Misplaced Pages

Talk:Political positions of Sarah Palin

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Meco (talk | contribs) at 23:34, 9 September 2008 (Added BLP banner). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:34, 9 September 2008 by Meco (talk | contribs) (Added BLP banner)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Political positions of Sarah Palin article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 5 days 
WikiProject iconUnited States: Presidential elections Unassessed Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 8 September 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Polar bear section

The polar bear section needs some WP:NPOV work (I'm off to bed, will work on it tomorrow if nobody else does.) Right now it looks like it was written by an animal-rights organization. By comparison, look at the wolf thing in the next paragraph, which is much more nuetral. Kelly 04:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to either change it or be more specific in your criticism, so it can be discussed. I'm removing the tag. Lampman (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The source says later in the section, "Small named two other marine mammal biologists on staff and said the three of them had reviewed the nine new polar bear studies that the federal government was citing to justify a threatened-species listing for the bears. ... None of the three is a polar bear specialist. The state has none, having relinquished its polar bear research to the federal government." And then later, "Ken Taylor, the deputy commissioner of Fish and Game, said on Friday that it's no secret that not everyone in his department agreed with the state's position." So, it seems the statement , "Alaskan state biologists" is not accurate as a generality when it appears we have 3. The source doesn't state how many scientists within it's organization or how many submitted opinions. Theosis4u (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No Whitewashing of Alaskan Independence Party

This is a part of Palin's past from the time she was a member of the party until earlier this year when she delivered a videotape for that party's convention. Modify if you wish in the interest of further accuracy, but do not delete. Whatever you think of Alaskan independence/secession, the party's views are clearly stated in their platform and accurately stated here.GreekParadise (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Take it to the AIP article. This is undue weight for Sarah Palin. Palin could not run for Governor as a Republican while being a member of another party. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Contrary to GreekParadise's claim, she (apparently) was a member of AIP only for several years beginning in 1994, and Kyaa is correct that she could not have been elected Gov if she had still been with AIP. However, I strongly disagree with any suggestion that this material is not appropriate to the article. On the contrary, it is highly relevant. Arjuna (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
AIP won the governorship in 1990, so don't necessarily presume she had to leave in order to be successful. Dragons flight (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
A section going "She attended an Alaskan Independence Party meeting in 1994. The Alaskan Independence Party is..." is a blatant coatrack. Is there anything more substantive about this than what is already here? It seems pretty silly to me. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 08:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Well it depends on what the claim by party officials that she was a "member" really amounts to. If it means she registered with the party, then presumably she supported their core issue. If on the other hand they are calling her a member simply because she attended one convention in her hometown, then that is potentially far less meaningful. Dragons flight (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with calling what GreekParadise has just added a "compromise". This isn't the place for a party manifesto, and you've got to do better than what amounts to the party saying she attended a convention once in order to have such a large section on something that we have no evidence of her political views about. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 08:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this belongs in political positions. Her association with the party should be in the main article, but it doesn't tell us much about her political views, especially her present-day political views. The Texas Republican Party has a lot of crazy things in its platform, but very few of its members actually believe all that stuff. And Walter Joseph Hickel was elected governor in 1990 as an AIP member (he'd been a Republican previously) but didn't do anything to move toward secession, as far as I can tell. —KCinDC (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems obvious that Hickel, a life-long Republican, was being an opportunist when he joined the with AIP after losing the Republican primary. By contrast, if the Palins joined AIP early in their careers, when there would have been no political advantage to it, then it would tend to say that they really supported the AIP platform. So, I don't think your analogy really fits. I agree though that whatever her positions were in 1994 need not reflect her current views. Dragons flight (talk) 09:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

ABC News has confirmed that she's been a member of the GOP since 1982. Parableman (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Party views

The AIP, whose motto is "Alaska First, Alaska Always", challenges "the legality of the Alaskan statehood" and demands a "vote for Alaskans to decide whether or not residents of the 49th state can secede from the United States." AIP's platform "challenges the legality of the Alaskan statehood vote as illegal and in violation of United Nations charter and international law" and has the stated goal of achieving "the vote we were entitled to in 1958," namely, a choice among four alternatives: remaining a U.S. territory, becoming a separate nation, accepting U.S. commonwealth status, or becoming a U.S. state." The party also seeks "the complete repatriation of the public lands, held by the federal government." "The call for this vote is in furtherance of the dream...for Alaskans to achieve independence under a minimal government, fully responsive to the people, promoting a peaceful and lawful means of resolving differences."

In my opinion this is too long on its face. Most of the detail of what the AIP stands for should be in Alaskan Independence Party, not here. Can we condense this party description to one or two sentences? Dragons flight (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. Working on it now. I was originally trying to include everyone's edits but I'll condense.GreekParadise (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I condensed the political views of the AIP down to one sentence. I realize this may not satisfy everyone, but if the point is to convey that she may have been associated with cessetionists, that seems to be about all that is necessary. Dragons flight (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Despite my personal war of words with Kyaa, I actually have no problem with her most recent editing, although I agree it is wordy. Dragons flight, while I don't doubt your good faith, I fear you have condensed it a bit too much in that you don't say the voting choices nor point out that Palin's 2008 message included some mention of AIP's goals. I hope THIS compromise, a slight addition to your own, satisfies most.GreekParadise (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't read this section before moving and editing the section! Hope you agree it's better placed. And not WP:undue. And of course we'll all be waiting to see what she herself, as opposed to "the McCain campaign," says about the issue. Also I believe there may be party registration records somewhere. Anyway, all the secessionists and a bunch of libertarians are excited about it :-) Carol Moore 19:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
There are indeed records out there: here. Coemgenus 20:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Updated info - final info should be included so it does not look like Misplaced Pages editors are trying to cover something up. One example of such info, if not necessarily the best: Sarah Palin's ties to Alaskan Independence Party are played down; The McCain campaign denies his running mate supports the party's separatist bent. By Michael Finnegan Los Angeles Times Staff Writer, September 3, 2008:
she was not a member but she has cheered the work of AIP...according to its website, "its primary goal is merely a vote on secession."... "Keep up the good work," Sarah Palin told members of the Alaskan Independence Party in a videotaped speech to their convention six months ago in Fairbanks. She wished the party luck on what she called its "inspiring convention."... her husband, Todd, was a member of the party for seven years...McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said Palin did not support secession...He sidestepped the question of whether she favored a statewide vote on secession. Carol Moore 16:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
No coverup because there's nothing to cover up. The media got pwned by the AIP and printed an unverified/false story. She wasn't a member, period. Or should we use the times that she talked to Democrats as an indication that she's a secret Democrat? :) Kelly 17:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

On Contraception

I do not feel right referring to Palin as just "pro-contraception." She's quoted as against the teaching of contraception in schools; that's anti-contraception. Even if she supports contraception in other ways, that would give her a mixed record, not a pro-contraception record. Do we have any quotes or other actions describing how she has supported contraception? Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? How is being against teaching it in schools at all the same as being against it? Is being against teaching religion in schools the same as being anti-religion? -- Zsero (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
That's a poor analogy. Teaching religion in schools begs the question of which religion to teach; whose religion is supported and who gets left out? There is no such issue with contraception, except in the minds of conservatives who think the best way to prevent teenagers having sex is to keep it as dangerous as it was a century ago.
Aside from her promotion of abstinence-only eduation, I have to wonder why a 44-year-old woman who obstensibly supports the use of contraception just had a baby. Surely she knew how risky it is at that age. Tualha (Talk) 11:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The L.A. Times confirmed today that she has no problem with talking about condoms in sex ed. Whatever she didn't approve of is something more explicit than that. Parableman (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That reference should probably go on the main S.P. bio page too because it's more informative than the current ref there. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 11:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
This clarifies the apparent contradiction - it appears she supports teaching abstinence, but not "abstinence-only". It would be nice if we had a source other than the L.A. Times, though - my impression has been that they're not terribly reliable. Tualha (Talk) 21:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Taxes?

Come on, there must be something to put here. Even if she has avoided making statements that would tie her down later, she has a record. Homunq (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

See SaraPalin on Tax Reform T0mpr1c3 (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Teen mothers

I removed a section on "support for teen mothers", which simply identified that she had vetoed a particular line of funding for a particular facility. Nothing there on a "political position", it was apparently a budget decision. Kelly 16:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It has been readded in a different incarnation. I neutralized it somewhat, although the title and wording still could use tweaking. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I need to so some more research on this. Found a primary source that the funding for the facility actually increased via some other budget classification. Looking for a good reliable source that shows that info. Kelly 17:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
See below. Probably best do keep out until a better 2ndary source found. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd go along with that. 79.74.252.173 (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
How about backing any of the slander you posted above with any reliable sources ? 65.214.187.221 (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is domestic drilling in foreign policy section?

Sounds like someone is trying to beef up her foreign policy cred by posting it in there. ANWR, while foreign-sounding, is actually in Alaska. Alaska is a U.S. State. Also, the visit with the U.S. soldier looks all too much like a photo-op and has no relevance to foreign policy positions.

I vote for removal of these two sections. 66.160.120.185 (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the ANWR stuff. I think the soldier shot is probably legitimate though. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
It's a legitimate photo of her with a soldier, no word on where it was taken and it certainly doesn't say anything about policy. Any politician would love to be in that photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.178.2.1 (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
It looks like the ANWR stuff is still in the foreign policy section though... 69.255.249.205 (talk) 07:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Abortion wording

There have been a lot of edits saying that Palin is opposed to abortion, "even in cases of rape and incest". The source actually says Smith said Palin is opposed to abortion, but believes an exception should be made if the health of the mother is in danger. The "rape and incest" terminology is only used by other people. This seems like loaded POV to me, and redundant to Palin's statement. Kelly 11:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

  • We don't just quote Palin; she is a primary source. The secondary sources say her position is no abortion even in caes of rape and incest 621 times (by Google news hits). An article on some artist would not just say what he says his art means, but also what the critics say it means. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I have added an additional reliable source that specifically uses the rape/incest wording, and tightened up the sentence. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Rape, incest, and risk to the mother's life are the three main categories of exceptions that categorize the positions of pro-life politicians. For example, McCain favors all three exceptions. So being explicit about her position at the risk of some redundancy is justifiable in my view. (At least on this page - maybe not in her bio.) T0mpr1c3 (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There are three references (3,4,5) following sentence containing the claim that Palin favors an exception when the mother's life is in peril. The last link (5) is not an active. I can find nothing in reference (4) related to making an exception when the mother's life is in peril. Reference (3) is a quote of someone claiming that is her position. I think it is important to have a clear and working reference to a quotation of her, stating this is her position, or that it is not.74.65.216.221 (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Is is a Political or Private Opinion though? I've been unable to locate any positional statement from Palin that her Pro-Life opinion are anything more than private opinions. In other words, I can find no reference to her position on the legality and her intent to change existing abortion laws. If we can't find this, then I believe we should include a reference about this. Something like, "Palin has not publicly expressed an opinion on legality of abortion laws or her intent to change them while in office." Most "Pro-Life" politicians will have a public statement directly challenging the laws and their intent to change them and how. Theosis4u (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Just found this Sarah Palin on Abortion .
Q: 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?
A: 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."
Theosis4u (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Found the primary link to source for the above : ADN - Palin on issues. I would hope this gets into her entry. Theosis4u (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
This sounds to me like the interviewer didn't really pin her down. The question was hypothetical which allowed Palin provide a hypothetical answer. You reasoning sounds OK to me though, I think a direct answer to the question "Do you support Roe vs Wade?" would be notable. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 08:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
A direct "answer" would be nice, but this reference should definitely go in the article as it gives more context to the other opinions that very well might be "personal". Without this reference, it's easy to imply the others are political statements against Roe V. Wade. Theosis4u (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
That source is a gold mine. For example;
26. Do you support the proposed Pebble mine in Southwest Alaska as the project is now envisioned? If no, are there conditions the mine developers could take that would make the project acceptable?
As part of a Bristol Bay fishing family, I would not support any development that would endanger the most sensitive and productive fishery in the world.
is very interesting. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
If someone could please include the above references on Roe V Wade. I'm not 100% sure I've been able to maintain objectively in response to the hypocrisy I've witness around Palin. Theosis4u (talk) 02:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Covenant House

WaPo indeed reported that she'd cut Covenant House's funding 20%. Trouble is, it isn't true. CH's funding had been $1.2M. It asked for an additional $10M for an expansion, and the legislature gave $5M, which Palin cut to $3.9M. That's not a cut in funding, it's a 325% increase, instead of the 516% increase that the legislature voted.

PS to forstall arguments: a blog is not a reliable enough source to assert a fact in WP, and the evidence the blog presents can't be included directly because of SYNTH, but we also can't assert facts we know not to be true, just because they appeared in a so-called RS. -- Zsero (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(comment from previous editor of that section) While I would normally question the reliance of that blog over an RS about a factual did-it-or-didn't-it happen issue, I found the WaPo article to be of disappointingly low quality, with it's selective quoting, misleading factual juxtaposition, etc. I almost was thinking WTF was with that article, but didn't double check with other sources. So while some might split hairs that we really don't know it not to be true, as we are really taking for granted that source, I agree it best to keep it out, unless someone wants to reword in a way that's both accurate and relevant. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually we do know it not to be true, because the blog links to the primary sources, which we can examine for ourselves. But that can't go into the article, because of SYNTH. -- Zsero (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Israel

Hmmm. Apparently a reporter has synthesized a belief about Palin's Israel position based on a flag sticker in her office and her church attendance. Exactly how is this a political position stated by a candidate? Kelly 05:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this an article on Palin's positions as stated by her? Or an article on Palin's positions as reported by other reliable sources such as the mainstream press? NPOV 101? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I would say that removing verifiable material from the article by appealing to WP:REDFLAG, is not an appropriate course of action. Care to explain how WP:REDFLAG applies here? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I would hate to tag this article with {{POV}}, Kelly. Please consider restoring the material that is sourced to a WP:RS ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Not only a "reporter", Kelly. From the same source you deleted: Mrs. Palin's brand of evangelical Protestantism is especially well-disposed to the preservation of Israel for biblical reasons, said Merrill Matthews, an evangelical Christian and a Dallas-based health-policy specialist. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's get some additional opinions. That has to be one of the crappiest Times articles I've ever seen. The reporter is divining an opinion on Israel from a flag sticker and a church "expert"? Please. This is just part of the media feeding frenzy. Got another source to back that up, maybe something will a little more believeable substance, like maybe Palin's own statements on Israel policy? This is just silly. Kelly 05:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I do not think you will find any "own statements on Israel policy" by Palin, as probably that issue was not on her desk till this week. I would argue that at this point, and regardless of the "crapiness" assessment, that material is relevant and well sourced. I welcome additional opinions, but reverting sourced material and then talking does not sit well with me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Nope, you've seen the general level of bad reporting this week. Mainstream papers even reported some BS about her belonging to a secessionist party, without verifying it, turns out they had been totally pwned. And other mainstream sources were carrying the Trig Trutherism meme. Please find something else to back up this claim besides an obvious stretch of a story like this. And that is per WP:BLP. Kelly 05:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
That has got to be the crappiest sourcing I have ever seen. This Matthews character is an evangelical Christian (like about 25-30% of USAns) and is therefore an expert witness on what Palin believes? Because, like, every evangelical believes exactly the same thing, and every one of them is an expert on those beliefs. What did this reporter do, go out on the street and ask people whether they were one of these whatchamacllem, evanjelikels, and would they like to answer a few questions about their strange cult? Not that what he said is bad, but his views are simply of no relevance to this page. -- Zsero (talk) 09:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The relevant bit of the source would seem to be this:
Tucker Eskew, who holds the title of counselor to Mrs. Palin in the McCain-Palin campaign, left no doubt where she stands. "She would describe herself as a strong supporter of Israel's, with an understanding of Israel's fear of an Iran in possession of nuclear weapons," Mr. Eskew told The Washington Times.
Is that not a statement of a position on Israel (albeit through a spokesman)? T0mpr1c3 (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
"Crapiest" is not a distinction we make in Misplaced Pages. See WP:V. Section tagged as non neutral due to the deletion of sourced material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
A tag! Oh noes! Anyway, we certainly have a right to judge whether a particular piece published by a normally reliable source is utter nonsense, which this "source" is. Kelly 14:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I see no problem with this part's neutrality currently. Neither do I see an issue with returning the thesis of the source which was previously stated in the first sentence: "The ] reported that ] faith drives Palin's pro-Israel view". It was some of the rest of the content, e.g., "despite not visiting" or whatever which while perhaps true, was a snarky strawman. While without a doubt this is an RS, I think the objection is that we are under no obligation to report any particular thing from any RS (especially snarky strawmen; see too the above comments about the Washington Post's pathetic coverage of her budget decisions...), only to use them to write a good article. I see no problem with returning just my first quote above, (the title of the source article, actually) as is is declarative and about as neutral as you can get. We do make the distinction of crappiness here, but it is an editorial issue in this case.
C'mon folks, we're here to write an encyclopedia. While much focus has been made about being an "encyclopedia" (vis-a-vis "news") -- we need to focus as well on "write". Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
(More) Would I be right to assume that returning just this part would render the tag moot, since the source was represented now, albeit in a (purportedly) better way? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I have implemented your compromise wording and removed the tag. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, who gets to decide what reported from a reliable source is "utter nonsense" and what isn't? Tombomp (talk/contribs) 14:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

<- I'm pulling the statement per WP:BLP, because the source is utter bullcrap, and the statement in the article gives it more credence than it should ever be given. There are about ten different idiotic memes that POV-pushers have been flogging; this is the "Dominionist" or "Crazy Christian" meme. Kelly 14:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, with all due respect, you are misusing BLP and REDFLAG, in addition to be edit-waring. I do not see how that helps. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I can cut Kelly a break because of the perceived BLP issue, but then go on record to say I disagree with that interpretation as applied to the compromise. Since the source is reliable (remember reliablity ≠ truth, for better or worse), I guess any such BLP objection would be if the material is controversial; I fail to see how it is, if presented fairly. Those memes, while hidious, are based in some contorted way on the innocuous but pretty undeniable grain of truth that she is a Christian. And the relationship which the content purports is actually not that uncommon amongst some of them. The issue is to present things fairly, and to write well in doing so. I favor returning the compromise, in lieu of Kelly (or anyone) explicitly describing the objection better. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, you can try your hand in witing for the enemy. Here are some more sources on the subject:

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly's procedural sledgehammering aside: the source is utter barrel scraping nonsense. 79.74.252.173 (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The Guardian and the Wall street Journal are also barrel-crapping? Ahem. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The Guardian piece is an op-ed. The WSJ piece is about her church, not her. Kelly 16:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Complete synthesis and guilt by association. Even if the reports about what some of the people at a particular church may think or believe are true, this is no way equals a "political position" by one of the people there. In regards to my specific removal of the compromise, it was factually inaccurate in addition to being a BLP violation. The Times did not report that her policy position was influenced by evangelical beliefs, the Times reported that some guy thought her policy position was possibly influenced by those beliefs. That's a world of difference. The previous version implied that the statement was fact-checked or verified, when the source clearly reveals it was not. Kelly 15:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that you need to read WP:NPOV and WP:V. In Misplaced Pages we report facts and opinions as published in reliable sources, regardless if these are "guilt by association", "crappy" and other such value judgments about the validity of these opinions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I will be re-adding the POV tag, please do not remove it until the dispute has been resolved. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
And I think you need to read WP:BLP, especially the part about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary sources. Lots of people don't believe all the doctrine their religion publishes. For example, Nancy Pelosi and Tom Daschle are Catholics, but they oppose the Catholic Church's position on abortion. We don't try to imply in their articles that they're possibly anti-abortion because their church is. We don't print unverifiable speculation about people's possible beliefs, we only write about their statements, or their actions. Since Sarah Palin has apparently not implemented any policy decisions about Israel, and has apparently said little about the matter, there's just not much there in regards to her political position on this issue. And we are not going to speculate about a controversial issue in a high-traffic BLP. Kelly 16:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
(EC) I would strongly prefer not readding the tag because 1) currently it is not POV 2) I still think a better solution would be to augment it with the compromise sentence, or something similar. I haven't myself since I don't wish to wheel-war (esp. with Kelly, whose editing I respect considerably). And also, really, what is the rush? Over the next few weeks so much more will come out about so many things, and eventually an accurate balanced statement or statements about what informs her positions on Israel can be done. While I do disagree with Kelly here, I acknowledge there is no WP:DEADLINE, and trust eventually this can work. So let's de-escalate.
Aside to Kelly, What is the analogy to Daschle et al? And what is so controversial about this? I am really missing something, or am I? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The Daschle analogy was just an attempt to demonstrate that we don't attempt to attribute all of the doctrine of a religion to the individual members of that religion. The "controversial" part is that öne of the Memes of the Day for POV-pushers seems to be "Sarah Palin, Dominionist" - that article will explain the background. It's a guilt-by-association attempt that has turned up over the past couple of days in several places. It's one of about 10 different memes the left-wing blogs are fanning. Kelly 17:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Kelly, this is an attempt to paint her as being pro-Israel only because her religious beliefs require Israel to exist for the Rapture. Just because someone attends a specific church does not equate them to believing every tenet of that church, to do so is in violation of synthesis of material. And just because this source is trying to make the synthesis doesn't mean that it automatically a verifiable fact about her. These spurious links really need to be reigned in and left to the tabloids. Arzel (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
That's as may be, but is the source valid for the quote from a campaign advisor that she would be pro-Israel? Perhaps something on the order of "A campaign official has characterized Gov. Palin as 'a strong supporter of Israel...'" ? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 17:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Fyi, according to a WaPo article she met with AIPAC on Tuesday. The article says "Palin assured the group of her strong support for Israel, of her desire to see the United States move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and of her opposition to Iran's aspirations to become a nuclear power, according to sources familiar with the meeting." and quotes the spokesman of AIPAC as saying "We had a good, productive discussion on the importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship, and we were pleased that Governor Palin expressed her deep, personal commitment to the safety and well-being of Israel," and "She also expressed her support for the special friendship between the two democracies and said she would work to strengthen the ties between the United States and Israel." Perhaps this will help. Cheers. RobHar (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It is good to state Palin;'s views, and it is necessary for NPOV to describee other opinions, such as these of the mainstream press, advisers. etc. This is a WP article that describes all competing views, not just hers. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
"Other opinions" does not include fringe nonsense, or idle speculation with bubkes for real sourcess by reporters who should know better. Kelly 17:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) A candidate assuring AIPAC of their strong support for Israel is not especially groundbreaking, but probably worth noting in the relevant section here. The Alaskan Jewish community (or at least a few of its leaders) have praised Palin. The Jerusalem Post notes that Palin is "completely unknown" in Israel, and references "Palin's obscurity, her lack of any record on Israel, or even statements on Israel issues," (), but suggests that Israel's leadership still seems comfortable with McCain-Palin.

This is a reasonable source for the article. One could argue about how much weight to assign it or how to incorporate it, but dismissing on WP:BLP grounds because, in one's editorial judgement, it's "one of the crappiest Times articles I've ever seen" is an abuse of WP:BLP. I'm with Baccyak4H - I would favor returning a single sentence noting: "The Washington Times reported that evangelical faith drives Palin's pro-Israel view." As more is published - and more will be published - on the subject, it can be augmented or replaced with more detail, but at present it adds reasonably sourced content to a sparse section of the article and I see no WP:BLP issue. WP:FRINGE is completely inapplicable to this situation. MastCell  17:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That is factually inaccurate. The Post reported that some guy speculated that evangelical faith drives Palin's pro-Israel view. Kelly 18:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I do not think any part of this Washington Times article deserves mention on this page. It is absolutely uninformative as to her policy position on Israel. And that includes her spokesman's bland statement. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
(EC) I took the liberty of changing MC's edit to only include the single sentence, as that seemed his intent, as well as I thought the extra sentence did subtly steer into POV waters. Back at hand, this argument against mention at all actually has more traction, than any BLP one. I disagree that it is absolutely uninformative, as (from the article), she is hardly unique in having such reasons for that position, and this allows for context. But this is an editorial justification which does have some merit. Rewording that it was from the spokesman seems like a totally uncontroversial change, regardless of other factors. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The article used as a source has absolutely no basis for connecting her views on Israel with any religious beliefs. It's complete and utter speculative bullcrap. The major papers have lost their minds lately, I don't know what the hell is going on. The New York Times printed a story that she was a member of a secessionist political party, and it turned out to complete bullshit. Any news articles used as sources for the Palin BLPs need to be examined with a critical eye until those people regain their sanity. Kelly 19:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
"Bullcrap" or not, you cannot editwar your way out of seeking consensus. Warned you about 3RR violation on your talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There is more than one source, and will be more as time evolves. These two can and should be used as well:

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, the Guardian piece is an op-ed, and the WSJ piece is about her church, not her. Kelly 21:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Really? And what is this if not from Palin: "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country," Gov. Palin said, in a video of the talk posted on the church's Web site. Pray "that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure we're praying for: that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Israel - break 1

Well... in the WSJ piece, Palin's spokesperson specifically says that reporters should look at Palin's church as the last word on her religious beliefs ("I think talking about where she worships today and how she characterizes herself speaks for itself about where she is today on this issue.") So yes, the article is about her church, but apparently that's because her people have asked that her church define her views. I think something on the topic is relevant - Palin's faith has been presented by the campaign as a significant part of her political persona. What's more, we're talking about the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times, two outlets which lean significantly to the right - this isn't Daily Kos we're citing here.

In the interest of moving forward, could we clarify the objection to a single sentence sourced to the Times: "An article in the Washington Times reported that Palin's pro-Israel view was driven by her evangelical faith"? Do you think this should be phrased differently? Do you think that a reliable source dealing with the role of her faith as it pertains to Israel is unworthy of inclusion? You've suggested the latter, citing WP:BLP, WP:REDFLAG, and WP:FRINGE, but I'm not clear on how any of those policies apply to the Times article. MastCell  22:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Combining the campaign spokesman's statement with the church's views really, really looks like synthesis to me. That's one of the reasons that I'm citing WP:REDFLAG here. It's extremely unlikely that a national political candidate would have a "political position" on a major issue of foreign policy based strictly on what a small-town church says. The source simply isn't good enough to support a controversial claim like that. For something as hot-button as this, you would need multiple reliable sources. Also, the phrasing of the proposed edit makes it sound like the Times verified and fact-checked this claim, when really they're just quoting someone's opinion (and it's not even clear from the article exactly whose opinion this is). In addition, as Governor or Alaska she did not need to have a position on Israel - presumably now as a candidate her position on Israel is that of the McCain campaign or the Republican Party platform. Kelly 23:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
In addition, as Governor or Alaska she did not need to have a position on Israel - exactly. So if we quote her on the meeting with the Israeli lobby, we can and should quote what is known about her positions as expressed elsewhere. (Disclosure: I am not an American citizen; I am Jewish; I lived in Israel for 13 years; I was in the Israeli army and fought one of its wars. So, please do not dismiss my contributions as if I was a "POV pusher". I would ask that you take a hard look in the mirror). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking in the mirror - hey, I'm looking good! :) But, seriously, "her positions as expressed elsewhere" need to be ultra-reliable for a controversial claim like this because it's simply incredibly unlikely. I won't re-iterate my other arguments from above, but they still stand. Why must this claim be in the article immediately rather than waiting for a more unambiguous and less controversial source for the assertion? Kelly 23:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I guess I don't see this source as particularly "controversial", except in that you don't agree with it. Kelly, the campaign spokesperson's comment was combined with the church's views by the Washington Times WSJ, not by me. It's not original synthesis, it's a synthesis explicitly performed by the source. This is not an "exceptional claim" in the sense that it requires exceptional sources. Palin has expressed a generally pro-Israel position to AIPAC, and the article suggests that her faith may drive that view, quoting an expert on the relationship between evangelical Christianity and support for Israel. That is arguable, maybe, but it's hardly a WP:REDFLAG claim like achieving cold fusion or something. I understand your concern: while the article's headline is pretty unambiguous, the actual conclusion is attributed to the quoted expert. Would you prefer alternate wording which made this more evident? MastCell  23:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Mastcell, I have read and read that WSJ article. It says absolutely nothing about U.S.-Israel relations or Palin's policy toward Israel. And I have read the Times article maybe ten times now and I still cannot figure out exactly who is saying that Palin's policy toward Israel is religion-derived. It's a masterpiece of vagueness. What am I missing in that article? Kelly 23:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
My fault for mixing two articles/discussions at once. The WSJ article is simply about Palin's church. The Washington Times article is the one dealing with Israel. That article quotes Merill Matthews, described as an evangelical Christian and health-policy expert, describing aspects of Palin's denomination and its relationship to Israel. On the second page, Paul Erickson, a Republican strategist, is quoted as saying, "The essence of neoconservatism is the protection of Israel - a shared priority with evangelical Christians." Presumably these people were interviewed and quoted because they have some relevant expertise on the matter at hand. I agree the article is not particularly well-written - I'm rarely impressed with the Washington Times' work in that regard - but it is what it is. MastCell  03:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
So essentially Matthews is only talking about Palin's denomination, not Palin herself. How does that equate to a Palin policy on U.S.-Israeli relations? As I mentioned way up the thread, we don't automatically attribute every tenet of a religious doctrine to all of the religion's adherents, cf pro-choice Catholics. The Erickson quote also has nothing to do with a specific Palin policy. It's all just speculation and chattering. Kelly 14:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
No, of course we (Misplaced Pages editors) don't attribute general religious tenets to specific people. But if the Washington Times (or another reliable source) does so, then we reflect that. I agree it's speculative - most of the coverage of Palin's religion has been speculative, because the campaign has simulataneously made it a centerpiece of her persona and refused to go into any detail about it - but speculation from a reliable source is not the same as speculation by a Misplaced Pages editor. MastCell  23:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
These are not controversial sources, unless you believe in a wide left-wing conspiracy. :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

More sources:

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, those pieces are either op-eds or say nothing about Palin's position on U.S-Israeli relations. Kelly 23:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Can I just say by-the-by that the idea that The Guardian speaks for McCain supporting American Jews is absolutely laughable. That is just my POV of course and purely parenthetical. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
And in case you're wondering, I say that as a left-leaning Guardian-reading European married to an American Jew. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

From doing some searching, it seems like "evangelicals are pro-israel" is a well-known fact, so I guess inferring from her evangelicalism that she is pro-israel isn't that controversial of a statement. But I thought she was a non-denominational christian. That's what the article Sarah Palin says (with two references). So is she evangelical? If not, then the basic assumption of the Washington Times articles is wrong (I mean, it's titled "Evangelical faith drives Palin's pro-Israel view") and thus doesn't provide a very good reference. RobHar (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, you are now at what, 7RR? Stop the edit warring. Stop reverting, and discuss. KillerChihuahua 23:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
KC, that was per BLP. See the extensive discussion above. Kelly 23:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, it is not BLP. A political candidate has a great many things stated about them, in reliable sources, which they disagree with, and state is not their view or position or whathaveyou, and which may or may not be offensive to them and their supporters. That does not make it a BLP violation. IDon'tLikeIt is not BLP. KillerChihuahua 23:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is a BLP problem, it's a meme to portray her a wacky Dominionist. I urge you to read the discussion above. Per WP:REDFLAG, you need a hell of lot more than one vague source to state something like her Israel policy is based on the theology of a small-town church. Kelly 00:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, you are misusing WP:BLP as well as WP:REDFLAG. I am not the only one to tell you this; neither is KillerChihuahua. MastCell  03:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
MastCell, I understand your position from your complaining at WP:3RR/N. But no, I am not abusing BLP or REDFLAG. I am not the only one stating this is a BLP problem, look up the thread. This Dominionist B.S. does not belong here, for the same reason that (rightly) there is no bullshit about Obama being a secret Muslim or associated with domestic terrorists or the Mob in his articles, despite discussion of all of those things in reliable sources at one time or another. If you disagree with this, then seek out dispute resolution. Kelly 03:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
In this thread, jossi told you that this was not a BLP issue. Baccyak4H, a regular at WP:BLP/N, opined that it was not a BLP issue. KillerChihuahua told you that this was not a BLP issue. I told you that it's not a BLP issue. Carcharoth told you, on your talk page, that this is not a BLP issue. If in spite of all of this feedback you still believe it to be a BLP issue, then you can ask for yet more opinions at WP:BLP/N. MastCell  03:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Knock off the tag-teaming with Jossi, MastCell, please. Look at the other opinions - the source is terrible. Per WP:REDFLAG, you need something more than this vague piece of nonsense. Leave it out of the article until you have something better. Kelly 03:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
By the way, have you seen the SPA GreekParadise (talk · contribs) show up on this article again? Are you going to argue this isn't a POV-pusher? I don't want to be a conspiracy theorist, but actions against anti-Palin POV-pushers anywhere seem conspicuously absent. Kelly 03:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Struck as unnecessary. Kelly 04:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not willing to discuss this further with you unless you can do so without ill-founded accusations of "tag-teaming". Nor am I going to respond to your accusations of bias, which can also be disproven by a look at my adminstrative logs. MastCell  03:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
MastCell, I'm sorry if you're offended by the tag-teaming thing, but the point is that you're making exactly the same edit as Jossi, without resolving any of the BLP and REDFLAG concerns here. Kelly 04:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
From my perspective I've tried very hard to resolve them. I respect WP:BLP and I enforce it regularly, and I cannot see any way that directly and concisely quoting an article from a reliable source violates BLP here. The outside opinions that I've seen seem to support this conclusion, to the point that I see a consensus on that point. I also do not see this fulfilling any of the criteria at WP:REDFLAG.

I do think that there is a legitimate discussion to be had about whether to include the Washington Times source and, if so, in what context. I would be happy to have that discussion, but I don't see how it can proceed fruitfully in an atmosphere of BLP accusations, edit-warring, and inflammatory language. I am not married to the idea that this piece needs to be quoted or cited, but I lean in that direction for the reasons I elaborated much earlier in the thread; I see significant support for its inclusion from other editors; and it has been difficult to discern the substance of many of the objections and thus difficult for me to address them.

Above, I tried to get to the bottom of your objection. Is there alternate text, perhaps directly attributing the article's conclusions to the quoted expert, that would address your concerns? Or do you feel that this Washington Times article is absolutely unacceptable for inclusion here? MastCell  04:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Mastcell, I admire your patience and thick skin, but there are times that one needs to acceept what is going on here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Israel - break 2

MastCell, with respect, I don't see the consensus for inclusion that you do...there are at least 4 other editors besides me deriding the quality of the source in this case. Once again, rehashing the Times article, there's a random "health policy expert" (?!? - not even a foreign affairs guy) talking about Palin's denomination. Then a Republican strategist I've never heard of talking generically about evangelical Christians and Israel. The article never connects the dots to Palin's Israel position aside from its sensationalistic headline. Keep in mind that this article was published at a time when the newspapers had gone absolutely bonkers where Palin was concerned - they were throwing anything and everything they could think of into print, and worrying about corrections later. But that aside, this just isn't good enough for this controversial claim per WP:REDFLAG, and only fuels the "Dominionist" meme that her political opponents have been flogging. Kelly 12:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

From my perspective, the problem is that I don't find these arguments policy-based. That you have never heard of a given Republican strategist does not make his published comments irrelevant. The article does "connect the dots" in the headline, which is of course a summary of the article's content, as well as in its body. The article has not been corrected, so I don't see the relevance of mentioning other articles which were. Your feeling that this particular reliable source furthers a "meme" which you find objectionable similarly is not a policy-based objection; furthermore, it seems extremely unlikely that a strongly conservative paper like the Washington Times is trying to discredit Sarah Palin (now that is a WP:REDFLAG claim). As I've said before, I don't see that WP:REDFLAG applies here, and continuing to repeat the policy link does not clarify matters for me. MastCell  16:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
MastCell, I think we're just going back and forth on this with the same arguments over the quality of this particular source. Is there any other source which claims that Palin's policy toward Israel is derived from her church? Honestly, I've looked, and all I can find are either op-eds or articles that simply describe the theology of her religion. If there's no other source, I tried thinking of how to reword what this source actually says, which is "The Washington Times reported that Health Expert said Palin's church is an Evangelical Church, and that Republican Strategist said Evangelicals support Israel." (I forgot the real names.;) ) I think this is a good description of what the article actually says, but I'm not so sure it's a valid description of Palin's policy toward U.S.-Israeli relations. With respect - Kelly 17:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that your text is bordering on WP:OR. I much prefer the other text that is properly attributed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
See also : "Palin's religious views follow evangelical model". Retrieved 2008-09-08., and "Richard Silverstein: Sarah Palin's evangelical Christianity will turn off Jewish voters". {{cite web}}: Text "Comment is free" ignored (help); Text "guardian.co.uk" ignored (help) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Jossi, can we please differentiate between op-eds and straight news stories here? Both of those are opinion pieces. In regards to the Times piece, it is also reporting the opinions of the people it interviewed, and the source of those opinions needs to be made clear if cited. Kelly 17:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
(EC; @Kelly) I see that as a far more reasonable objection to the content. I am pleased if this means we can (finally?) agree the issue is not one of BLP but rather of editorial discretion. I think this content similar to the claim of Palin being a hunter in the gun section. Not strictly a political position, but some reasonable and informative context which make a better article. Now, whether or not this particular factoid does is certainly debatable, and if it is deemed so, wording needs to be careful due to good concerns you have. But I, and many other reasonable editors, have failed to see this as a BLP issue per se. (No implication intended that you are not reasonable.) I am saying this more for the future that for this particular point; I have stopped arguing for its inclusion only because I had better things to do (not all on WP). If this is now merely an issue with sourcing, someday this or something similar likely will be reintroduced in a much more straightforward way, as more stuff is available. But I understand your frustration; you have been a very diligent NPOV-enforcing hammer lately, without as much support as you should have. But as a consequence, some reasonable edits look like (you know the saying) POV-nails. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Baccyak - yes, I'm trying to reboot the conversation to get it back on an even keel. Kelly 17:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I lean toward Baccyak4H's view. At present, Palin has essentially no record or history of statements on foreign policy. At some point, presumably, she'll be done cramming and the campaign will allow her to speak to journalists and answer unscripted questions. Until then, people are looking for indications, and reporters are covering it. At present, I think that the Washington Times piece adds informative, encyclopedic content as to how Palin's stance on Israel is perceived. The Times reporter wrote: "Her faith makes her a favorite with the staunchly pro-Israel neoconservative elements in the Republican Party." This is not an "opinion piece", but a news piece - virtually any news piece reports opinions of people interviewed, so let's not muddy the waters further.

The article helps answer the question of how her stance on Israel is perceived. Frankly, I don't see this as particularly controversial, nor do I see it as evidence of "Dominionism". Palin is pretty clearly identified with an evangelical branch of Christianity; that worldview includes support for Israel; the Times reporter put this together with input from a handful of experts, including one of Palin's campaign consultants. One sentence in Misplaced Pages reflecting this doesn't seem particularly out of line, or like a shocking WP:REDFLAG requiring extensive supporting material. If Palin clarifies the matter tomorrow, or someone else writes a conflicting piece, then we can and should update the article, but until then a short sentence describing this source seems reasonable and encyclopedic. MastCell  18:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. But my concern, as mentioned above, is that we don't want to assume a particular person shares all the tenets or doctrine of their identified religion, which is what this seems to be going. Kelly 18:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
We aren't assuming anything. We're reporting on a conclusion drawn by a reliable source. I appreciate that editors' personal opinions may differ as to the validity of that source's conclusion, but that is not a policy-based rationale for its inclusion or exclusion. MastCell  18:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
No, I get you. But I just re-read your quote above - "Her faith makes her a favorite with the staunchly pro-Israel neoconservative elements in the Republican Party." This is actually much better than what was in the article before. How about "According to the Washington Times, her faith makes her a favorite with the staunchly pro-Israel neoconservative elements in the Republican Party."? This seems much more reasonable. Kelly 18:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Sure, that would be fine with me. I would say "has made" instead of "makes", but that's a minor grammatical thing. MastCell  20:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(Undent)I'm glad to see that my meddling is not needed here, so I will instead ask a question: Kelly, by "opinion" piece do we mean "reporter adding his/her opinions" or from the opinion-editorial section of the paper, or a opinionated feature?--Tznkai (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, by op-ed I mean the latter. Kelly 18:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Clarify please? there were three items on my list.--Tznkai (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Whoops - I meant to say "the latter two". Kelly 18:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
OK. I am of the opinion that Op-eds are NOT reliable sources RS says "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact." so those are right out. Feature pieces are a little more difficult. This washington times piece is which?--Tznkai (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
It's basically a straight-news piece that is discussing the theology of Palin's church, and quotes a couple of people speculating about the church's impact on Palin's hypothetical Israel policy. Kelly 19:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)I know I have little to do with the discussion going on here, but I thought I raised a good germane point above, and I was wondering if anyone could comment on it. Basically, this whole discussion in this section is based on the "fact" that Sarah Palin is evangelical, but the TIME interview quoted in her main article has her clearly stating that she is non-denominational. Specifically: 

Q:What's your religion?
A:Christian.
Q:Any particular...?
A:No. Bible-believing Christian.
Q:What church do you attend?
A:A non-denominational Bible church.
I was baptized Catholic as a newborn and then my family
started going to non-denominational churches throughout our life.

This is from an interview conducted on Aug 14th. The other article on her religious views cited in the main article, though titled "Evangelicals energized by McCain-Palin ticket", explicitly states that she sometimes worships at an evangelical church in Juneau, but her home church is an "independent congregation". So, in my opinion, if the article under discussion here is included in this article, then there will be a contradiction that needs to be dealt with. If you just want to answer me by saying "You're an idiot", or "You're wrong, go away." that's fine, but try not to ignore this completely. RobHar (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to mention real quick, that "non denomination Bible church" is evangelical for evangelical.--Tznkai (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
ROFL. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Wow. I had no idea... That's so ridiculous (IMHO). RobHar (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors not for statements of fact. -And that is exactly what we are doing here: we are not asserting these opinions as fact, we are asserting them as significant opinions published by reputable media outlets. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Balance

This article has the potential to become a POV fork, unless a multiplicity of viewpoints (and not only Palin's own) are presented as per WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There is wide precedent for these articles being constructed in this way, see Political positions of Barack Obama, Political positions of John McCain, or more generally Category:Political positions of United States presidential candidates, 2008. Oren0 (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
That article is all based on published sources, as it is here. No difference. We are quoting what secondary, publish sources say about the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Page protected

If supposedly experienced editors are tossing 3RR warnings at each other, you clearly have a dispute. Page protected for 24 hours. GRBerry 20:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Totally inappropriate, GRberry. If there are peopple edit-warring, warn them and if they persist, block them. I will post a complaint about this action at WP:AN. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, I looked at the history. If I'm going to block anyone, you will be one of the ones blocked for edit warring. I think protection is better. GRBerry 21:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
??? I have not edit warred. I have tried to implement proposed compromises, and there is an active discussion. Posted an AN. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Potential" POV fork my eye!

If this is a potential POV fork, I'm a bowl of petunias! It isn't a potential fork, it is a fork, pure and simple.

As far as I can see, this page has only been created as a means to get around the protection on the main page about Palin.

Just as soon as it is unprotected, it's going up for AfD.

Mayalld (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's a spinout article, which was created after a discussion at Talk:Sarah Palin. It's a content fork, of which we have many. Kelly 15:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Economic policy/issues

How come there is nothing about her Economic policy/issues? There is a fair amount of information on her budget and financial positions in the Sarah Palin#Budget section. Halgin (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I added a section on it. Halgin (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Rape and incest

As far as I know the situation of a baby being conceived because of rape or incest has not been a factor in American law since Roe v. Wade. An anti-abortion person would not use this expression in explaining her views. It is only used by pro-choice people, and then (it seems to me) in a kind of "boiler plate" way. I think the expression should be removed from the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The section also goes into more detail when she is asked about her own daughter so no real need for the cliche, "rape or incest." Steve Dufour (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Since many pro-lifers do make the exception, the reliable sources have to keep saying it (a Google News search gets 1680 hits for it) and so do we. It can hardly be a BLP concern, right? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Phlegm Rooster. Furthermore, Sarah Palin is running with someone who has said that he wants Roe v. Wade overturned, so assuming Roe v. Wade will stay a law seems inappropriate. And regarding anti-abortion people using this expression, you can check out pastor hagee's FAQ on the subject, where he explicitly addresses the question. I even found a list of talking points on another website. It's clearly a position one can take, and she has been very clear about her position, so it should be included. RobHar (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Leave it then. But the information about Palin's views are much more clearly and strongly given in the next sentence when she is asked about what if it was her own daughter. I do feel that many people use the expression "rape or incest" without taking the time to think about what it really means. If a young girl is raped by a close relative that should be called rape. If two adults have consentual sex and they are closely related that has nothing to do with rape. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Add Section: Stem Cell Research

I propose adding this section which can go under either Social Issues or Legal Issues:
Stem cell research
Palin has stated that she opposes stem-cell research, a position in contrast to that of her running mate, John McCain.
I'm open to input on whether we want to include the fact that her position on this issue differs from McCain's. Even without the McCain statement, it's an important issue to cover in this article. --Crunch (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It would make sense to include her position on stem cell research. The articles you cite do state her position but don't really say how they know that that is her position (unless that 9 minute long youtube video in the DFP article has that quote, but it might be good to say where in the video it occurs for ease of verifiability). It might be better to supplement your two sources with a more direct detailed source. For example, your phrasing says she has stated that she opposes stem-cell research, but neither of the articles say that. I think it's always better to include why it is known that someone has a certain position. I think the best that could be done with your sources is something like "The WSJ reports that she is against stem-cell research". Cheers. RobHar (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Clicking on the reference is sufficient for a reader to understand that it is the Wall Street Journal or the Detroit Free Press that is reporting it. The latter has never been the standard on Misplaced Pages. A better solution would be to note the actual original source, such as the interview or public speech at which she stated her opposition, which may be hard to find. Until then, I think the article can stand with a citation like as I originally proposed.--Crunch (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Upon looking around, it looks like the original source of any of this is an Anchorage Daily News article from the day after election day 2006 . This article simply states " stem cell research (opposed)". I would be for including "In November 2006, the Anchorage Daily News reported that Sarah Palin opposes stem cell research". I don't think we can make a stronger statement than that for the moment. Again, there's no evidence of her stating this position, let alone a quote. Sometimes journalists infer a position from a related statement, and we only find out later that they were wrong. RobHar (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll buy that. Maybe it will come up in the debate and she'll address it herself. In the meantime, we can use it with the prefance, The Wall Street Journal Reported ..." if the article ever opens up for editing again, that is. --Crunch (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So the new section would be:
Stem cell research
The The Wall Street Journal and other publications have stated that Palin opposes stem-cell research and that her position is in contrast to that of her running mate, John McCain.

I'll make the change. I just realized that despite the gold Full Protection lock icon, the page is open for editing. --Crunch (talk)

Just an update a day later: I have revised the section based on watching the re-airing of the 2006 Alaska gubernatorial debate shown today on C-SPAN. In the debate, Palin directly states her position on stem cell research. --Crunch (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

New Section Request: Censorship

There is no mention of Sarah Palin's stance on the Freedom of Speech and Censorship in this article despite the fact that she attempted to fire the Wasilla town librarian after the librarian made clear that she would refuse to remove books from the town library.Palin asked Wasilla librarian about censoring books. This story has been extensively reported on and I was surprised not to find it here already. I request the creation of a new section under legal issues entitled Censorship or Freedom of Speech (preferably at the top of the list since the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. I also request that this article's protection level be downgraded to semi-protected immediately before wikipedia becomes synonymous with the term prior restraint. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That is pretty heavily discussed at Talk:Sarah Palin. I'm afraid it's not as clear-cut as you make it out to be, the evidence shows she was asking on behalf of constituents and that no books were removed or "banned". Kelly 17:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Cdogsimmons, the protection on the article is a one day long protection due to alleged edit warring and is not related to some indefinite protection from all editing. The protection "expires 20:57, 6 September 2008" according to the edit summary. RobHar (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure that a long ago non-action constitutes a "position." Hopefully the info in question will be added to the main article shortly and thus won't be needed here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

ThaddeusB, attempting to have someone fired for their defense of freedom of speech is not a "non-action". It shows intent and purpose. It delineates Sarah Palin's attitude on an issue, where little else is known. The issue appear to me to be relevant in both the main page and here. I therefore, again respectfully request an IMMEDIATE inclusion of this issue in this article. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking past each other? Did you check the discussion/sources at Talk:Sarah Palin or are you just looking at some blog meme? Kelly 19:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
SHOUTING demands is not likely to help your cause around here. Oren0 (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, it didn't look like presenting evidence and "respectfully requesting" seem to be working. Kelly, I quoted my own source from the Boston Herald above. Oren0, as the first administrator to respond, I'll ask you, again, respectfully, please add the information concerning Sarah Palin's attempt to fire a librarian after she refused to censor library books. It is noteworthy and well sourced. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Please take a look at Sarah Palin#Wasilla, the incident is discussed there. I'm afraid it just doesn't stack up to a "political position". Also, the issue is being discussed at Talk:Sarah Palin#Proposed change to Wasilla section. Kelly 20:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, actions speak louder than words. Just as one might include John McCain's vote in favor of invading Iraq on his page, Palin's discussions with a librarian about banning books, the librarian's subsequent refusal to ban those books, and Palin's subsequent attempt to fire the librarian for "not fully supporting her" are extremely telling. More information is obviously needed to fill in Palin's record concerning the First Amendment, but I've found this reported incident to be relevant. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Cdog, but your opinion is synthesis and original research. Even the source you cite does not claim that the book thing was the reason the librarian was threatened with termination. Kelly 21:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The cause of the attempted firing is unproven and at this point irrelevant. What is relevant is asking a librarian whether she would be willing to censor books. I have added the information.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
And I have removed it per WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. Please don't, Cdog. Kelly 21:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
For everyone's reference this was the edit. It doesn't mention the firing, only the three times Sarah Palin asked a librarian "rhetorically" whether she would censor books. I am not one to edit war, so I will reach a consensus about this first.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you re-read my edit and WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. I do not see the violation. My edit says 'In 1996, as mayor of Wasilla, Palin asked the city librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, three times if she would be all right with censoring library books should she be asked to do so. Palin later called her inquiries rhetorical and simply part of a policy discussion with a department head "about understanding and following administration agendas." I believe I covered both the claim and the response and the incident clearly deals with the title heading Censorship.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
And how is that a "political position" on censorship? Kelly 22:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Censorship is a political issue concerning the limits of freedom of speech (for example, certain areas of speech that have historically not been considered to come under the aegis of The First Amendment like obscenity, defamation or incitement). Governor Palin's actions in repeatedly questioning a librarian about banning some books indicate a willingness by the Governor to ban some library books. You might call that original research in determining relevance. I would call it common sense.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no solid reason to believe that the firing was related to the books issue. For starters, Ms. Emmons and 3 others were asked to resign before the incident even occurs. Emmons was strong supporter of the previous mayor and Palin had run on a platform of change. If you want to assert wrongdoing, I find it highly more likely that Palin was acting in revenge for supporting the former mayor than in revenge for not banning some books. In any case Palin backed down when Emmons assured Palin of her support. Here is a link to the period article - note that it doesn't even mention the books thing: --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I will also state that asking a question either as "how would one go about removing some books if the need arose?" or as "how would you feel about removing some books that some have objected to as having bad language?" (both paraphrases) does not constitute a political position, esp since SP herself called the question rhetorical way back when this happend. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. If a new President asks the Secretary of Defense "How would I go about launching nukes at Russia?", that does not mean he/she is in favor of nuclear war. (Hyperbolic analogy, I know.) Kelly 21:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Um, to make an even more gratuitous comparison, if a convicted pedophile goes up to a small child on three different occasions and says "How would you like to have sex with me?" it's only rhetorical? It appears to me that Sarah Palin had serious control over this woman's career and that she was brave enough not to flinch at Palin's repeated suggestions that censorship is ok. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
No. But asking on three seperate occasions indicates a willingness to launch under certain circumstances. Likewise, in this situation, Governor Palin may actually hate the thought of banning books, but the fact that she brought it up with one librarian on three seperate occasions indicates that she is willing to ban some library books.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Cdog, that's simply your opinion. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. But your gut feeling about this doesn't belong in a high-profile article about a national political figure. Kelly 22:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The Wall Street Journal, hardly a bastion of white wine sipping liberals writes that Palin "floated the idea of pulling books she considered offensive from a local library." I don't think it's mere speculation to go from that statement to thinking that Governor Palin has a willingness to have certain books in the library pulled because she considers them offensive.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
This has gained some traction in reliable sources. That said, I agree with Kelly: this is not a "political position", but a single incident from over 12 years ago which involves some degree of he-said-she-said. I lean toward thinking this may be notable somewhere on Wikipeda, given the widespread coverage it's gotten, but I don't see how it's a "political position" of Palin's or how it would fit in anywhere in this article. MastCell  23:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
It involves her duty as an elected representative to uphold the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and her interpretation of that duty. Judging from her actions, I would say, her political position 12 years ago appeared to have been that certain books made available to the pubic by a public library were subject to being censored based on her own personal standard of offensiveness. If she came out tomorrow and said "I think that certain books in the library should be censored" or "I think there shouldn't be any censorship of library books at all" you wouldn't have a problem putting that on this page. Her actions should speak louder than words.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, if she came out tomorrow and said so, then it would be a political position of hers. Right now it's just a somewhat murky action from many years ago. If she's ever made available to actually answer questions from the media, then maybe it will be elucidated. 'Til then, I don't see a place for it here. That's my 2 cents. MastCell  00:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Is your issue that this happened 12 years ago or that Palin didn't come out and say, "I support banning certain books in the library." Do you not see what I see from her actions? Because when Palin approaches a librarian on three separate occasions and asks her how she feels about banning books that Palin thinks are offensive, I see a willingness on Palin's part to ban books that she (or her constituents) think are offensive. The timing shouldn't matter. So maybe you think this is WP:NOR or WP:SYNTH (the reasons Kelly gave when he removed the info) but no one's spelled out why it fais those tests (I didn't make this information up and I got it all from one reputable source, the Boston Herald). So maybe you think the problem is relevance to her political positions. I would say that this incident has been covered extensively in the press and blogosphere because of the way it presents Palin's views. Just check out this group. This issue matters to people. It matters to me. If no valid reasons are given why this actually does fail WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH or relevance, I will restore the information. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In case those other sources don't work for you, the New York Times wrote here that Anne Kilkenny said that Palin brought up the idea of banning some books at a city council meeting. “They were somehow morally or socially objectionable to her,” Ms. Kilkenny said.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

My issue is that this is not a "political position" that Palin is currently taking; it's extrapolating what her political position might be based on a hazy incident from many years ago. I know you're not "making it up"; I've read the sources, and formed my own opinion of them, as have you - but I don't see this story as relevant to this particular Misplaced Pages article. I'll let other people comment from here on. MastCell  00:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the info belongs on Misplaced Pages and suggested adding it to the main article. However, it is not appropriate for this page - to claim a political position from a single ambiguous event is unfounded speculation. (It will receive far more views in the main article anyway.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's speculation. See the above NYT article.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Another possibility is to insert the information, not in the legal issues section, but in the social views section. Although I still think that the First Amendment is implicated, the social issue of Censorship may be more predominate.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

First, the mayor she beat in the election is quoted as saying, "it was because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them." A newly elected mayor following up on issues her constituents asked her about - the horrors! And to think, she asked the town librarian, of all people, about the issue. Second, there is censorship in public libraries. When was the last time you cheked out a Penthouse from the front counter stand? See here for more information about the policies the librarian was dealing with. The confusing part is why didn't the librarian simple tell the mayor that there was a policy in place that dealt with residents objections about materials? Theosis4u (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Update to this situation can also be found at Sarah_Palin#6th_draft . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theosis4u (talk • contribs) 02:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Follow up

Although Misplaced Pages may not have provide information regarding Palin's stance on censorship, the rest of the internet will. The following can be found at http://www.politico.com/static/PPM106_palin_doc.html under the heading Censorship:

Palin Supported Bill Letting Parents Know what Library Material Their Children Have. Palin wrote, “As a mother of four and a former mayor, I support SB 269’s allowance for public and school libraries’ consistent policies and giving municipalities liberty to address the issue. Perplexing SB 269 opposition, attributed to a public librarian, was based on fear that parents may wield an “iron glove” if given freedom to know their kids’ business.”

Palin Asked City Librarian About Censoring Books, Insisted It Was “Rhetorical.” In 1996, according to the Frontiersman, Wasilla’s library director Mary Ellen “Emmons said Palin asked her outright if she could live with censorship of library books.” Emmons said, “This is different than a normal book-selection procedure or a book-challenge policy…She was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can’t be in the library.” Palin said in response, “Many issues were discussed, both rhetorical and realistic in nature.”

Why is the above allowed allowed to stay? It seems like an advert to goto an outside site for a POV article for the EXPRESSED purpose to share information that wasn't included for whatever reason on wikipedia article? Theosis4u (talk) 04:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Fiscal Conservatism and Earmarks

Sarah Palin claims that she is a fiscal conservative, but there is no mention of her record on that fiscal conservatism. All these other minor stories should be secondary to her record. That record should be part of this article. Instead of it being "topical," why not put it into what she says she is: proof of her fiscal conservatism argument. The bridge to nowhere and the hiring of paid lobbyists for earmarks are both important to that argument. --165.123.227.162 (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Fiscal Policy

Sarah Palin describes herself as a fiscal conservative. In her acceptance speech in front of the Republican National Convention, Governor Palin stated, "I suspended the state fuel tax, and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I came to office promising to control spending - by request if possible and by veto if necessary." Governor Palin did slash the federal budget by $231 million last year. The $231 million in cuts - which covered 36 spreadsheet pages - drew praise from those who believed the budget originally reflected too much spending, but ire from those who thought Palin went too far. The FY2009 Palin budget request, including all funding sources and the capital budget was $8.496 billion for a state of roughly 670,000 persons according to a 2006 Census Bureau Estimate. That's $12,680 per capita, or $51,000 for a family of four. No other state is close to this level of state government spending.

Palin employed a lobbying firm, Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh, to secure almost $27 million in federal earmarks for a town of 6,700 residents while she was its mayor, said an analysis by an independent government watchdog group. As the new mayor of Wasilla, she began going to Washington to ask for more earmarks from the state's congressional delegation, mainly Rep. Don Young and Sen. Ted Stevens, Republicans. The lobbying firm initially was paid $24,000 a year, an amount that increased to $36,000 in 2001. According to a review by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan group, Wasilla benefited from $26.9 million in earmarks in Palin's final four years in office."When she got more involved in what these programs were, she has taken a strong and consistent stand against them and she's actually exercised what they estimate to be the largest line-item veto in Alaska state history," McCain adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer told CNN. "I think what all that shows is that when you get in the governor's seat, where you have to do trade-offs."

In her acceptance speech, Governor Palin also said, "I told the Congress 'thanks, but no thanks,' for that Bridge to Nowhere." While it is true that funding was never sent to build the bridge to nowhere, it was accepted by Alaska and allocated to different projects in the state. Additionally, Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it. The Alaska governor campaigned in 2006 on a build-the-bridge platform, telling Ketchikan residents she felt their pain when politicians called them "nowhere."

--165.123.227.188 (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


Pretty unbalanced as a description of fiscal policy per WP:NPOV. Certainly some mention of the earmarks might be appropriate (it's already discussed in Sarah Palin#Wasilla) but it's hardly her fiscal policy position. For example, she vetoed a pretty large amount of spending by the Alaska government. Kelly 06:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say it was balanced; I'll leave it up to the rest of you guys to make it more "reasonable." I think including that she cut millions off the budget is fine, but if you are, you might want to include what CNN said on top of that - her federal budget is increasing at a rate of 10% per year so it's not like the budget is getting any smaller. No one looks under Wasilla when they are looking at a page on her political positions. Fiscal policy is directly related to earmarks because they are, as John McCain himself puts it, a form of wasteful spending that a fiscal conservative should never accept. Perhaps my description of her fiscal conservatism just happens to bring up the unfortunate truth: she's not that huge of a fiscal conservative when it comes to her record. --165.123.227.188 (talk) 06:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Certainly some people have that opinion, while others have a different one, but a political positions page really isn't a place for opinions, unfortunately. Kelly 06:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Which is why people like you are here. First I'd say that the things I am posting are more facts than opinions. It is a fact that she supported the bridge to nowhere. It is a fact that she hired lobbyists. It is a fact that she has obtained earmarks. If you wish to include items that will make this seem more reasonable, that suits me just fine. What I'd prefer not to do is for nothing to get done at all and this sit on the discussion page. --165.123.227.188 (talk) 06:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
From the WP:NPOV page: 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. That being the case, my opinion is completely valid as long as it can be backed up by valid sources.
I have removed certain portions of it that I found to be unnecessary and added additional sources to back the statistics of the original sources --165.123.227.188 (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...it always makes me scratch my head when people insist that unbalanced information must go into an article right now, and it's up to other people to add other information later on to make it match WP:NPOV. Kelly 07:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, what I said, if you read it correctly, was that I don't want that. To avoid having my words twisted around, I'll quote myself: "If you wish to include items that will make this seem more reasonable, that suits me just fine. What I'd prefer not to do is for nothing to get done at all and this sit on the discussion page." If you find something that I wrote is biased, then specify exactly what you think is wrong and not make generalities about how "unfair" I'm being. Then I could actually do something to change it. Unfortunately complaining doesn't help either one of us, does it? --165.123.227.188 (talk) 07:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
It looks to me like user 165.123.227.188 is trying to be reasonable. He appears to have a certain knowledge (and sources) of facts and has placed them here on the discussion page. He's recognized it may be unbalanced, but perhaps his knowledge only lies on one side of the issue. One editor shouldn't have to explain all sides of every issue, that's why this is a collaboration. The collaborative nature of wikipedia is what makes it successful. Most wiki articles go for long amounts of time being poorly weighted, but it doesn't matter because it's not about something important or related to a popular person, and then the article gets improved over a matter of months and slowly builds into a balanced accurate article. I recognize that that kind of unbalanced appearance shouldn't appear in an article on a living person for any period of time, but expecting every editor to come up with a bunch of balanced facts is a bit much. And this user didn't place his paragraph in the article, but rather on the discussion page, which I think shows some pretty good faith. As I read the current economic section in the article, it looks unbalanced in view of the facts now included here. It is all favorable. Certainly she doesn't have a perfect record as a fiscal conservative. RobHar (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate that. I'm more than willing to admit there may be additional information out there that shows a more balanced viewpoint of Palin's fiscal conservatism. If it is out there, include it. Unfortunately I am not privy to that information, just the information I have presented through researching her record as Mayor and Governor. I have also added an additional source and statement by the McCain campaign trying to explain why she went for those earmarks. --165.123.227.57 (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Link To John McCain's Positions

For some reason, I am not allowed to add a link to Political positions of John McCain to the page. It should be near the top, and say something like, "...more conservative than John McCain, whose positions can be found at Political positions of John McCain." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.89.151 (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with this. --165.123.227.188 (talk) 07:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The Political positions of Joe Biden article doesn't link to the positions of Barack Obama, or compare the two. —ADavidB 13:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oil and Gas

Booksnmore4you has suggested some edits which have been reverted several times. This seems like the place to discuss it. Let me start the ball rolling by saying that I oppose these insertions because: - There already exists a paragraph about the beluga whale. - The quote from the Sierra Club member lacks context. - The quote from The Independent is editorializing. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, per T0mpr1c3 above. Kelly 19:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Suggest you decide where the beluga whale belongs.
  • Suggest you discuss how to contextualize the Sierra club content.
  • Suggest you determine whether the Independent content would be better if sourced another way, or if it is better rephrased.
  • do no blindly blank it. Booksnmore4you is a newbie, do not bite him or her by blindly removing their addition. Be polite, AGF, and do NOT run roughshod over them. This article will be here for a while; it is a work in progress; but Booksnmore4you may stay and become a valued contributor or leave forever based upon your (so far, so shoddy) treatment. Focus and perspective, people. KillerChihuahua 20:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
My perception is that you are acting aggressively. I'm not going to write your edits for you, neither am I going to blow past 3 reverts to delete them again. But unless you back them up on this page they are going to be taken down time and again, because repeatedly slapping up the same edit without any justification makes you look like a mindless vandal. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec) ::: You, Kelly, and Booksnmore4you are dangerously close to busting 3RR. Now: you and Kelly are not newbies, and should know better. As for Booksnmore4you, he should be informed of the 3RR policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Correction: Actually Kelly already violated WP:3RR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Did she? I miscounted then, I made it out that she stopped just shy - gaming the system perhaps but not actually at 4 or more reverts. Good catch - thanks, Jossi. KillerChihuahua 20:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Kelly reverted Booksnmore4you 4 times, and Cdogsimmons once. And this is a pattern, not an isolated case: ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Kelly's recent editd
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  1. 10:29, 4 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 236184244 by 88.233.54.200 (talk) - change to match the source")
  2. 11:27, 4 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 236214109 by 88.233.54.239 (talk), redundant, obvious")
  3. 11:32, 4 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 236216251 by CengizT (talk) - this is what the source says")
  4. 11:36, 4 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 236216669 by CengizT (talk) - the source does not say that, see talk page")
  5. 11:39, 4 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 236217085 by CengizT (talk) odd deletion")
  6. 11:41, 4 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 236217372 by CengizT (talk) - DISCUSS ON TALK")
  7. 05:12, 5 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Israel */ rm per WP:REDFLAG, see talk")
  8. 14:46, 5 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Israel */ rm per WP:BLP")
  9. 18:34, 5 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Israel */ rm per WP:BLP")
  10. 21:21, 6 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 236727315 by Cdogsimmons (talk) - this is not a policy position, see talk")
  11. 08:26, 7 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Oil and gas development */ not a place for random opinions")
  12. 08:28, 7 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Oil and gas development */ needs attribution")
  13. 08:39, 7 September 2008 (edit summary: "the Indepedent's opinion is not a "political position"")
  14. 08:41, 7 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Oil and gas development */ redundant whale stuff, see "Endangered species" below")
  15. 08:48, 7 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Endangered species */ reword whale thing")
  16. 08:49, 7 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Endangered species */ whoops, redundant clause")
  17. 08:50, 7 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Endangered species */ minor grammar fix")
  18. 09:17, 7 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Endangered species */ tense")
  19. 16:33, 7 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 236886555 by Booksnmore4you (talk) - take it to talk")
  20. 16:37, 7 September 2008 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Booksnmore4you; Unexplained removal of content.")
  21. 18:52, 7 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Oil and gas development */ not neutral, we don't do random opinions, and redundant to "Endangered species" below. Make your proposal at talk page")


No, I'm an admin who doesn't even edit this page, who is telling you to learn to work with others, or you'll get blocked. I'm not asking you to "write my edits for me" - I have no edits to this article. I merely undid your newbie-biting and reversion of good-faith edits by another editor. Now, you can learn from this, or you can piss on my toes. Your call. Let me know if you have any questions. KillerChihuahua 20:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Good-faith edits are fine...but even if that edit is good-faith and violates policy, it has to be removed, especially on a high-profile article. Kelly 20:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I have not broken 3RR and I do not intend to, I am merely following WP:BRD. My problem in doing so is that it seems to take a fair bit of arm twisting to get any discussion on these edits. I've made my position pretty clear. So in all good faith: what is the justification for these edits? I'm all ears. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent):Kelly, the edit in question violates no policy, so your point is baseless. And both of you should know that you can be blocked well before technically violating 3RR. If you are counting, you are missing the point of the 3RR policy. KillerChihuahua 20:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Adding, BRD? No, indeed. You were following RRR. You didn't make the edit; you reverted it, and when I restored and told you to discuss it, you reverted me twice, in less than 10 seconds each time. You are edit warring with a vengence; and I am NOT impressed with your reasoning. KillerChihuahua 20:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
In point of fact, I started this discussion, and reverted only after checking that there were no new contributions to the discussion. You can check the times if you want. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a side note - KC, I know perfectly well that you have a problem with me because I've criticized the IDCab, you've stated it before. I already figured it was just a matter of time before the Intelligent Design Wikiproject showed up on the Palin articles, but please don't try to play "uninvolved admin" here. If you would like to block me, bring it. Kelly 20:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
He does not need to "bring it". all it will take would be a simple report about your editing behavior at WP:AN/3RR, and you know that very well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
WTH? Kelly, if you need blocking, you'll get blocked, and I have no intention of avoiding articles where you are edting (or edit warring) because you think you can get a free pass by screaming 'involved admin!". I assure you, you are not important enough to me for me to bother holding a grudge, even if that were my nature, which it is not. KillerChihuahua 20:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, do it then, go ahead and block me. Or maybe Felonious Monk should do the block. But look back through your contribs first. And Jossi - I thought you promised you were going to stay away from politics articles, in the ArbCom case you're involved in. But I don't want to receive any more threatening e-mails from you. But, in any case, blatant POV-pushing has no place in Misplaced Pages articles, which both of you know perfectly well. Kelly 21:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, I've never emailed you. Who have you confused me with??? And why the bizarre "dares"? This is highly unproductive behavior. KillerChihuahua 21:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, Jossi was the one who sent the e-mail, over a comment I made in his ArbCom case. I forwarded it to the ArbCom mailing list. Kelly 21:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that I was not that off on my comments to you privately, but if you insist, I can post my email to you in your talk page. Your call.≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
@Kelly: I declared that I will not exercise admin actions in US Political articles ... so that is exactly what I am doing: acting as an editor that is concerned, as expressed in my email to you, that your behavior in these pages is appalling, and that sooner or later it will be known as per WP:AKASHA, which is currently the case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly "Kelly" is attempting to bowdlerize the article! Booksnmore4you (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion, Books. Please read the policy on WP:3RR and don't put the content back in the article, but do discuss - I suggest using the points by T0mpr1c3, and my bulleted suggestions, above, as a starting place. KillerChihuahua 21:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
@KillerChihuahua - Blocks are not punitive, so what is needed is a declaration by Kelly that she will not editwar any more, with the understanding that if she does, after the behavior supported by evidence above, she will earn a long enough block to prevent further disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
If any of you would like to say that I've acted improperly at upholding WP:BLP and WP:NPOV on Sarah Palin and this article, then get busy and bring some diffs to show I've edited with a pro-Palin POV. You would not believe the absolute scurrilous garbage that people have been trying to insert. Kelly 21:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, I assure you, I have been an editor of Misplaced Pages long enough to believe ANY amount of garbage, and political articles pre-election are always among the worst. However, the edit in question was NOT a violation of NPOV or BLP, but you did edit war blindly to revert the edit, as did Tom. KillerChihuahua 21:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Kelly should know by now, that she can get help from the good folks monitoring WP:BLP/N and WP:RS/N rather than keep reverting. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
So Kelly, ball is in your court. Are you going to try to AGF a bit more, work with others, and stop edit warring? KillerChihuahua 21:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a bit of a ruckus going on here. Can we start over now that we have everybody in the house? T0mpr1c3 (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

We can if users pledge to not to cross the electric fence. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I started a new section below. Be civil and AGF (that's all of you!) and let me know if things get out of hand again. KillerChihuahua 21:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oil and Gas, Take two

  1. There already exists a paragraph about the beluga whale.
  2. The quote from the Sierra Club member lacks context.
  3. The quote from The Independent is editorializing.

and:

  1. Suggest you decide where the beluga whale belongs.
  2. Suggest you discuss how to contextualize the Sierra club content.
  3. Suggest you determine whether the Independent content would be better if sourced another way, or if it is better rephrased, or ommited.

Posted from above, does this cover the issues on the disputed addition? KillerChihuahua 21:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Tom, you have now violated 3RR on the beluga whale, and the link you give in your edit summary is invalid: This edit. If there are opposing views, DO NOT REMOVE ONE. Instad, edit to add the other view, like this: "Palin eats baby ducks, according to (source). (Other source) states that has nothing to do with the feathers in her teeth at the recent photo op.". See? KillerChihuahua 21:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding: Yes, this is much better, and you self reverted as well, always good! However can you and Books find a way to keep the beluga accusation in, without giving it undue weight (making it clear there are differing views)? KillerChihuahua 21:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I have attributed that statement to the source, rather than assert that as a fact. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
(laughing) Darnit, Jossi, I know you know how to do that! I was trying to get our edit-warriors to learn!!! Ah well, they can learn by example I guess. KillerChihuahua 21:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Couple of problems. On the beluga whales thing, the passage implies that the toxic waste reduced the population, when this is simply not the case. Their population was reduced by overhunting by the Eskimos - this is discussed extensively, with evidence, at Talk:Sarah Palin#Beluga whales, and in the "Endangered species" section of this article. The Sierra Club quote is grossly inappropriate - this article is not a place for statements by political enemies or critics in a statement of "Political positions". The same goes for The Independent editorial opinion on her tax refund to the Alaska citizens. How would they know what the motivation is? Kelly 21:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, we report on what reliable sources say on a subject. That is what WP:V says, and that is what that is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The Sierra Club is an environmental organization, is it not? Clearly a source that can be used. You may add other sources and counterpoints for NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but the problem is that if we try to include every viewpoint by every organization, the article is confusing and never becomes stable. Why is this organization's viewpoint notable enough to include? Kelly 22:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Considering that the Sierra Club has endorsed Obama we should probably not use them in this situation. Arzel (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
So options are: 1, omit that; 2, use Sierra club but make sure to also mention, perhaps parenthetically, that they have endorsed Obama; or 3, find another source. Have I missed any? KillerChihuahua 22:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm - normally I would say 3, but I'm not sure who we would consider reliable and neutral in this case. Kelly 23:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Sources don't have to be neutral - they have to meet guidelines and state what is being put in the article. (linked are the WP:RS and WP:V, which Books should read, and anyone else who is not familiar should read also.) That's why I put in option 2 - Sierra club meets WP:RS handily; as you note, they are not neutral so that should be clarified in the article. I'm not arguing for option 2; I am explaining. KillerChihuahua 23:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The NMFS review that I cited is the latest scientific review from a public body. That is an authoritative source, no question. The Independent and Sierra Club sources are opinion. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
And since when opinions are to be dismissed? As I said, you can add the counterpoint of the NMFS for balance. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not dismissing anybody's opinion. Trish Rolfe is perfectly entitled to her opinion. But I don't see why it belongs on this page. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that we ought to dismiss opinions published in the mainstream press, which are considered to be reliable sources, based on who has stated that opinion? Let's face it, little is known about Palin's views on these issues, so we have to do with what has been published by the US and the international press on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, you only have to look at the facts to know what kind of an environmental record Palin has. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

<<< For example, would the opinion of the executive director of Columbia University Earth institute, published on The New York Observer be notable enough for including in the article - "Science, Governor Palin and Environmental Policy". Retrieved 2008-09-07. {{cite web}}: Text "The New York Observer" ignored (help) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

And what about the Malaysian Sun reporting of an Asian News International wire? "Palin's "toxic" environmental policy would even make President Bush blush". Retrieved 2008-09-07. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Kelly, why don't you try to discuss with Books why you feel it should be in the article, and Books, you tell Kelly why you think it should not be. That's how this place works, not by edit warring, which is what you've been doing. KillerChihuahua 22:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

KC, that's what I'm doing on this talk page. And, with all due respect, I would really prefer if you would step aside and let another "uninvolved admin" deal with this, I really personally would prefer not to deal with you. Kelly 22:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
At the very least we should wait a while to give Books a chance to self-revert or say something.--Tznkai (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, makes sense. Kelly 22:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
And if we see no sign of team playing from Books? T0mpr1c3 (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
As of 40 seconds ago Books hasn't made any edits since that one. Try restoring the spirit of the removed content, while addressing Books concerns. Also, keep in mind that if Books returns, that he is welcome to participate in this discussion.--Tznkai (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
OK. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Now I am pissed off because Books has reverted me for a 5th time. Still no sign of him on this discussion board. I think Books has received considerable license and I am out of patience here. Every single edit I have made on this page in the last 5 hours has been reverted by Books without explanation. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
T0mpr1c3, please provide diff of Book's edit, and the version he reverted, exactly or substantially to.--Tznkai (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, the edit I am upset about is this one. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I need a diff to compare it to--Tznkai (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC) What did he revert it too?
Reviewing. I do have a real life and food on the burner by the way.--Tznkai (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
(after EC) Kelly, you're at at least 7, and its being discussed on both sides - Books' is on his talk page. I am trying to avoid blocking you all, which I will do if you don't all calm down - and kelly, your hostile nasty implications are not helping the situation any. And now that Tzn is here, I'm rebooting my machine, which has needed it this past hour. KillerChihuahua 00:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Interesting how you always leave out the BLP violations in the revert count. Kelly 00:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, try to be more civil. There is no need to sound so smarky. I have stated multiple times I see no BLP violations in the disputed edits. I have even written a minor essay on this talk page about sourced (and attributed) allegations about political candidates. KillerChihuahua 00:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm referring to the Dominionist garbage that Jossi has been putting into the article repeatedly. Kelly 00:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Settle down!

A brief glance at the History shows a bucketfull of you reverting instead of talking, editing, copyediting, or otherwise acting like Wikipedians. We'll start with WP:TROUT and move onto letter and spirit of WP:3RR violations.--Tznkai (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You're late to the party - see the Oil and Gas section above, for LOTS on the recent Edit war. Jossi and I have been attempting to defuse, and everyone but Kelly seems agreeable and willing to start discussing, but Kelly has said our concern over her 3RR violations is personal. KillerChihuahua 21:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
If you're suggesting that Jossi has been trying to defuse edit wars, that's the best joke I've heard all week. Seen the ArbCom case? :) Kelly 22:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Your sarcasm aside, I have still (and others as well, I am sure) waiting to hear from you about AGF and stopping edit warring. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Or wheel warring. Kelly 22:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to recommend we all drop this right now.--Tznkai (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, OK, you're probably right. Kelly 22:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Economic

Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Economic

Governor Palin has history of trying stop wasteful spending and holding the line on spending increases. Shortly after becoming governor, she canceled a contract for the construction of an 11-mile (18 km) gravel road outside Juneau to a mine. She also followed through on a campaign promise to sell the Westwind II jet purchased. She used her veto power to make the second-largest cuts of the construction budget in state history. The $237 million in cuts represented over 300 local projects, and reduced the construction budget to nearly $1.6 billion. In an article titled, "Bridge leads McCain to running mate Palin", the Associated Press said canceling the "Bridge to Nowhere" was "the first identifiable link connecting Palin and McCain," soon followed by "whispers of Palin being an ideal GOP running mate".

Do editors believe that the above is a neutral representation of that subject? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What change would you suggest? Kelly 21:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Answering a question with another question? Are you more Jewish than me? :) . What is your opinion on the above/ Do you think it is a neutral representation of the subject? Is it close to the sources? Does it have an element of OR? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it should probably make some mention of the fact that she did request some earmarks as Mayor of Wasilla (this is undisputed by anyone) but subsequently changed her position on those. I'm still trying to think about how to reword that, though. Kelly 22:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Sure, no rush. Look forward seeing if you are able to write for the enemy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I think ThaddeusB is watching this page - he and Ferrylodge are probably the most expert people we have on the Wasilla years. Hopefully one of them chimes in with an opinion. Kelly 22:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's neutral, as I expressed above Talk:Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Fiscal_Conservatism_and_Earmarks, where an anonymous user suggested some additions. RobHar (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that viewpoint went too far in the other direction, we need something neutral. Kelly 22:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's that bad, but really I was just suggesting that there might be some facts in there that could be used. RobHar (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I will give it a go later on. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Taxes

Here's some stuff about what she has done regarding taxes, there's likely more.

As mayor of Wasilla:

  • Cut property taxes by 3/4 (by 40% according to )
  • Eliminated personal property tax
  • Raised sales tax by 0.5% and

As governor of Alaska:

  • "a major tax increase on state oil production" (a $1.5 billion tax increase according to )
  • In august, suspended "AK 8-cent fuel tax for one year"

I'm not sure how people want to go about updating the economy section, but hopefully some facts and sources can help. RobHar (talk) 23:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


Would also like to add:

"Wasilla voters agreed in 2002 to a half-percent increase in the city sales tax to pay off a $14.7 million bond to build the multi-use facility. The project "was completed on schedule and under budget," Mayor Dianne Keller said, and the complex opened its doors March 6, 2004." http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/168047.html (OxAO (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

Request for protection

I am writing this in protest of the naked POV pushing and admin wars that are wrecking the content this page. The Sarah Palin plague has struck in a big way and the page needs locking down before we have another deluge of cyclical vandalism. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm enforcing an hour long protection right now while I review the 3RR complaint, and I get the participants talking. I am still considering further action. --Tznkai (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. T0mpr1c3 (talk)
Yes, thank you. Kelly 00:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no reverting happening. All I'm trying to do is add stuff to the article over time, and every time i go to take up where I left off to improve it the start I had is freakin' gone. Whatever happened to eventualism, AGF, and giving someonw with a life time to add to Misplaced Pages?

Also, it is plain as day that there's an attempt here to bowdlerize the article.

Booksnmore4you (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well hello. Perhaps you can give an example of bowdlerizing? T0mpr1c3 (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't ignore my messages on your talk page, and you must discuss with your fellow contributors, especially when 3RRs have been filed.--Tznkai (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Books, why did you make this edit? This is the edit that I complained to Tznkai about which brought the 3RR on. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
It's 2am in my time zone, I'm working tomorrow, and I can't hang about any more. I tried to talk. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection conditions

I will lock this page until doomsday unless I get some civility out of all parties. Here are your ground rules:

  • 0 discussion about NPOV
  • 0 discussion about special BLP rules.
  • 0 discussion about other editors faults.
  • 0 accusations about other editor's biases and cabals.
  • 0 reminders to others to assume good faith
  • I will tolerate, but discourage you complaining about me.
  • Editors will talk to eachother, and ignore personal attacks.
  • Absolute and total assumption of good faith. Pretend if you have to, but I want you all bleeding civility.
  • It is noted that you may always appeal to outside administrators if you don't like the way I'm handling it.

Note I am still considering a pending 3RR complaint.--Tznkai (talk) 00:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but exactly what do mean about no discussion of NPOV or BLP? Kelly 00:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I mean I want zero accusations of others not following policies. I obviously want you to follow policy, but I don't want any excuses such as "I was just enforcing BLP and NPOV"--Tznkai (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I understand - but what to do if there is an actual BLP violation? Trust me, there were plenty of them here before you showed up. Kelly 00:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
This is my recommendation, both based on my reading of WP:BLP, the arbcom special protection order, and some common sense: extraordinary BLP protection edits can only be used in the most egregious of cases. This includes accusations of rape, revelation of private information, or other sufficiently big hairy deals.
One of the relevant lines. "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."
This line does not, although it should, have notice that this is NOT an excuse to edit war. If you see continuous BLP violations that do not fall into the emergency enforcement category, call in outside help.--Tznkai (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to expand a little further - I'm thrilled that more admins are becoming involved. I started watching the Palin article when rumors of her VP pick began circulating - I like the political articles and have helped on articles of politicians of all parties. It was quiet until last weekend, then it was like getting hit with a nuke. There were about five of us trying to hold back really bad BLP-violator and POV-pushers, like Leonidas at Thermopylae, and no admins would help, despite desperate requests everywhere, including Jimbo's talk page. I have never pushed pro-Palin POV, I just insist on WP:NPOV. I'm familiar with pretty much all of the POV-pusher memes now (there are probably at least 20). I really resent the implication that my efforts on these articles makes me a revert-warrior . Kelly 01:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I want to assure you something Kelly, I have no doubt that everything you have done is in good faith. But consider this for a moment. You have, based on a cursory glance at your contributions, made around 1000 consecutive edits on Palin related articles, or user talks. Does that sound remotely good for your judgment, perspective, or mental health? --Tznkai (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
If I may say, Kelly has done a heroic job.T0mpr1c3 (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Heh - I would absolutely love to walk away from this, and I gradually am doing so. Sarah Palin has settled down, and some of the kerfuffle has spilled out to here, but hopefully it will settle down as well. Kelly 01:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
As one Wikipedian to another, take a 24 hour break. Someone else will pick up the slack, and I have this page on watch now. You don't have to, but I recommend it.--Tznkai (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
That's good advice, I think I'll take it. Kelly 01:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed further condition

Tznkai, I would like to propose one further condition to your list - that controversial material must get consensus here on the talk page before it goes into the article. Kelly 01:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No. We don't want another Sarah Palin on our hands. I will however, recommend on WP:AN that 15 minute page and user blocks are used to cool down edit wars over controversial material. --01:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm - what do you think of article probation - cf Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation? Kelly 01:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
If its like this after I wake up tomorrow, I will probably recommend that.--Tznkai (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection Redux

I have added more conditions. You will find they are well grounded in policy, principles, and guidelines we have here at Misplaced Pages. This article is protected until around tomorrow 9:30AM EST at which point I will look around and see what is up. You may however, appeal to another administrator, or request article un-protection. Goodnight. --Tznkai (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm awake, and I've been glancing over the discussions here, and to me most of the editors are headed straight to dispute resolution because of a significant loss of good faith on the part of many parties.
I have certain proposals:
  • You could ask on WP:AN for a different uninvolved administrator to take over, and I will walk away from this and wrestle bears or something. I will bear no one any ill will if this is what you choose.
  • The editors involved in the back and forth, and here I am looking specifically at MastCell, Jossi, Kelly, T0mpr1c3, Booksnmore4you (feel free to note if I'm missing anyone), can all agree to edit completely unrelated articles for 3 days and/or take a wikibreak, as a non punitive, voluntary cooling-off period.
  • The editors listed above may ask for mediation from the Mediation Cabal.
  • The editors listed above may can agree to undergo special mediation overseen by me. I think I've proven myself fair, if irritating.
  • Editors can select none of the above, and I'll let protection expire, but be warned I will be keeping a close eye on WP:AN/3RR
Protection expires at 11EDT, please leave your opinions here.--Tznkai (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Apparently I never extended the protection as I planned and it expired at 9:30EDT. Oh well.--Tznkai (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not that complex. All I see is a small group of Palin supporters who do not want critical information in the article, and a small group of non-Palin supporters who want to add it. The former reverts the latter and the latter reverts the former. The solution is very simple. NPOV REQUIRES that critical voices be incorporated into an article in a balanced fashion. Those who do not want this and revert it out are in violation of fundamental Misplaced Pages policy and should be banned rather than coddled. Period. Booksnmore4you (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't ban people for disagreeing with what is NPOV and what is not.--Tznkai (talk) 14:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Sure you do, unless you lack the ability to make a judgment about a fundamental policy, and actually believe lines of bull from POV-pushers designed to work the system and disguise the agenda. NPOV does not equate with removal of all critical material but requires a balance between the positive and negative. If a small group does not want critical material in an article for their political purposes, then they are in violation of everything Misplaced Pages is about on the most fundamental level. You can't work with people whose agenda is not Misplaced Pages's. The way forward is to mandate that critical voices will be incorporated into the article in closely equal proportion to positive voices, and whoever breeches that is in violation. Don't let yourself be played, it's really that simple. Booksnmore4you (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
If we're going to be trading policy don't attack the credibility of other editors and learn to agree to disagree about what is NPOV and what is not. No one here is an expert on the interpretations, we determine article content and how to achieve a balanced neutral article, by discussion and agreement not by fiat or mandate. Furthermore violations of WP:NPOV is not an exception to the three-revert rule which is one of many ways we work to prevent edit wars.--Tznkai (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The NPOV policy page is not blank, nor does it define NPOV as "whatever people want it to be". It states explicitly, All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Moreover, there is the section on balance. If you are not prepared to enforce this policy as written, which unlike what you cited is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Misplaced Pages, perhaps you might leave the job to another who is. Enough with this wishy-washy-ness, please. Booksnmore4you (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

@Tznkai: Thank you for your suggestions but I disagree with them. There is no reason for starting mediation in these pages, at leas for now. This article is w benefiting from the attention of experienced users and I am sure that if people agree to not editwar we will make progress toward NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A model NPOV paragraph

In January 2008, Palin wrote an opinion column for The New York Times in which she opposed the listing of polar bears as an endangered species, claiming that she had based her position on a comprehensive review of expert scientific opinion. While asserting that "polar bears are magnificent animals...worthy of our utmost efforts to protect them and their Arctic habitat," Palin defended her opposition to listing the animal as endangered by stating, "The possible listing of a healthy species like the polar bear would be based on uncertain modeling of possible effects. This is simply not justified." For Steven A. Cohen, Executive Director, Columbia University’s Earth Institute, this is "the most distressing part" of Palin's opinion column because of "its attempt to contrast 'science' to 'modeling'." Cohen points out that, obviously, "models are just as 'scientific' as the other methods used to understand our world," and concludes about Palin that "if elected leaders are going to make policy based on scientific information, they need to develop at least a modest level of scientific literacy themselves." State biologists disagree with Palin's position.

Note several things:

  1. It places Palin's position in strong light and affirms positive things about it.
  2. It then places significant criticisms about her position.
  3. Both are in rough balance, and note even that about the word count (color-coded).

Somehow, it seems that some here are not interested in this sort of thing, but in truncating to the most minimal any criticisms. That's called POV-pushing.

Booksnmore4you (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The above is a good example of NPOV writing. Well done. Now, I am interested to hear the rationale on why that is not a neutral presentation of the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
An obvious objection is of course that Cohen's material is too long. I would strongly suggest making it more concise: drop the mention of "models are just" content from Cohen (why are we allowing a critic the opportunity to nuance their criticism? Just summarize, as is done it the prev sentence) as well as the "literacy" statement. The latter is somewhat contradicted by the caveat about models, is arguably inplied by the last sentence, and smells like a subtle hatchet job. I would move then the final "State biologists" sentence before the Cohen content; this would thus present a summary "biologists disagree" statement followed by a slightly more indepth detail about one particular take(not necessarily from the same source I understand, but that is not the point).
BTW, good pun on the section title on this page :) Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
In addition, I would trim Palin's "magnificant animals" quote. Too apologetic. Both this suggestion and my above one are intended to remove connotations that the section endorse any position. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
WTF, what happened to that whole section? What a mess. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree, yikes. The quotes from the environmentalist advocacy groups definitely need to go per UNDUE. A brief description of the opinions of environmental groups should be OK, though. Kelly 16:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Not at all. Balance it with a quote that disagrees with the quote! Remember eventualism, and that is not served by removing material. Booksnmore4you (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
A better solution would be to consolidate the nature (and source) of objections. Use more quotes from secondary sources about them, rather than their quoting of the primary source to avoid soapboxing, and make sure the rebuttal(s) is no longer than the nominal topic. That start should be a big improvement. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You placed a NPOV tag. There is nothing obvious about it. Explain yourself. Booksnmore4you (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Books, you are being warned here as well as on your talk page to cease your uncivil tone as well as your reverting. Furthermore, the NPOV tag is used when editors disagree whether or not something is neutral, and is not subject to in the judgment of you, or any other editor, of the actual neutrality of the article.--Tznkai (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You must have aimed that at another user because there's nothing wrong with my tone, I'm just stating things.

Based on what you said about the NPOV tag--which I respectfully submit is about one of the most inane things I've ever heard an admin say--I can just run around adding the tag to tons of articles, "just because I think it so", it does not matter whether it is warranted in policy.

But the tag must be backed up by specific arguments based in NPOV policy or its groundless and is just being used for political reasons, sort of like how about 100% of all Digg articles critical of McCain/Palin have been dugg down as "factually inaccurate". Yea, right, and I have something to sell you.

Booksnmore4you (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Since this is the only place you seem to respond, we will discuss your behavior here. If you wish to discuss it somewhere else, use my or your talk page.
Your tone is inappropriate. You're using policy as a bludgeon, being curt, accusing other editors of being POV pushers, your comments and edit summaries are often inflammatory such as: "you can't just remove critical information as it violated the fundamental policy of NPOV, do it again and I will take it higher up)".--Tznkai (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
You're not insisting on NPOV. I don't consider you legitimate for this reason. How about letting Jossi take over, since he clearly has a very solid handle on NPOV? Booksnmore4you (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
(EC; @Books) Please just follow the advice; our procedures exist for a reason. We are all here to write a good encyclopedia. Making yourself a magnet for editing sanctions risks compromising your ability to do exactly that. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Prepare for Bombshell over Trig

The Drudge Report, well known among conservatives and liberals like, has a developing story on his page stating that the New York Times is preparing to front a detailed story about Palin's baby.

I just wish to warn those of you who are editing this page - if this turns out to be for real, there will be some people here adding it to the discussing page asking for it to be added to the article. --165.123.227.57 (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

<sigh> Probably dKos has been claiming that he gave birth to himself, and the Times picked it up as straight news. They've been pwned on fake Palin claims already. Kelly 01:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Drudge isn't even close to a reliable source. Ignore it until and unless it does show on the Times, and then discuss it. Ok, I'm out of here for the night - good luck all, try to stay civil. KillerChihuahua 01:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Matt Drudge is well known for finding stories well before they come out on other news outlets, and it was a newsroom source in the NYT that leaked it to him. Also, then New York Times would not touch this issue without tangible proof. The tremendous push back by the right has been enormous on the issue of her son and pregnant daughter. I highly doubt this will be factually incorrect. Either the Times plans to completely dispel these rumors by telling the exact story of Trig's birth or prove these rumors with some evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.227.57 (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
LOL - it's just a little puff piece. Kelly 03:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Abortion section

Her personal choice if her daughter was raped does not equal the position she takes as a politian. Is this page meant to demonstrate what her feelings are in a pop quiz setting or is his article meant to demonstrate what her position as a candidate is? If the former then I say we delete this article as her personal feelings do not deserve undue wieght. If the latter.. well then we should be putting this on her mainpage. Eitherway, the popquiz question doesn't help expllain her official position on the matter. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 01:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Summary of Sarah Palin in intro

SHe is summed up as being on par with a different party than the one she's affiliated with.. that's the summary of this page? How wierd is that. This article needs serious work.. starting with the intro. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 01:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The intro smells like a POV hatchet job. A Newsweek article that clearly was trying to make an interesting point, is not an excuse for emphasizing a political belief that is different from the party to which she always belonged. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I removed it, it wasn't appropriate per WP:LEAD anyway. Kelly 02:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"Lobbyists" and "Bridge to Nowhere"

These sections definitely need rework to express more than the point of view of a single source. Sarah Palin#Wasilla describes her lobbyist involvement in a neutral way, and Sarah Palin#Gravina Island bridge describes the bridge story. Need some neutrality here. Kelly 02:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the main Sarah Palin article has a pretty good neutral text for the Bridge to Nowhere, so I copied that here. However, it raises the question of whether Sarah Palin should have a shortened version of the info that is on Political positions of Sarah Palin. Right now in this case they're identical. --Crunch (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Reworked; added sources and detail.GreekParadise (talk) 03:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Removed your edits due to them being lifted DIRECTLY from . We do not copy and paste material previously published by other sources. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I made many edits and added many sources. You have only complained about one, yet you erased them all. So can we agree to put the others back, right? As for the Newsweek piece, it was proper fair use: "Under guidelines for non-free content, brief selections of copyrighted text may be used, but only with full attribution" is wiki-policy. Please tell me why you think the brief selection with full attribution is not brief enough. Do you have a proposed change for it?GreekParadise (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Copypasta works at 4chan, maybe you should contribute there. That would be my proposed change. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't know whether you're being snide or being serious (and speaking what to me is gobbledygook), but could you please just answer my questions?

1) What specifically do you find wrong with the Newsweek article? 2) How would you change it? 3) Do you agree on reverting the non-Newsweek stuff? If not, why not?GreekParadise (talk) 04:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the Newsweek cite was that it was copy pasted directly from the article. Plagiarism and copyvio is not allowed. Do you understand? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, in the interest of civility, why don't we start on issues of agreement before disagreement.  :-) It will help if you answer my questions: 1) You agree to unrevert the rest of my changes other than Newsweek, right? 2) How would you change the Newsweek piece given that fair use allows brief attributed selections of copyright text? GreekParadise (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
This is already being discussed as part of her overall fiscal policy. It's a few sections up. Both the bridge to nowhere and her lobbyist ties are mentioned. --165.123.227.57 (talk) 05:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about? There is nothing about the Bridge to Nowhere in the article other than this section. --GreekParadise (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
You obviously didn't bother looking so here it is: "In her acceptance speech, Governor Palin also said, "I told the Congress 'thanks, but no thanks,' for that Bridge to Nowhere." While it is true that funding was never sent to build the bridge to nowhere, it was accepted by Alaska and allocated to different projects in the state. Additionally, Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it. The Alaska governor campaigned in 2006 on a build-the-bridge platform, telling Ketchikan residents she felt their pain when politicians called them "nowhere.""

Look up under the discussion section "Fiscal Responsibility and Earmarks." --165.123.227.57 (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, on the TALK PAGE. I thought you meant in the main article. In any case, most of your edit deals with earmarks outside the Bridge to Nowhere. I added a lot of content on the Bridge to Nowhere. I'm confident we can accommodate both sets of information.GreekParadise (talk) 05:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Bridge to Nowhere, at least, the Associated Press has published this review, which lists the claims of both campaigns as well as the AP's "fact check". Perhaps this would be useful as a source. MastCell  20:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I had removed some lengthy quotes that I thought made it bad stylistically - I think all we need here is a quick summary as an example of fiscal policy, not a whole blow-by-blow. The subject is covered in depth at Sarah Palin#Bridge to Nowhere. Kelly 20:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
All right, what the hell is going on now? I thought we were NOT reverting without discussion? Kelly 20:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


Length of "Bridge to Nowhere"

The topic of the bridge is the subject of a section in the main biography - Sarah Palin#Bridge to Nowhere. What started out here as a brief summary, given as an example of a fiscal policy, keeps growing longer here than the actual discussion of the indident at Sarah Palin. I suspect this is probably because people want to contribute on the topic, but the main Sarah Palin is currently protected. I'm proposing that we either eliminate the section here, or drastically reduce its length (to a couple of sentences). Opinions below, please. Kelly 20:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to move my longer and more detailed and more neutral and well-sourced article to the main page, I'm OK with that. (I was responding to your changes at the bottom of this page.)GreekParadise (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridge to Nowhere detailed account should be at Sarah Palin

I agree longer version should be on main page.GreekParadise (talk)

Bridge to Nowhere detailed account should also be here

Third option; switch the section from the main article with the section here

  • Support, as it will solve the length problem and improve the main article, as well as fixing Kelly's concern that people are editing here because they can't edit there. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support* Solves the problem. Exactly what I'd like. And I"m the author of the long version. I apologize for not seeing these comments here. I had put a new section at the bottom because I didn't understand why changes were made.GreekParadise (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I started to undo my revert myself, but I noticed that the long article still is not on main page. When it gets there, I'll replace a short version here. Could someone with administrative rights please put it there? If not, I'll put it there myself when the protection period ends and remove this version from this page at that time.GreekParadise (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm, I have a feeling your version would be a little controversial at Sarah Palin, as many editors there have spent a lot of time hashing out their version. Best to propose your changes at Talk:Sarah Palin. Kelly 22:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Attempted edit - abortion

I was attempting to add Palin's theoretical action if Roe v. Wade was overturned as the page got protected. Here is the whole paragraph for clarity.

Palin is pro-life and is opposed to abortion in all cases, including rape and incest, except when necessary to save the life of the mother. In 2006, while running for governor, Palin was asked what she would do if her own daughter were raped and became pregnant; she responded that she would "choose life". When asked what she would do as governor if Roe v. Wade was overturned, she responded "it would not be up 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." She and her husband have stated that they have "faith that every baby is created for a good purpose." Palin has been a member of Feminists for Life since 2006.

If an admin could make this change, I'd appreciate it. (I believe this can be done since it is unrelated to the edit war that caused the block.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

- article is unprotected again, so I did it myself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you figure out a way to input this "item" on the main page while maintaining a "summary" and not giving it undue-weight? Theosis4u (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems it was added already.
I reverted the grammar of the first sentence only to make unambiguous the various conditionals or her position. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I also switched two sentences' order so that the logical flow among the content was better. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to the Sarah_Palin#Political_positions page rather than Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Abortion_and_sex_education - should of been more specific about "main" page. Theosis4u (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, my bad. You can bring it up on the talk page there and get consensus for the change. Then if obtained, an admin will make the change. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Archive.

Someone familiar with what is active and what is not on this talk page, archive it. Please--Tznkai (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I setup auto-archiving for threads over 5 days old. I also added the {{Talk header}} template which will link to the archives once one is made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Endangered species section problems

Let's hunker down and write this section right. Right now it reads like a few descriptive sentences nominally about the topic and then a soapbox for various environmental causes, that fisheries organization esp. with apparently undue weight. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Those complaints are a bit too vague. On an article as prominent as this it won't do to simply slap a neutrality tag on a section and say you don't like it. Either you must clearly state what should be altered, or the tag must be removed. Lampman (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
After closer scrutiny I'm not sure what the problem is. Maybe the last paragraph is a bit gratuitous, but apart from that; if a political leader decides to base his or her decision on scientific arguments, then surely it must be of interest to hear what actual scientists say about those statements? I do think, however, that the fact that Sarah Palin consideres polar bears "magnificent animals" doesn't belong here. Is that to be considered a political position? I'll make changes based on this, and remove the tag, then we'll see what people think about that. Lampman (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
No keep the tag for now. There is a section above about the problems here. It is not so much what is written but how. But thanks for the efforts. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Whops, already did. I wasn't aware that it had been such an extensive subject of debate already. For one thing, that debate wasn't under its own heading, but simply a subheading under "Request for protection". Secondly, that debate didn't stay on topic, but veered off into a fight over who should be blocked and whose father could beat up whose (I think, didn't bother to read all of it). I ask again: what exactly is objectionable about this section? Lampman (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Who removed the tag? I want to see consensus on what's there before getting rids of the tag. Especially with lots of edits going in a short space of time. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
(EC; @Lamp) Here, not that much discussion, but agreement among all editors who were not being disruptive. But anyway, I consolidated a bit, and while the section still could use some work, I think removing the tag is OK.
(@TomPrice) Lampman did, but at this time it seems OK. My two cents. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, it does look better now. I had a go at the belugas again to get it back on a factual footing. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) hmm, something happened, it's back to a mess. Gotta love the wiki. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, its Books again. I am going to wait until he has left before fixing it up. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Article has serious issues - for example lobbyists

Goodness, this article is horrid. This is supposed to be a political positions section, not a place to make edits you want in the main article, but can't make because it is locked. Asserting that things she has done are political positions is poor writing, at best. At very least things need rephrased to actually constitute positions. Historical actions can be used as examples, but shouldn't be used as position statements.

The "lobbyists" section is perfect example. It reads, in part, "According to Newsweek Palin has given jobs to friends and appointed lobbyists to oversee industries they used to represent." How is this a political position? Exactly what issue does it relate to? I am quite confident this section ever woudl have appeared if the main article wasn't locked. This whole section needs to go unless someone can explain how hiring lobbyists is a political position.

I'll take a stab at fixing this article up later when I have more time, but in the interim I'd like to hear what others think. Thank you. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The article is reading more and more like a laundry list of activities she has done, followed by (sometimes inordinate) criticism of such. The result (no intent meant here, only result) is becoming a subtle hatchet job.
I have never liked the wording of Forking:Articles whose subject is a POV as pertaining to the notable opinions of a notable person. Of course they are their opinions, and of course people can disagree with opinions. I ends up reading like something quite different than an encyclopedia. But I acknowldge that is how it is currently expected of us to do. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes. The lobbyist section should begin with her assertions about how she is opposed to earmarks, cronyism, and lobbyist, which are actually her stated positions. I'll see what I can find in that regard.--Appraiser (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Bold Alert OK. In the meantime, I have removed the section. We can prudently parse back parts if necessary if we come up with good content about her positions here; it's all in the history. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
That is not the way to edit: If there is a need to expand, do so. But deleting content that is well sourced can be construed as vandalism. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Show good faith and restore that material, and discuss here ways to improve the content below:

Palin has given jobs to friends and appointed lobbyists to oversee industries they used to represent. For example, Palin appointed a fund-raiser of hers, Deborah Richter, as director of the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend Division, and she hired Cora Crome as her fisheries-policy adviser. An industry lobbyist, Crome had worked for the United Fishermen of Alaska, and had been married to a wealthy commercial fisherman. As mayor of Wasilla, she hired the town's first Washington lobbyist to direct federal earmarks to the city. The lobbyist was paid $140,000 and brought $27 million worth of projects to the small town.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

How long before appointed advisor did Crome work for the UFA? Is the UFA a labor union? Just curious, I honestly don't know. And if you need advice on fisheries policy, where else are you going to get one except for the fishing industry? Are you supposed to hire a lawyer to be a fishing advisor? Kelly 20:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
To tell yu the truth, Kelly, I do not know and I do not care. We are just reporting what reliable sources say about the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Really? Are you saying that Palin's actions as a governor have no implications on her political positions? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread your proposal. I thought you were proposing that text to go in the article. My bad.T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
No, you have not misread it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

<- (EC) I don't doubt the sourcing, and did not remove it per that, but rather object that this is simply off topic, say like info about her family. It is not about her position vis-a vis lobbying. I would imagine something like this would fit better in the main article. I brought the material there, and will let that crowd chew on it. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with stating her policies against earmarks, cronyism etc, then pointing out she did the opposite, because words and deeds are both "positions." Also, this line of criticism can be reliably sourced without any OR on our part; many news organizations explicitly point these out as discrepancies between word and deed. I would oppose any connection between words and deeds that the news media has not already drawn. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, it was perfectly legit to delete this material as off-topic. The way it was written stated NOTHING about her political positions. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure it was written wrong, I was saying what such material would have to look like to be included. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
One-off actions such as these take into account a lot of things, like who is available, who just did you a favor (or deserved spite), what the position is, etc. While no doubt eventually this will all be sourced to her actual stated positions on the matter, this is WP:SYNTHy to include just the actions here. For the record, I did bring that whole section of content to the main talk page for discussion. However, certainly if there is a sourced connection, please bring it up here. I agree with how it should look, but that is not how the content I removed looked. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree, this stuff was off-topic for this article. Kelly 22:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
How can this be off-topic? Seems very much to be interesting and relevant. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Because the next didn't even try to assert a political position of Sarah Palin's. If someone finds a quote about her saying lobbyists don't belong in politics or something like that, then the info about her hiring lobbyists would be relevant. Otherwise, it is just something she did - not a political position. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Religion

I think that a section on religion (which this days has a direct relation to politics) is added to this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am researching this and hopefully bring up some sources soon. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridge to Nowhere

I asked thrice before on this talk page if anyone had a problem with my added well-sourced information on the Bridge to Nowhere. No one said boo. I'm more than happy to discuss any problems anyone has with the material. But please don't revert without discussion. Thanks!GreekParadise (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion, including objection, is above at #"Lobbyists" and "Bridge to Nowhere". GRBerry 20:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I know it's there. I began it there. And that's where we reached conensus that my version was fine. No one to this day has expressed any qualms about it (except Kyaa who wanted a small portion of it (Newsweek) shortened which I did). As there is a consensus that no one has problems with my version, PLEASE DO NOT REVERT WITHOUT PUTTING A REASON WHY ON THE TALK PAGE! Sorry to yell, but AJ did it again. I don't want an edit war. I want a reason. Since no one has given me one, I'll unfortunately have to revert back. See http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessaryGreekParadise (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
GreekParadise, you are the one edit-warring here. The reasons are given in the section above - just because you don't like them, please don't revert war. We've finally got that settled down here, and you're stirring it up again. What happened to our admin? Kelly 20:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to ominously swoop in like Batman, or at least remind that I am still watching, and that the proper response to reversions is almost never reverting back. Now, is a cool off protect needed?--Tznkai (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I apologize. I did not realize that the discussion had continued on this on the talk page above here. All I saw was no comment here and reversions. That's why I added this section on the talk page. As it happens, I have no problem if longer version is moved to main protected article. So we're agreed.  :-)GreekParadise (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
This page moves entirely too fast, so I'm a little behind. If there is still a problem or 3RR vios, feel free to notify me via my talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Expand Content Areas

A general comment. There seems to be lots of work on new content, which is great to see, but overall the page content does seem to be very concentrated in one or two areas of policy. Just comparing with 'Sarah Palin: on the issues' suggests a different balance, at least in terms of her policy statements. For example I know absolutely nothing about economics so I just don't feel qualified to attempt a summary of her fiscal or tax positions. But it looks a bit light in that area. My 2 cents. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Basically, Tom, not much is known about many aspects of her politics. We only have reports on her 20 months as a governor to go with. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree - just look at the big blank patches in policy summaries in the MSM like this one in the NYT. I might put something in on Health Care though, that seems like a significant gap. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 11:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"God" quotes in Iraq and Oil & Gas sections

I'm not seeing how a brief out-of-context quote from a prayer is considered part of an Iraq policy. Kelly 21:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

And now we have a mention of a prayer in Oil & Gas policy. I will WP:BOLDLY remove these as irrelevant/undue weight. Kelly 21:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Rather than doing that, consider discussing these issues here, given the incidents of yesterday. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with this?

In June 2008, speaking at Wasilla Assembly of God, Palin stated that she'd work to implement God's will from the governor's office, including creating jobs by building a pipeline to bring North Slope natural gas to North American markets.

Are you suggesting that this is not factually accurate? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well for starters, it is someone's interpretation of what she said. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Is it? I think that it is pretty accurate from what I could see in a YouTube video of that speech. Just do a search on YouTube for "Wasilla assembly of god" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec) As this is a factually accurate statement, published on a reliable source, I will restore this in a few hours, unless someone can present a substantive argument for not including it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So let's quote much more of the context, it OBVIOUSLY is relevant to her views on Iraq. It is part of her view on Iraq, she said so. Booksnmore4you (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I can accept the above statement as it is a reasonable interpretation of what she said. It is also vaguely a political position. The other quote on Iraq was way off though and should stay out. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
This was pretty heavily discussed at Talk:Sarah Palin. I really don't see one out-of-context quote as an Iraq political position. Politicians invoke God all the time - I remember Bill Clinton doing it frequently, especially when announcing military operations. This did not mean he thought that he was directed by God to attack Serbia or Iraq. Kelly 22:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
If there is no problem on a politician invoking God, then what is the problem? It is substantial enough to have been published on reliable sources, and more than one to boot.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
But it's not a political position. Kelly 23:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The Iraq "quote" is a gross misrepresentation of what she actually said I have deleted it on those grounds. I'll let the one oon economic activity stay. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Your reason for deleting it makes no sense because if you think it is a misrepresentation you could of rewrote it to match the source better. QuackGuru 01:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Why is this still here? Are we going to track every politicians framing of issues when they talk in church as the sole reason of the issue? Theosis4u (talk) 01:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I have restored the Iraq quote, which is completely accurate, and provided two cast-iron reliable sources for it (The Guardian and The New York Times). I am unclear how it can be a "misrepresentation" of what she said when it is a direct quote. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I see the point here. The content is sourced and describes her claimed position on a topic. The issue, and a real one at that, is that the inclusion of the "God's will" part looks really coatracky, risking the statement reading more like a propagandish sound bite painting her as a theocrat rather than one describing her political position on pipeline construction. In that sense, the quote does misrepresent. The obvious solution is to drop the "God's will" thing but keep the rest, or to find a better source (i.e., one that's main focus is on the position, as opposed to the position being an afterthought to an inspirational speech). It is really quite simple... Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. This statement has been widely reported and needs to be included. Those with evangelical beliefs will appreciated to know this, and those that are secular need to know about this as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Um, I am for inclusion, only also for good concise declarative writing with well chosen words, ones which make a point clearly with minimal room for extra connotation or slant, when taken as a part of a whole article. Keeping the will part falls short of the last point. Considerably. This whole quote actually would make a reasonable addition to your suggested "religious influence" (say) section. But here it's coatracky. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
So, give it a go and place it in a more appropriate section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, there is no obvious place to put it. I'll pass for now, but what might work is an "Influences" section, perhaps right after the ToC. There we could write about what informs her positions, including faith/moral compass/whatever, as well as developing her relationship with her political mentor Hichtel(sp?), whose mention has been contested elsewhere on this talkpage. I admit maintaining that section might be hard, but organizationally it makes sense. I'll check back later. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Against - The god and prayer quotes should not be in "Politics" until she makes these statements in the context of her authority and position of a political office. Put them under "religion", "personal quotes", or whatever...but there's a pov/bias being pushed by having them in the "politics" page. If we allow all the quotes that politicians might make in front of religious organizations (call it pandering if you want) to represent their "political" views the edit wars would be never ending. Theosis4u (talk) 05:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Against. As Baccyah4H says, this is not to do with her position on the gas pipeline, it's a coatrack for her religious beliefs. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 10:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the necessary, reliably-sourced Iraq quote. This is a good example of how Palin's faith plays a role in her political positions, and there is no reason to remove it. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
You haven't been reading the discussion closely enough. There have been good reasons given. They probably are not definitive, but they certainly are plausible. Buit as I mentioned earlier, there may be another way to deal with this... Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I read your suggestion about an "influences" section and dismissed it as a bad idea. It will become a magnet for any weird stuff, and could end up being akin to a "criticism section" that is frowned upon in WP:BLP. It is always better to weave things like this into the flow of the text. Clearly, Palin's faith influences many of her political positions (and decisions) because this has been written about extensively in multiple reliable sources, so it is reasonable to note this as it comes up, rather than stick it all in one place and potentially misrepresent her. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Against Again - Scjessey wrote, "Clearly, Palin's faith influences many of her political positions (and decisions)" is a POV on your part. It's a POV because you can't demonstrate that "faith" is a cause of correlated to her political positions. Your giving her faith undue weight for other reasons behinds political opinions she might have or secular justifications besides just her faith. And if this stays in as the "policy", you can bet I'll be adding in kind to other bio's political opinions that are colluded with their "faith" or absence of "faith".Theosis4u (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
(EC; @Scjessey)Yeah, in a perfect world coatracking would not be an issue and we wouldn't have to deal with things like this. However, the world is not perfect, subtle POV-tinged edits occur, and we hve a choice of lesser evils as to the response. Pick our poison.
Your summary statement "Clearly, Palin's faith influences many of her political positions" recognizes that my suggestion makes logical sense from at least an organizational perspective. I admit (again) it could become a POV magnet, but the possibility that this type of POV issue would be in principle confined to one section, rather than the whole article (as it is now!), is attractive. Note however that this resectioning is purely a topical distinction, not a POV one, so while the issues with maintenance might be akin to a "Criticism" section, the relevant objection no longer applies. It becomes a mere editorial issue, so both organizational formats are "reasonable", i.e., within policy. The question I have is which is best for this article. Let's continue in the section below. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it "POV Pushy" to include population statistics?

ThaddeusB argues that including the population of Gravina Island (50 people) in the article on the "Bridge to Nowhere" is POV. I disagree. A population is not opinion. It is fact. And the reason it was called the "Bridge to Nowhere" is because it was a bridge to sparsely populated Gravina Island (population 50). Do people agree that I can include population figures without it being considered POV? Please vote. And if you think population is POV, I hope you won't mind me removing population figures from all the city and state websites on wikipedia. Wouldn't want POV there! :-)

Population is a fact. Not POV. It explains the controversy.

Support.GreekParadise (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Population is POV. It is unfair POV to disclose the population of Gravina Island

How can a fact be POV? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
aren't most POV statements technically facts? I.E. "Some people say Alaska sucks" --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
It is POV pushy because it is basically saying the bridge was a complete waste while ignoring the several other reasons sighted for the bridge. (Airport, etc.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Then present that information as well, and let the reader decide if it was a waste or not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Based on this discussion, I'd like to return the deleted population figures. The entire article as I originally had it will be moved to the main page per the consensus above once the protection lifts. I think we should leave it alone here until it moves and then we'll replace it with a shorter article. Jossi, could you revert please? I don't want to be accused of 3RR.GreekParadise (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I think ThaddeusB could do that himself, as a show of good faith. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The thing is I don't think any of the arguments for or against the bridge are relevant here. The section is already way to long. Really it should state her position(s), her reasoning, and a line or two of criticism about the her self-contradictions. Nothing more. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate that you don't think that it is relevant but other editors think differently. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I really don't think it's relevant as a political position either, though possibly relevant at Sarah Palin#Bridge to Nowhere or in Gravina Island Bridge. Kelly 22:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) For the record, Thaddeus just rewrote the relevant part in a way that maintained the pop reference but incorporated it in a way that was much improved, not dropped in in an awkward way risking a adversarial reaction of "50? eh, WTF?" To all those claiming whitewashes or something similar, this is what we should be striving for. Not these subtle connotational jabs (or lauds for that matter). Thank you Thad. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well done. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll be updating tonight the other relevant information on this issue. That she didn't support the ear-marked $ number this source only includes - it grew over time. Breaking down the "costs" of each bridge rather than just the lump sum $ that is mention. That she never gave explicit support to the ear-mark bridge as is, she qualified her statements as wanting a "link" between the island - and that she would need to evaluate the project and costs when appropriate. Theosis4u (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Why was this deleted without *any* discussion?

Palin has been described as more conservative than Republican presidential nominee John McCain. Newsweek has stated that, "To the extent Palin has a governing philosophy, it was shaped by her political mentor, former governor Wally Hickel. The 89-year-old Hickel is a member of the Alaska Independence Party."

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

THIS IS OUT-FREAKIN-RAGEOUS!!! An Army of Palin supporters have shown up here and are removing nearly every trace of material that is even slightly critical of her! What a freakin' joke Misplaced Pages is, with no mechanism to prevent that sort of shite.

No what is outrageous is that POV pushers (mostly anti-Palin) have used this page to dump whatever info they want into the main article. This is a place for political POSITIONS not historical facts that you can't add to the main article because it is locked. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, to answer your question, it is obvious. It was removed because it mentions the Alaskan Independent Party, and the POV-pushers consider that something for bowdlerization. Booksnmore4you (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool it, Booksnmore4you. A POV pusher to one is the defender of the wiki to others... I have partially restored that text, omitting the Nesweeek that may need some tweaking≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd have to oppose the inclusion of the text. The allegations of ties to the AIP have been thoroughly debunked, even the New York Times had to issue a correction. Kelly 22:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
That part has been kept deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The retraction concerned Palin being in the AIP, not Hickel. As the Palin question may arise again, tho, I copy the retraction here for those without access, or undesirous of registering for it:
Correction: September 5, 2008 - An article on Tuesday about concerns over Senator John McCain’s background check of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, his choice of running mate, misstated the history of her political party affiliation. As The Times has since reported, she has been a registered Republican since 1982; she was not for a couple of years in the 1990s a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, which advocates a vote on whether her state should secede.
KillerChihuahua 22:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I would have to say mentions of Hickel and the AIP would be off-topic for political positions, though possibly relevant at Sarah Palin. Kelly 22:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that can be added later to that article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Um, if Newsweek says that Palin's governing philosophy ("to the extent that she has one") was shaped by Hickel, then that would be relevant to an article on her governing philosophy, no? I guess what I'm saying is that I think this is a reasonable inclusion. Here. MastCell  22:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from, but what aspect of governing philosophy? Kelly 22:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, the article cites the energy refund as an example. More generally, it describes Hickel as her "mentor" and indicates that he shaped her "governing philosophy". That's a general term, obviously; as the article alludes to the thinness of her record, there may not be many additional specifics. In any case, is your opinion that this reference to a political mentor shaping her governing philosophy is irrelevant here? MastCell  23:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Pretty much, since it's so vague. I'm not sure what section this would go into. Kelly 23:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
As a general lead-in statement about her political philosophy, I would suggest either the lead or in an introductory overview to her positions on specific issues. MastCell  23:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm - I definitely don't think it would be appropriate per WP:LEAD, as it doesn't summarize any material in the text. Kelly 23:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
WP:LEAD says that the lead should be both an introduction and an overview. That seems to me to be an introductory phrase. That said, I'm not stuck on it being in the lead, but I do think that a reliable source explicitly identifying Palin's policy mentor is extremely relevant to an article entitled "Political positions of Sarah Palin". MastCell  03:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't see much problem here, except the explicit mentioning of Hickel's AIP membership in the lede, but no exposition of their relationship. This sounds like a guilt-by association type of attempt (his name is linked, after all) to put this in the lead. Elsewhere down in the article, where (if?) their mentor/mentee relationship is expounded upon, it would be more appropriate. Otherwise, I see nothing objectionable. Is any of this controversial, that is, contested? Or worded sleazily? I have a pretty good sleazemeter, and it's not registering. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree; I don't think it's necessary to mention the AIP in the lead, certainly. That would be undue weight. If this material is included further down, then the AIP detail is probably relevant enough to include, as the source (Newsweek) definitely thought so. MastCell  04:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Israel/Pat Buchanan

The article currently states in the "Israel" section:

Democratic Congressman Robert Wexler of Florida accused Palin of endorsing Pat Buchanan in the 2000 Presidential election. Wexler stated that Palin had “aligned herself with a leading anti-Israel voice” and that her selection for the vice-presidential running mate "is a direct affront to all Jewish Americans."However, Palin denies that she ever endorsed Buchanan for President and stated that her alleged "support" of Buchanan consisted of her sporting a campaign button for him in 1999 when he visited the town of Wasilla when she was the mayor. Palin explained at the time she wore the button as a courtesy and that she was an official of the campaign of Republican presidential contender Steve Forbes.

I removed something similar once before - why is this is the Israel policy section? Wexler thought she was a Buchanan supporter, she wasn't, end of story. Hardly a political position on Israel, or anything else. Kelly 23:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've reinserted a summary of Wexler's comments but I have also included a strong rebuttal by Palin.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

Yes, I understand that, but how is it a political position on Israel? It sounds more like a biographical detail more suitable for Sarah Palin. Kelly 23:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Wexler was essentially accusing Palin of associating with anti-Israel elements. That's why this should be placed in the Israel section.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

My concern is that if we don't include a mention of this and a rebuttal, it will keep being reinserted as more and more people edit this page who are not aware of both sides of the story. By having a mention of it and Palin's rebuttal, it reduces the likelyhood that this will keep coming up.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

Yes, I see your point, but something like that would be more appropriate for Sarah Palin. Kelly 23:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that I think people are more likely to insert it here than on her main page. Should we mention it on both?(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC))

Arguing that people will continue to errantly insert comments is hardly a good argument for their inclusion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I have left the content for now, but if no one can explain a false accusation of support for someone constitutes a political position I will kill it soon. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
You could always just make one of those invisible comments. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

In this case, her opponents were attempting to give the impression that Palin is anti-Israel due to her alleged support for Pat Buchanan, who holds extremely anti-Israel views. Palin has explained that she never supported Buchanan and that she is pro-Israel. I would call that a political position. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC))

I agree, but we are quoting a reliable source quoting a notable person, and not asserting that as a fact. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions pertaining to her scientific literacy

Search as I may, I cannot find answers to the following: As best I understand his position: Senator McCain belives that: 1)global warming is for real, and, 2) Global warming is caused by alteration of the atmosphere due to human activity and causation What is Govenor Palin's stated position? All I can find is escape, evasion, and equivocation (i.e. lies & ambiguous obfuscation). Secondly, which does she believe in, creationism, or the Darwinian theory of evolution? See above ...escape, evasion...etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonygumbrell (talk • contribs) 01:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Let me remind you that this talk page "is not a forum for general discussion." Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. If we knew the answer to your question it would already be in the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Remember WP:BITE and remember when you were a newbie.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
It says what is known in the article. We use Google just like everybody else. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Booksnmore4you's offsite activity related to this article

The editor using the account Booksnmore4you, active on this article today violating WP:CIVIL is very likely the same person as the owner of Stephen Ewen, a Citizendium advocate (and Misplaced Pages antagonist) who also today solicited Obama supporters on the social network sponsored by the campaign (My BarackObama) to "tussle" with this page -- which I interpret to mean "vandalize". After intercepting this semi-public message and conducting a few Google searches, I posted the evidence at my personal blog.

Booksnmore4you has already been noted by others on this talk page as an editor who has repeatedly added tendentious information to this article (and earlier this month, to Sarah Palin) so I figured I should mention it here. I don't think the activity necessarily rises to the level of bannable sock puppet (I personally maintain a disclosed sock puppet account), but the editor's intentions do appear less than constructive, so I recommend that his edits be watched carefully for POV. I also invite the editor to defend/explain his actions here, if he so chooses. WWB (talk) 03:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Jury Rights reverted

The editor who removed this, thinking it is a non-issue, was mistaken. It is a very large issue among many, including many of the same people who are concerned about gun rights. It is a litmus test for libertarians and constitutionalists, which includes many social conservatives.

This is not the place for an extended discussion of the issue of jury nullification since there is a Misplaced Pages article on the subject. But it is a hot issue in the legal arena, and by signing the proclamation, Palin came down on the side of the fully informed jury activists, and against the judicial establishment. If you don't think it is an issue, because the mainstream media are ignorant of it, take a tour of the Internet. Bracton (talk) 05:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a major issue in the platforms of the:
* Libertarian Party
* Constitution Party

Bracton (talk) 05:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't pretend to understand what that is about, it sounds like some vague constitutional thing, but in principle it seems at least somewhat on topic. I concur with reverting it back in. I'll point out your description makes it sound like a very polarizing issue to those concerned about it, so good neutral language is very important; as currently worded I detect no problems (with the caveat I don't know much about the topic). Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I note that at the moment this is sourced only to a primary source, and actually only says that she signed the proclamation. I'd be more comfortable if a reliable secondary source had mentioned it, otherwise I have a feeling that there is an undue weight here. Legislatures pass and governors sign lots of proclamations and resolutions that have no legal effect - including congratulating the winners of sports contests, county fairs, et cetera or selecting a state doohickey. Absent some evidence that this had an actual effect or was noticed by somebody, I think it would be better off removed. GRBerry 16:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I removed this at one point, and GRBerry has summed up why. It's not really a position. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 16:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll defer anything then to others. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Influences section

Here goes a stab at a section which I propose to go between the lead and the Social issues heading.

Palin's governing philosophy has been most influenced by former Alaska Governer Wally Hickel(Newsweek ref here). Her positions on some issues are informed by her faith, among them Middle East policy, economic development, and abortion.

Clearly this can be expanded per sources. Note I did not quote Hickel's party; this is because it changed (IIRC), so would be hard to discuss without bogging down the prose as currently written. But that is not to say it won't be possible later. I did not include the words "her political mentor", as I had dropped the explicit naming of the source in favor of a citation, but don't see a big objection to it if the source is clear.

It would seem this proposal would allow for both this discussion of religious influence, as well as avoiding the risk of coatracks throughout the rest of the article. Naturally, the same risk is present with this proposal, but certainly more detail can be written here without any subtle UNDUE issues. It will also be easier to integrate all material neutrally.

Finally, I copied all the relevant cites including the name tags; care should be taken when the coatracking content is removed, to make sure the tag still in somewhere, but only once.

Discuss. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable way of incorporating the identification of Hickel as her political mentor. MastCell  19:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Obvious foreign policy stuff that's missing

Alaska's nearest neighbors, Canada and Russia don't seem to have any mention in this article. Japan (a traditionally huge foreign influence) is also missing. I would expect that all three countries are likely to have come up during Palin's governorship. There's a good opportunity here (off to Google!). TMLutas (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll save you some time. See the Boston Globe:

According to business leaders and academics familiar with foreign-policy issues and Palin's administration, she has demonstrated little interest in expanding the state's trade ties with Canada or Russia compared with some of her predecessors. "So far as I know, Sarah has not been involved in international affairs whatsoever," said Victor Fischer, professor emeritus at the Institute for Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska Anchorage.

In other words, there's hardly any mention for a reason. MastCell  19:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Snarky comment

This was deleted from the capital punishment section with the Edit Summary that it is "snarky":

In a televised debate in 2006, Palin's responded to a question about the death penalty by saying that for crimes such as the murder of a child, "My goodness, hang 'em up, yeah."

Yes—it was snarky–but she said it in a televised debate! To delete cited, factual, and pertinent material in a heated political atmosphere is whitewashing. Please explain to me why readers shouldn't know what kind of person she is.--Appraiser (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove "pertinent" from your list, and add "subtle POV" to it, and rather it is called "cleanup". This sentence contributes nothing useful to the article that cannot be gleaned from the remaining content. Your desired explanation: this is an article on her political positions, not on what kind of person she is. As an encyclopedia, we do not desire an article on the latter. Don't get me wrong: there are plenty of internet venues where that type of material is welcome or even encouraged, although you probably know that already. My point is that Misplaced Pages is not one of them. (BTW, snarky referred to its inclusion here, not to Palin's comment itself. Sorry for the confusion.) Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
As a general comment, let's accept that there are legitimate reasons for disagreeing about content. Attributing every edit one dislikes to "whitewashing" right off the bat ensures that things get off on the wrong foot. Baccyak4H isn't here to "whitewash" anything, just as I would assume that Appraiser isn't here with the primary goal of making anyone look bad. MastCell  19:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of reference

Twice now this reference has been deleted from the Iraq section. Granted another reference exists there and may be adequate, but since when is a secondary reference objectionable? I hadn't read this whole article until now, looking for what editors might find objectionable. I can't say I learned much I hadn't read elsewhere (except for the issue related to state Senator Green), but it is a pretty scathing article about Palin. I guess I know now why some people don't want the link showing in the reference section. Please read it if you have any doubts.--Appraiser (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Your second to last sentence sounds sarcastic, so you may wish to refactor it. In fact, your whole post makes it sound like the sky is falling, but it's not. There is a simple explanation.
When I checked them, the two sources did not actually have identical quotes. NYT had a fuller quote than G. In most cases I wouldn't care, as both are RS. But the small difference in the quotes made their interpretations quite different. So I decided to include the fuller quote, for accuracy's sake, but then couldn't use G since it didn't have the full quote. That's all. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
OK. Thanks.--Appraiser (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Funny how some items demand more than one reference (see talk passim), but others demand as few as possible. This is an example of "sanitization-by-stealth" as far as I can see. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Making the content consistent with the references isn't any kind of sanitization. Furthermore, using the G ref would be misleading, as the quote was actually taken out of context there in a way that would egregiously violate WP:SYNTH here. If painting an accurate picture is sanitization, I'll buy the next round of Tidy-Bowl. I was going to mention to Appraiser that the edit summary of the edit he(?) objected to had a informative note which may have avoided this thread, but I didn't as I didn't wish to appear condescending when mentioning he should perhaps pay better attention. But we're past that: please pay attention. When one doesn't, it doesn't reflect well on them. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
But also we are seeing examples of references being made consistent with the content (rather than the other way around). We shouldn't be writing content and then trawling the internet for references to justify it - the reverse should be the case. The Guardian piece is an example of quality investigative journalism and insightful analysis, yet because it does not include the full quote it has been dismissed as somehow "inaccurate". Please don't tell me to "pay attention", by the way - comment on the content, not the contributor. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
No, that is incorrect. I looked at both references. While their partial quotes were not inconsistent with each other (that is, both could have been a textually accurate snip of one single true full passage), both source's content were inconsistent with the other source's quote. So at least one of the sources was quoting out of context. In a case like this, when both sources are (supposedly) reliable, the only defensible options are to use neither (that is, look for even a fuller quote in an RS), or use the fuller quote of the two.
In the context of any common fuller passage that both sources quoted from, there is no way the G interpretation could be correct. Taking a quote out of context is not a sign of quality investigative journalism and insightful analysis. It is rather a sign of one or more of the following: yellow journalism; ignorance; wishful deception; journalistic incompetance. Note this speaks only of the content relating to the misquote, not the source in general. But for these purposes, that is enough. It shouldn't be used.
Finally I wish to make a strong statement. My argument is a no-brainer. Your discussion behavior alluding to the contrary is disruptive, and appears to have every sign of wikilawyering. Please cease that kind of discussing and, if you desire to contribute, start contributing constructively. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Baccyak4H's edit here. One source for the quote is enough, and the New York Times article is a more encyclopedic source than the Guardian article: it's "newsier" and less polemical, and it gives fuller context for the quote. We don't need double or triple references to verify the quote. MastCell  19:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. As long as that standard is applied everywhere, and we don't get any more demands for multiple sources for things that aren't as popular with certain editors. Also, reasonable discourse about the use of reliable sources is not disruptive, Baccyak4H. Nor is it an example of wikilawyering. You will find that my contributions are neutral, numerous and of high quality, if you care to peruse my record. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Creationism vs. Intelligent Design

In one of Palin's positions she said that Creationism need not be part of the curriculum. In another, she says that Intelligent Design should be taught alongside Evolution. There are at least two ways to interpret these positions:

  1. If Creationism is the same as Intelligent Design, then she has put out conflicting information or changed her mind.
  2. If they are not the same, then the both positions should be shown.

Either way, I consider the deletion of either sourced position to be POV-pushing. Please explain which scenario applies. If she has changed her mind, which is more recent and what source do you have to support the notion that she thinks they are the same? Please explain why either should be deleted.--Appraiser (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is accurate to say she has espoused a personal preference for teaching the controversy, but in her office as governor Palin has not pursued any legislation nor pushed the Board of Education to write creationism into the educational standards. You're setting up a false dichotomy - it's certainly possible to hold the opinion that ID and evolution should be co-taught, but not to pursue political intervention in that regard. The Alaska Republican Party platform includes a plank specifically pushing Creation Science and describing evolution as "only a theory"; however, Palin pledged during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign that she would not push the School Board to mandate creation-based alternatives, and it appears she has kept that pledge. These sources may help clear up the issue: , . MastCell  19:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
So if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that even though she has said, "both should be taught," since she did not push that position as governor of Alaska, her Political position is that schools ought to be allowed to discuss both, but schools shouldn't be required to teach both? I hope she is asked that question during a debate, so we can find out how her beliefs would manifest themselves at a national level.--Appraiser (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I think she also said that she did not think teaching creationism needed to be on the school curriculum, if I'm remembering the source correctly. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm saying, quite simply, that she apparently expressed a belief that evolution and creationism should be co-taught, but did not take action as governor to make this belief a reality in Alaska. I believe that is what the best sources say. It's not overly complex. MastCell  20:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing

I noticed someone had edited this page to source to the Huffington Post. To my knowledge, the Huffington Post does not meet the standard for WP:RS, and so I reverted the change. Biccat (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I see someone has replaced the citation you deleted with another one that says essentially the same thing. Could you please point me to a policy that mentions that the Huffington Post does not meet the standard for WP:RS? In this case, the cited sentence says, "critics pointed to it as an example of Palin's lack of knowledge..." If you believe that Huffington Post writers are critics of Palin, I don't see how the citation doesn't back that up.--Appraiser (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

References

Please keep this at the bottom of the page for easy access. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 0

  1. ^ Free Press Staff (2008-09-05). "Sarah Palin primer: Who she is, where she stands". The Detroit Free Press. Retrieved 2008-09-06. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) Cite error: The named reference "stem1" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  2. http://dwb.adn.com/news/alaska/story/9090623p-9006670c.html
  3. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/02000.html
  4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/palin-record-on-fiscal-re_b_123532.html
  5. http://www.startribune.com/politics/27791154.html?page=1&c=y
  6. http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2008/09/04/data-points-sarah-palins-lobbyist.html
  7. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/02/politics/washingtonpost/main4406403.shtml
  8. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/09/palins_earmarks_spark_question.html?hpid=topnews
  9. http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/511471.html
  10. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/08/31/politics/horserace/entry4401789.shtml
  11. ^ Anchorage Daily News
  12. ^ Cato Institute
  13. ^ New York Times
  14. Ontheissues.org (from a Gov. of AK press release
  15. ^ Yardley, William (August 29, 2008). "Sarah Heath Palin, an Outsider Who Charms". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-09-03. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  16. Juneau Empire, "Abortion Draws Clear Divide in State Races," accessed 8/29/08 and Anchorage Daily News, "Governor’s Race: Top contenders meet one last time to debate," 11/03/06.
  17. Alter, Jonathan (August 29, 2008). "McCain's 'Hail Sarah' Pass". Newsweek. Retrieved 2008-09-04. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  18. Haase, Don (2006-07-31). "2006 Gubernatorial Candidate Questionnaire". Eagle Forum Alaska. Retrieved 2008-09-01. I am pro-life. With the exception of a doctor's determination that the mother's life would end if the pregnancy continued. Cited web page was deleted on 2008-09-02. Copy of original web page as of 2007-05-01 found on Wayback Machine and archived on WebCite.
  19. "All three candidates support gas line lawsuit". Anchorage Daily News. 2008-11-03. Retrieved 2008-08-30.
  20. Palin on issues
  21. ^ Simon, Stephanie (2008-08-29). "Anti-Abortion Activists Cheer McCain's V.P. Pick". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2008-08-30.
  22. "Sarah Palin: An Apostle of Alaska". Retrieved 2008-09-08. {{cite web}}: Text "Newsweek Politics: Campaign 2008" ignored (help); Text "Newsweek.com" ignored (help)
  23. Overby, Peter (2008-09-02). "As Mayor, Palin Used Funding Ploy She Now Decries". NPR. Retrieved 2008-09-08.
  24. Johnson, Gene. "Palin: Iraq war 'a task that is from God'", Associated Press, 3 Sept 2008. Available online. Archived.
  25. Barnes, Fred (2008-08-30). "Palin Fought for Reform in Alaska". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2008-08-30.
  26. Pilkington, Ed (September 6, 2008). "Sarah Palin is on a mission from God". The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-09-08. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  27. Johnson, Kirk (September 6, 2008). "In Palin's Life and Politics, Goal to Follow God's Will". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-09-08. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  28. Johnson, Gene. "Palin: Iraq war 'a task that is from God'", Associated Press, 3 Sept 2008. Available online. Archived.
  29. Kyle Hopkins (2006-08-18). "Governor debate gets lively as hopefuls pose questions". Anchorage Daily News. Retrieved 2008-09-04.
Categories: