clearly maintained consistency with her earlier deposition that she was not contacted. Suggest we not try to be trial judge on top of everything else we fail at here. Fcreid (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, fellas. The independent investigator's report will be out soon; if there's something to this, then solid news outlets will pick it up; there's not enough to meet WP:BLP's sourcing standards at present. So I'd suggest we table this pending better sources (should they ever appear), and find something else to argue about. MastCell  20:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I thunk I said that. Absent an authoritative source, this is not ready by any stretch of the imagination for a BLP. Collect (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's what I said too. "Assuming we could get an unimpeachable reliable source on some or all of this info,..."... clearly implying that I do not think that this source is unimpeachably reliable. I only brought it up here as a heads up: if anyone here CAN find a reliable source to confirm this, this clearly belongs in the article. Homunq (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Rearrange Last Paragraph

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

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

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

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

God bless you and God bless America.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personal / Religious

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

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

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

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

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

1. Sara Kugler (2008-09-23). "Palin meets Karzai without usual reporters in tow". Associated Press. Retrieved 2008-09-23.
2. "Analysis: Pressure Builds on Palin Ahead of VP Debate". Fox News. 2008-09-28. Retrieved 2008-09-296. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
3. "Palin Won't Spin for McCain". New York Times. 2008-09-36. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
4. Palin begins three-day cramming course for crucial TV showdown Source:The Guardian Author:Suzanne Goldenberg Date:September 30 2008 retrieved: September 30 2008
5. Conservatives to McCain camp: Let Palin be Palin Source:CNN Author:Carol Costello, Dana Bash and Scott J. Anderson Date:September 30 2008 retrieved: September 30 2008
6. Palin: McCain campaign's end-run around media Source: San Francisco Chornicle Author:Joe Garofoli, Chronicle Staff Writer Date:September 30 2008 retrieved: September 30 2008
7. The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama (Hardcover), amazon.com
8. PBS Debate Moderator Writes 'Breakthrough' Book About 'Upstanding' Obama, Black Democrats, newsbusters.com, October 1, 2008
9. VP Debate Moderator Pens Pro-Obama Book, Fox News, October 1, 2008

• Former good article nominees
• 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