Talk:Sarah Palin

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

Time to split out a Reaction article?

If not now, very soon the "Reaction" subsection will become unwieldy. Any takers? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Do we have similar sub-articles for the other candidates? Kelly ^hi! 21:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to include the reactions of every Tom, Dick, and Harry that makes a comment on her selection? Supporters of McCain were generally positive, supporters of Obama were generally negative, everyone else shocked. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The "reaction" section is currently unwieldy at best, heavily weighted and teetering on straying from a NPOV.Zredsox (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I don't know. It just seems to me that piling on every comment by every politician, pundit and poll will overwhelm the article. A summary could be made; her selection was a surprise, some Repubs and Dems have said she lacks experience, other Repubs and Dems have praised the pick as bold, some have said it is an attempt to get Hillary voters. The split out article could have all the quotes and detailed analysis. The reaction to her pick is not really her, right? I figure users want facts, and if they want more on the reaction they can click. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2) No reason to split anything. This won't continue to grow and so a "reaction" article will be more or less static and quickly outdated. Oren0 (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The section should go. It is getting more and more whitewashed by the minute.Zredsox (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not news, and most of these reactions are of passing, minimal importance. Let's face it -- if she gets elected as Vice President, reactions to her initial selection will merit at most a passing mention in the context of a much bigger career as VP. If she doesn't get elected, the entire vice presidential selection will be a paragraph on top of her career as governor. Rather than letting every sourceable media reaction get included, I favor slimming the section down to a summarizing sentence or two, and kindly but sternly redirecting people looking to add every tidbit of recent political news to Wikinews. RayAYang (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason for a split. What would be the title anyway? Any precedent for anything like this? Hobartimus (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What value would a separate article would be? Yes, it's about as long as it ever needs to be. -- Noroton (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I realize this is heresy, but it's perfectly okay to weigh the article toward the things that are most notable about her right now, and reweigh later as her biography changes. I would bet that even by the end of the campaign the initial reaction will merit perhaps a paragraph, and afterward a single sentence. But right now it's a big deal. A.J.A. (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is people are removing the counter points from the article so that it is now weighted heavily in favor of positive reaction to her selection when in truth that is not the general consensus. For instance, the negative assessment from the National Review was inexplicably removed while in turn 3 more reactions praising her pick have been added in the last hour.Zredsox (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm the one who did it and I explained it pretty clearly in the edit summary: the quote in question called her a "small-town mayor", present tense, which is factually wrong. Go find someone saying "governor for only two years", then at least we'll be citing critics who aren't lying. A.J.A. (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "small town mayor" was used as a slight to clearly define where the majority of her experience was based, by a conservative pundit from the National Review. It was not meant to be a factual declaration, but rather an opinion (as are all the reactions.) -- Zredsox (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

So if you're insulting someone based on opinion it's okay to say things that aren't true. A.J.A. (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone's "reaction" by definition has nothing to do with fact.Zredsox (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Almost every story and commentary that gets published is a reaction to something. Are you telling me the entire media is a fact-free zone? A.J.A. (talk) 04:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a media bias where she is referred in the present tense as "a small town mayor". In order for wikipedia to 1). Not insert a POV and 2). Remain factually correct, nothing referring to her in the present tense as a mayor should be posted. It is dishonest.--66.25.156.198 (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think current efforts should focus on improving the "Reaction" section of the main article and worry about a possible split later. The current version is an utter travesty, consisting almost entirely of Republican reaction (both favorable and unfavorable). It is OK to include those (with citation), but the current version violates WP:WEIGHT policies and more critical perspectives must be included as well. Arjuna (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Please explain why you think it's necessary to include quotations which make untrue characterizations. A.J.A. (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

A.J.A. makes a classic straw man argument, and s/he needs to come up with something far better than that. That the section as currently written is a violation of WP:POV and WP:UNDUE seems unassailable. Arjuna (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to call it a straw man, demonstrate how it doesn't make an untrue characterization. A.J.A. (talk) 04:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's unclear what you are referring to. What "untrue characterizations"? If something is demonstrably untrue, no responsible editor is going to support its inclusion. You're spouting gibberish as far as I can tell, but please enlighten me if I have missed something. Arjuna (talk) 05:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the section is long removed by now, but I'll type this slowly: Frum characterized her as a small town mayor. She is in fact a governor. If you still find that gibberish, try taking some ESL courses. A.J.A. (talk) 22:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If some people want to split out a daughter article so that they can amuse themselves by quoting every published reaction to this pick, I suppose it will keep them from doing harm elsewhere, but such an article isn't needed. Whether or not there's a separate article, the real issue is to keep the summary in this one balanced and concise. We do not need to quote every politician who's expressed an opinion, and we should not quote more Republicans than Democrats. Furthermore, I suggested above (in #Biased Media Opinions) that non-politician reactions should be included, such as evangelicals and environmentalists. JamesMLane t c 00:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You may write a reactions article for Wikinews. Indeed wikinews articles may not be modified after publication, so that seems like a better venue for information that will eventually be trimmed from wikipedia anyway. JeffBurdges (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Traffic offenses?

Why on earth do we have traffic offenses for the Palins in this article, with primary sources? Kelly ^hi! 06:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed it. Good eye. --mboverload@ 06:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I was about to do the same, so far as I could tell, the cited sources didn't have anything about traffic infractions by Sarah Palin, only Todd. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, definitely delete. Some politically motivated people online behave so stupidly that I sometimes wonder if they're actually working for the other side to make "their" side look bad. —KCinDC (talk) 07:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, I think there should be a clarification on what policy this user is violating. I've seen a claim of WP:BLP and the use of primary sources. I'm not sure how WP:BLP is being violated. I can see the problem with using a primary source, though policy seems to indicate that if it doesn't take an expert to interpret the findings from the primary source (here it would be reading a docket), then it's okay to include it. Discussion on this page seems to indicate the problem would be with WP:NPOV -- undue weight maybe? Switzpaw (talk) 07:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have also removed a reference about Todd getting a 200 dollar fine for using an ATV offroad. --mboverload@ 07:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed it too per BLP. It's not even about her, and it's a primary source. It shouldn't be in his article, let alone hers. Cool Hand Luke 07:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Although primary sources are ok if little or no interpretation is needed to cite them, I would agree that her husband being fined for minor traffic infractions is not notable. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't lay down an absolute rule that traffic offenses are nonnotable. In a particular case they could be worth reporting (e.g. if there were an allegation that Palin had tried to use her office to "fix" her husband's tickets). In this instance, however, I see no reason for their inclusion, either here or in the Todd Palin artice. JamesMLane t c 07:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In themselves, minor traffic infractions are non-notable. If reliable sources say a politician has tried to "fix" such things, that's another thing altogether, a notable crime, likewise with a long history of say, many speeding tickets or a major traffic crime like drunk driving. Not a hint of that here so far. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and such allegations would be in secondary sources. There are none here, so it doesn't belong. Cool Hand Luke 08:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Things like "so far" and these hypothetical issues suggesting "fixing tickets" or crimes are innuendo that add nothing to the discussion, but rather interject ideas that can only be harmful. "So far" allows readers to infer that this is something that is likely or just hasn't been discovered. Please choose your wording carefully to avoid this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.212.27.134 (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Die4Dixie (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The off roading was a CRIMINAL CHARGE, not a traffic ticket. The case number ends in "CR", a moving violation ends in "MO". It is relevant for her family section that her husband has a criminal record, however "minor" people think it may be. Michaelh2001 (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) This article is about Sarah Palin, not her husband, therefore irrelevant. —Travis^talk 15:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That's absurd! The woman's husband has a criminal record, it should definately be in the section about her personal life, maybe not in the beginning paragraphs but it should definately be mentioned.Lakerking04 (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I second Lakerking04's point. Has anybody found out if 5yr old Piper has been cited for spitting on the sidewalk, or stepping on a puppy's paw by "accident"? I'm sure Barack Obama's page includes salacious details on how he bought his house with the help of a convicted felon whom he steered millions toward, (reported in the RS Chicago Tribune), or how he didn't slip his half brother a $20 spot when he met him in 2006, because those are equally relevant to understanding the career/positions/(non)accomplishments of a national stage politician.--98.221.28.244 (talk) 06:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

A large number of people have a criminal record, especially when they were young. --mboverload@ 21:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If Todd's drunk driving arrest and other driving offenses don't desereve mention in this article, then why should the article include the claim that he won some race? It seems just as lacking in relevance to Sarah Palin's biography. Is this a piece of campaign literature, or a puff piece like a Christmas Letter, where only the good stuff is to be mentioned, for bragging rights, without ever mentioning any embarrassing stuff? That approach is a clear violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Edison2 (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Bristol is pregnant

[[1]]

I am having trouble including this.

1) At this point it is an unsubstantiated rumor, and 2) It's not relevant to a biography of Sarah Palin. Wikipedia is not the National Enquirer.--Paul (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Associated Press [2] is pretty good substantiation. As to whether it is relevant, that's more ambiguous, though I'm sure it will be trumpetted by some people during this campaign. Dragons flight (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The AP is as good as it gets for reliable sources and being the girl is a minor and under the guardianship of Governor Palin, it is wholly relevant. Zredsox (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that Paul was thinking that the initial post was referring to the Internet rumor posted on Daily Kos - and not the announcement today by the Palins about their daughter's pregnancy--Jdrushton (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

AP is highly reliable as a source for something straightforward like this, put it in the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes put it in the article about Bristol, not this article. It's the same type of newspaper chatter like George Hussein Onyango Obama who lives in a hut in Africa on 12 dollars and is the half brother of Obama it's sourced and all but it's not in the main Obama article, the BLP about Obama. Similarly any rumors or such about family members should go into side articles not the main article. Hobartimus (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The pregnancy of Bristol holds weight in this circumstance, specifically because she is a minor and affects Palin politically from a family values standpoint, which is why it is relevant in the context of her biography.Zredsox (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin's disclosure of the pregnancy of her underage child is notable and relevent to the article topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Another user below stated that she is not underage, the age of consent in Alaska being 16 and Bristol being 17, however I have no way to verify this info. Hobartimus (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"Minor" = under the age of 18. She is in her parents guardianship. That is what is being referred to, not the age of consent. Zredsox (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Several news sources have states that Bristol Palin is in fact 17; however, this is irrelevant, as KCinDC points out below. Since the age of consent in Alaska is 16, Bristol is technically able to conceive a child. The concern, which is unreported and thus far speculation, is the age of Levi. If he is 18+ then he is in a position of authority and this becomes a legal matter.

Huh? How would being over 18 put him in a position of authority over her? A 16-year-old can have sex with whomever she likes, even a 76-year-old. -- Zsero (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, it's pretty wild to say that being over 18 is a "position of authority". Hobartimus (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

According to AS 11.41.436 a(3), this is an offense only if the "offender is the victim's natural parent, stepparent, adopted parent, or legal guardian." See: http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title11/Chapter41/Section436.htm JCP (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a solid source on the father, 18-year-old Levi Johnston, Bristol Palin's pregnancy was an open secret back home, with great pictures and tons of details. Digitalmandolin (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is another one, Father of Bristol Palin’s Baby Identified. Digitalmandolin (talk) 04:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel it should be included because she supports abstinence only education...24.92.220.10 (talk) 09:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Having children at 44 and 17 suggests the only thing they know how to "just say no" to in that family is contraception. Notice in the family photo, how the 17 year old is not smiling so much as the others. Being 17 and pregnant will do that to you. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Bristol is pregnant: Solution?

How about we just say "The announcement was made in part to counter unsubstantiated internet rumors"? That way, we are explaining the importance without giving the rumor itself the light of day? --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Per the sources (AP, Clevelad Plain Dealer, New York Times, etc) above, the rumor has been stated in the mainstream press numerous times and explicitly, and given by campaign spokesmen as a reason for the announcement, so vagueness is not necessary or appropriate. Edison2 (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This is a major mainstream story that all high level news gathering organizations are covering and is only secondary in this news cycle to the Gulf Hurricane. It is notable as notable comes.Zredsox (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thad, we can't say "The announcement was made in part to counter unsubstantiated internet rumors" because that would speculation and we cannot speculate someone's motive. --Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

McCain representative said that's why they made the announcement now. Dragons flight (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not simply make a new page for Bristol Palin ??? Any search for Bristol Palin gets redirected to Sarah Palin . I think Bristol Palin warrants a page of her own. This is too much: If it weren't for 8 years of Bush/Rove, I would hardly be able to believe the kind of censorship and manipulation that is going on around here !!! Mijnlulinjouwkut (talk) 05:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - actually it wasn't Karl Rove who issued the censorship order, it was Dick Cheney. ;) But seriously I can't imagine a page on her that wouldn't be libellous and problematic. Leave the poor girl alone. Kelly ^hi! 05:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

the linkage of the (weekend) unfounded rumor, and the (Monday morning) fact

We are in an interesting realm (or, the same ol' same ol':). There will (with near certainly) be much analysis of this weekend's rumor and its connection with today's announcement. The statement by the McCain campaign asserting that part of the reason for the announcement was the squelching of the aforementioned rumor must be accepted at face falue (good faith assumption). Yes, the broadbrush labeling of "liberal bloggers" is ... politics. Politics, its seems, is legal in America. (Excuse the humor, it was a long weekend). Let's see how this plays out in the press. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: confirmed-as-FALSE rumor -- Since the weekend rumor could no longer possibly be true and therefore (offically/publicly) confirmed false, it can be mentioned. While there exists the possibility of rumors so vile they cannot be named, this one is easily stated for purposes of confirmation that it is false. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't believe the weekend rumor, but it's invalid to say it can't possibly be true. For those who start from the premise that the Palin camp promoted a deception about Trig, the deception would now continue through the public misstatement of Bristol's expected due date.

I agree with those above who say that the widespread MSM reporting means that it's eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Nevertheless, just because it hasn't been conclusively refuted and is eligible for inclusion doesn't mean that it's important enough to include. We wouldn't include everything that the McCain campaign says publicly about their reasons for doing this or that, or their reasons for doing it at a specific time. That fact -- the timing of the announcement to counteract rumors -- is NPOV and based on RS but it's just not important enough to include in the article. I don't see that the rumors about Trig had any significant impact on the campaign so there's just no reason to mention them. JamesMLane t c 20:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

How about this? confirmed-as-false ... beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e, yes, I know what country we live in :) With the hurricane and the convention to deal with, editors of major newspapers will probably find better things to analyze than, e.g., whether Kos was punked or seeking infamy and if anyone played into anyone's strategic plans, etc. If they don't, well, we can always create an article about this topic, can't we? lol Proofreader77 (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I don't think the rumor should be mentioned at all, but if it is mentioned, then we should absolutely not pronounce for the benefit of our readers that the High Court of Wikipedia has adjudged it to be confirmed as false beyond a reasonable doubt. If the rumor is covered, and if you believe that the campaign's statement concerning Bristol's due date irrefutably disproves the rumor, then we can just report the campaign statement, and leave it to the reader to draw the conclusion. JamesMLane t c 02:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

re "the High Court of Wikipedia has adjudged" -- no, society (as constituted by institutions which do this all the time) has (transiently, as usual, but with unshakable conviction) adjudged the rumour to be false. Is society ever wrong? Do juries convict innocent people? Is the price of oil where it should "actually" be? Moment to moment, day to day, society judges. And we live on assumptions that may be wrong, but which are considered reasonable to believe. For now. I.E., "society" has judged the rumor false. Wikipedia does not argue with "reality." ;) Proofreader77 (talk) 06:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Oyez, Oyez ... Jury selection? :) ... I've already located my star witness: the newspaper photographer who's taken her picture regularly ...through thick and thin, um, thin and thick and thin ... For drama's sake, of course, we'll wait for the climatic revelation of the truth -- beyond a reasonable doubt. All rise ... (Dear Gods of Wikipedia forgive me, I'm tired, and will try to behave "better" soon. After the fourth hurricane, perhaps. Meanwhile I am working on chaos control in my own strange way, trust me.) Proofreader77 (talk) 03:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but I would go farther. WP:NPOV requires that we avoid JUDGING the news, but, more than that, it requires that we report the news ACCURATELY. The term "unfounded rumor" here is NOT accurate. Technically, the DailyKOS article makes an INFERENCE based on a substantial body of circumstantial evidence -- photographs of Sarah and Bristol, statements by co-workers, inexplicable behavior by Sarah. The latest admission by Sarah Palin, far from refuting this inference, lends credence to it: It substantiates promiscuity, implies insufficient vetting, and illustrates disingenuousness. Let us recall the accusations made against John Edwards and the fierce outraged denials. Would it have been appropriate for Wikipedia to prejudge the Enquirer story or mischaracterize the story as an "unfounded rumor"? -- NonZionist (talk) 04:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

["Sarah Palin hit by internet rumours over fifth child" times.online.uk NEWS QUOTE: "If Mrs Palin, a conservative mother of five, ever doubted that landing on a national presidential ticket would open her to the harshest of spotlights and smear tactics, she also awoke yesterday to utterly unfounded internet rumours that her fifth child, born in April with Down’s syndrome, was actually her 17-year-old daughter’s." I.E., I judge not the news; I quote it. Accurately... Next witness. Proofreader77 (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

One, the Times is owned by News Corp, a company headed by Rupert Murdoch. Two, the news article was not an investigation into the pregnancies, so we do not know the basis of the opinion the rumors are unfounded. Three, libel/defamation law is much stronger in the U.K. and so I would expect "utterly unfounded" to be used in that publication before printing about an internet rumor involving a person. Not because they know, but to cover their posteriors. Digitalmandolin (talk)

I don't consider this an "utterly unfounded rumor" because I agree with NonZionist that it's not a rumor at all. AFAIK, no one was asserting, "My cousin has a friend who's a nurse in Wasilla who said...." It was an inference from circumstantial evidence, or, if you want to be uncharitable toward it, a speculation. (This point is important to me because the absence of any such reports is what caused me to reject the inference. If this had happened, someone would've blabbed about it, medical ethics or no.) Nevertheless, my opinion of the correctness of the inference is immaterial. I continue to maintain that our article should not state as a fact that it was an utterly unfounded rumor but we can certainly report that the Times so characterized it, and the reader will not be deprived of Proofreader77's witness's testimony. That is, if we include the rumor at all, which I still see no reason to do. JamesMLane t c 07:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

re: "including the rumor." BUT THE NEWS STORY IS: Sarah Palin announced her daughters pregnancy in order to prove the internet rumor false. No news organization would leave out what the rumor was. And they didn't. To say that Wikipedia should not mention it, when the major institutions of media have ... Well, I'll leave that to the collective wisdom of Wikipedians, which I'll guess disagree with your position. UNLESS you wish to claim that concensus demands that ALL MUST AGREE, or NOTHING SHALL BE INCLUDED. Hmmmm... interesting thought. Thanks.

But as to declared false vs implied false... No major media institution would have mentioned the rumor regarding the minor, UNTIL the rumor was "verified" beyond reasonable doubt false. They would not mention the rumor if there was still a reasonable possibility the rumor might still be turn out to be true. By inclusion, the media labels it false. (in this instance/minor)

Oh, I see. Wikipedia must be purer than the media which it quotes religiously. The rumor must be perfectly proven false, or not mentioned. Sounds like an interesting story. Must have dragons and fairies. Cool. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

QUOTING the London Times pronouncement is fine; MAKING the pronouncement ourselves is not so fine, unless we are willing to lose credibility along with the Times and the rest of the corporate lapdog media when the "utterly unfounded rumor" turns out to be true. We dump the Establishment media in the "Reliable Sources", but that doesn't mean that these papers actually ARE reliable. A newspaper or television station is a BUSINESS, not a dispassionate think-tank.

BTW, CBC TV in Canada is taking the DailyKOS allegations seriously! The TV report features the blog article and the print version (quoted below) is non-dismissive. It looks like the "Reliable Sources" are taking a second look at these "utterly unfounded rumors".

The website Daily Kos alleged in a post on Sunday that Sarah Palin had faked her most recent pregnancy to cover up the fact that her youngest child, four-month-old Trig, was actually her daughter's illegitimate baby.

The site used photographs and video to suggest that Palin's surprise announcement of her pregnancy last February, while she was apparently in her seventh month, was an attempt to avoid the embarrassment of a media frenzy about teenage pregnancy in the Alaska governor's mansion.

-- NonZionist (talk) 07:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• (1) The rumor was a serious matter... The story is that Sarah Palin announced her daughter's pregnancy to stop the rumor.
• THEREFORE (2) It makes sense for the media to take a close look at what caused such an uproar over the weekend.
• (3) That does NOT mean they believe the rumor to possibly be true. It means they are looking at it to see what it was that caused all this.
• (4) The rumor is false. That is not in doubt. Trust me. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: the two references currently cited in the article re announcing the Bristol pregnancy ([telegraph.co.uk] and [washingtonpost.com]) -- both include the rumor.

• NOTE: The Washington Post editors include the phrase "The statement Monday appeared designed to rebut that rumor by offering a timeline that, if accurate, ..." implying the editors leave open the possibility the rumor is true, at least with respect to whether the Monday announcement definitively puts the rumor to rest.

• COMMENT: That is an interesting choice (to me), because it means that a major newspaper will transmit a "rumor" about a minor that they have not determined to be false by investigation, but simply is false if the information they have been given is true.
• FURTHER COMMENT: That is really interesting (to me), since it leaves open the question as to when a newspaper shall treat statements by public figures at face value (good faith assumption), or, specifically imply that a statement they are reporting may or may not be true.

• (MEANWHILE I see the mention of the rumor has been deleted from the article. The current "concensus" then is that the "rumor" shall not be mentioned.)

Enough for now. We'll see if the press/media feel it worthwhile to return to this issue. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the idea that Trig is really Bristol's child -- Trig is known to be four months old. If Bristol is really five months pregnant it is not medically possible for her to have born a child four months ago. Geo Swan (talk) 07:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we know. :) (or, at least I do. lol) The issue of how the media dealt with the rumor is interesting. For example, the Washington Post's unusual wording ("if accurate") about the statement from Palin/staff. It is (to me) highly unusual for a newspaper of that stature to use that wording with respect to public figures -- implying they could be lying. NOTE: I know the statement is true. But some people at the newspaper seem to have been persuaded by the rumor enough to have the strange wording "if accurate" inserted -- just in case. ANYWAY, I think the media has bigger fish to fry now than to wade through this any more. We'll see. Proofreader77 (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Seperate Bristol Palin page discussion?

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

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

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

Bristol Palin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First passport?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First Passport Cite (ABC) [3]Zredsox (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I just noticed that the ABC ref on the passport[4] also contains a statement by Geraldine Ferraro downplaying concerns about her foreign policy experience. Should that be included? Kelly ^hi! 02:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bristol Palin's pregnancy was an open secret back home

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bristol Palin section 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Big sections of this talk page itself have been deleted today -- is this appropriate?

I just went back to see if there were any additional comments on something I had posted here, and I couldn't find the section. I then noticed that a whole lot of stuff has been removed, but I can't even find when or by whom because there are so many edits -- and I can't see anyone noting it in their edit summaries. Here is a way to see some of what I mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Palin&offset=20080901235144&limit=1000&action=history

Is this appropriate? If not, what can be done?

Thanks, User:BTR (User talk:BTR) 14:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No, not deleted but archived - and that's very appropriate. You'll find what you're searching for in the archive, but improvements of the article should be discussed here. --Hapsala (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The archives are linked at the top of this page in the first box, for your convenience. Keeper ǀ 76 15:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you -- I didn't even think of that! Sorry to sound like Chicken Little! Thanks, User:BTR (User talk:BTR) 15:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No problemo. And, of course, the sky is falling. Depending on your politics, it is perhaps caused by different reasons. But it is falling.  :-) Keeper ǀ 76 15:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wasilla

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

State law (AS 29.05.011) requires that a community must have at least 400 permanent residents to incorporate as a home rule or first class city. A petition to incorporate a home rule or first class city must be signed by at least 50 resident voters, or 15% of the number of voters who voted in the area during the last general election, whichever is greater. There is no minimum population requirement for incorporation of a second class city; however, the incorporation petition must be signed by at least 25 resident voters, or 15% of the number of voters who voted in the area during the last general election, whichever is greater. [5] In other words, everything is a city in Alaska and classified in one of three ways, which are all cities (even though I have run across "Town of Wasilla" being used frequently ( 45,900 Google results.) Zredsox (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

We need a better source on contraception

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

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

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

Political Positions Section

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

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

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

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

Physical Appearance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Edit: Early Political Career, Paragraph 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A dispute has arisen regarding an allegation Palin was once a member of the Alaska Independence Party (AIP), a party that advocates secession from the United States. The claim was first made by XXX. The McCain campaign has provided reporters with documents claiming to show Palin has been a Republican since first registering to vote in 1982.[6] RonCram (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

random subsection break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please Stop Buchanan Edit War

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archiving

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

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

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

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

Todd and AIP

And for the next round of the AIP story (sigh...), it appears that husband Todd was an AIP member from 1995 to 2002. [7] The current source is pretty dodgy, but I assume the major networks will confirm or deny this shortly. Dragons flight (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unacceptable format at "Political positions"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congenital popularity & general amity

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

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

Palin sought many earmarks

Despite the McCain campaign's claims, Sarah Palin is no opponent of earmarks. --JHP (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

AIP Convention in 1994

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article goes on to state:

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

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

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

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

24.4.206.143, you write "Chryson was not interviewed for the story." Then why does the Mother Jones article (cited in our article) say, "Chyrson, in an interview with Mother Jones, backed off his account"?[8]Ferrylodge (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Kopp being appointed to replace Monegan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(undent)Chryson says this:[9]

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

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

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

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

24.4.206.143 (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palin, AIP, and BLP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't see anything about it at the CBS website.[10] What did they say? That network has been going downhill since Murrow, by the way.  :) Ferrylodge (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Here you go [11]. It was basically 6 minutes of pure terror for the McCain Campaign. Zredsox (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National guard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whitewashing and bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palin

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

Faye Palin

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

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

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

Weird

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

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

Levi Johnston

Is 18 and will attend the Nat'l Republican Convention.[12]  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 00:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Edit clash.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But now two questions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bristol Palin Controversy

A new fork. Can we redirect to #Family? Discuss. -- Y not be working? 00:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please. One pregnant teenage girl does not a controversy make. -- Vary | Talk 00:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If this were the Democratic nominee, the Christian Right would be all over it and it would be a huge controversy. They're a lot more forgiving of "one of their own". However, you're right that no separate article is needed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that the first poster includes "sockenpuppe" in his/her name, if viewed in edit mode. Sounds a lot like a sockpuppet. Nonetheless, the subject article should be redirected to the recommended section. (A broken clock is correct twice a day). Is there consensus for the redirect? It avoids a WP:COATRACK. (Edit: the "sockenpuppe" is , for some reason, an alternate account of User:Y). Edison2 (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If there is no basis for a Bristol article, surely there is no basis for a Bristol controversy one either. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Mary Cheney got a Wikipedia article in the midst of the 2004 campaign at the moment when her sexual orientatio became a political issue. This is a parallel case. Meghan McCain has a Wikipedia article. Bristol Palin is at the center of a major controversy and that controversy is being discussed in newspapers brom Bankok to Baton Rouge. She is notable. You may not like it, but it really is undeniable.Elan26 (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26

As I said above, Meghan McCain is a noted blogger. Corvus cornix_talk 02:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. This is another example of double standards and of how this page has been hijacked by GOP spin doctors and their orwellian agents. This kind of practices is simply unacceptable. We can not have the GOP hijack and/or groom and/or censor the entries surrounding their VP candidate.
Bristol Palin deserves a 'Bristol Palin' page of her own, if not a separate page to be called 'Bristol Palin incident' or 'Bristol Palin controversy' or 'Bristol Palin 2008 GOP convention issue'.58.34.54.33 (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Bristol Palin is at the center of a major controversy and that controversy is being discussed in newspapers brom Bankok to Baton Rouge. Major "controversy"? Well well, the Asahi even has a news story on it. Yet there's no controversy; it's more "That's the end to suspicions that the latest kid was a grandkid" and "If she has a baby, that will delight the US religious right". So it's a kind of bemused look at the inscrutable occidentals.

Still, if little Bristol is noteworthy (which I doubt), then I suppose her "I'll kick your ass" beau might be too (see section above).

(And didn't I once read that Wikipedia wasn't a newspaper?) -- Hoary (talk) 02:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Johnston probably does merit an article. Have you had an honest look at what the world press is saying about this? The Guradian is only one of a dozen newspapers with articles looking at the liklihood that the Bristol palin controversy will reopen th eAmerican conversation of sex ed in the schools. The efficacy of abstinance education is being questioned, again, but in fresh articles pegged to Bristol Palin. It is an event.160.39.35.45 (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26

Maybe, when they start showing up on the cover of People, crowding out Angelina and Britney - which would be a welcome change, actually. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course Bristol Palin should have her own article. Talk about notable!--Appraiser (talk) 13:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe also an article about the unborn: Bristol Palin's love child for now, until its name is known. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Pregnancy is spelled wrong...

"The McCain-Palin campaign stated that John McCain was aware of her daughter's pregancy, but that it did not affect his choice." --97.82.195.71 (talk) 01:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You will be glad to learn that "Wikipedia is THE ENCYCLOPEDIA ANYONE CAN EDIT." So you are allowed to correct spelling errors. Edison2 (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Except it's semi-protected... Dragons flight (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Didn't see that it was semi-protected. Maybe some IP editors will be motivated to choose a name and register. Edison2 (talk) 02:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Anyway, an established user fixed it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Given the circumstances, "preggers" works better. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have heard ladies of an older generation use the alternative term "peachy." Edison2 (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that's what the Governor said when her daughter told her the news: "Well, isn't that just peachy!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

New Palin Scandal Surfacing

It's being reported by Times Online that in January the Alaskan Governor repeatedly laughed on air as a talk-radio host described one of her political opponents as a “cancer” and a “bitch”. The opponent in question, Lyda Green, the Alaskan state senate president, is a cancer survivor. An audio recording of the interview with Bob Lester, the Alaskan “shock jock”, had received more than a quarter of a million hits on YouTube by yesterday morning. This is definately deserving of inclusion into the article. Lakerking04 (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Is wikipedia nothing but a gossip blog? There's no mention of Obama's guns and bibles comments in his bio - and there shouldn't be. If people want to find trash on people, let them find it somewhere else. Theosis4u (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the Times news article, not the Times Wikipedia article, so that we may judge whether reporting on the alleged inappropriate laughter in the interview indicates it is encyclopedic and worth of inclusion in the article. Also please do not throw up a smoke screen by reference to alleged aspects of Obama's past. This article is about Palin. Edison2 (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, there was no smoke screen and anyone following politics knows what I was referring to. Obama Explains Why Some Small Town Pennsylvanians Are "Bitter" - "And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." If that isn't on Obama's bio then I think it shows much of this gossip non-sense has no place - again, I believe it shouldn't be in his bio. That was a big news article, but is only floated today by right-wingers. Theosis4u (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

And it's a biography article first and then to the particulars of the person. It makes sense to do comparatives to establish the standards. A good example on what to include and how to write it up is in Obama's bio - the comment about his ex-pastor. To the point and free of politics. Theosis4u (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the link to the article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4662882.ece , Theosis4u, this is a talk page about sarah palin, not Barack Obama. Lakerking04 (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If the governor of Alaska, and possibly the next vice president of the united states is demeaning, insulting, and making fun of cancer survivors and agreeing with those who categorize her opponents as 'bitches', then I think it's well to note in her article. Times Online is not a gossip blog, but as a respected newspaper in the United Kingdom. Lakerking04 (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Times_Online#Controversy_and_Image , sure it isn't. You still avoided the question of fairness in comparison of the Obama entry. Theosis4u (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the link to the article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4662882.ece , Theosis4u, this is a talk page about sarah palin, not Barack Obama. Lakerking04 (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Did Obama call a political opponent a "cancer" and a "bitch," or laugh out loud when someone else did? Edison2 (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Clueless, if you can't understand a concept of comparison to establishing a standard format to writing articles. If more people would compare the articles (people they like and don't) they could avoid unnecessary additions or removals. Theosis4u (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not hurl personal attacks. Any more schoolyard insults you wish to hurl, or will you base your arguments in policies and guidelines?? Edison2 (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. The McCain article doesn't mention him calling his wife a cunt. Switzpaw (talk) 02:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol. Seriously, let the extreme nut jobs keep track of all the gossip and petty non-sense. Having standards on all sides (right and left) in regards to bio's will help minimize your own personal favorites from being demonized. I would like to think my kids can use wikipedia for their homework. Theosis4u (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand how sarah palin labeling her political opponent as a "cancer" and a 'bitch" isn't notable of being mentioned in her article, especially when she has 'eye popping integrity" Lakerking04 (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought you said the radio host did that. Which is it? Noroton (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• So the accusation is that the subject laughed at an inappropriate joke? That's really quite trivial. While we should use seconadary sources to help us determine whethre to cinlude facts and how much weight to give them, we also need to use some editorial judgment. Unless this "scandal" becomes more prominent I can't see a good reason to mention it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Did Palin laugh because she thought it was funny or because she was embarassed? Can anyone post to YouTube? Is it possible to fake a YouTube recording? I assume it is. If so, how is that a reliable source? -- Noroton (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and incidentally this "new scandal" has already been added, talking about and then deleted as not relevant. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The integrity of the source is not in question. The source is not Youtube but Times Online , a respected newspaper in the United Kingdom. Here's the link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4662882.ece Lakerking04 (talk) 02:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Except that's not the last word. From WP:BLP#Reliable sources: Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we? -- Noroton (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Laker. That has already been added and removed from the article and it's pretty understood that until something _major_ in the mainstream media happens with it it will be left out. Just like the Bristol pregnancy, which wasn't included until they released a nation-wide press release that was reported on by all the papers. Wikipedia, by design and policy, can not and will not decide if something is important or not when it comes to these kind of high-profile articles. We have to wait until there is a large happening before we will report on it. --mboverload@ 02:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

An interesting question would be whether she ever went back on that show and/or whether she had anything to say about it. Taking a laugh out of context, on a radio show where you can't see body language, is very questionable. I've seen plenty of situations where someone would make an offensive commment, and the other one would laugh as basically a defense mechanism. Without proper context, you can't make any judgments. So keep digging. You're bound to find out about those overdue library books. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a political campaign. You don't even need facts before making a judgment. What's all this context stuff? A.J.A. (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"This" is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, although you'd never know it from the feeding-frenzy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Bob and Mark radio show was the first interview (and one of very few) that Palin gave after being selected for VP. So go back, yes. Shortly following the January interview, she wrote an apology to the state senator she was perceived as laughing at. So she clearly realized she had a problem (at least in public preception). Dragons flight (talk) 03:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Aha! And now we know the rrrrrest of the story. She was, almost certainly, taken aback by that comment, and laughing self-defensively. So if anything is going to be said about that radio show, the followup has to be there also. And then the so-called scandal goes away, and the only reason to even include it is to pre-empt someone else trying to re-post it without the proper context. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Blessed to raise a Down Syndrome child

Zredsox (talk · contribs) has twice removed the referenced comment:

Palin has said that she feels blessed that God chose them to raise a baby with Down Syndrome.

on the grounds that is "POV" and Wikipedia "does not establish character".

In my opinion, that is misguided. It is responses to challenges that tell us a lot about a leader's character. No, it's not as simple as a policy position, but I certainly find it informative of who Palin is. It's referenced, and unless you feel that [13] is being misread, I don't see how it can construed conveying a POV other than the Governors.

I'd like some comments about whether this should be restored. Dragons flight (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it as POV, but I'm not sure it is a relevant fact. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why the quote should be included. The fact that she decided to have the child, knowing the situation does enough in my opinion. That part is relevant to a bio, imo Theosis4u (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually the current text fails to directly establish that she made a choice. It says the diagnosis was prenatal, but doesn't offer that implication that she could have aborted (as usually happens with prenatal Down's diagnosis). Dragons flight (talk) 02:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that evidence is out there. I've heard too many commentators say she made a choice. I've also heard 90 percent of the people who hear they've got a Down's syndrome child on the way nowadays abort. Her decision itself is significant. -- Noroton (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

We clearly still have the facts of her decision minus the unneeded "morning show" talking point. Zredsox (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Read it again: "Palin's youngest child, Trig, has Down syndrome, diagnosed prenatally." doesn't directly imply there ever was a decision. You'd get the same statement if the diagnosis was close enough to birth that abortion would be illegal (i.e. the US partial birth abortion ban). Dragons flight (talk) 02:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that he was born implies she carried to term. Zredsox (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

But the material is insufficient to establish that abortion was possible. Carrying a Downs baby to term if you have no other choice is very different than carrying one to term when your doctor advises abortion (as I understood happened in this case). The partial birth ban implies that the defect needs to be found in roughly the first six months to make abortion a practical option. Dragons flight (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be notable if she had an abortion. It is not the place of Wikipedia to catalog what she didn't do. That would be a slippery slope indeed. Zredsox (talk) 03:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

~90% of prenatal Down's diagnoses result in abortions, so in this case what she didn't do made her unusual. Dragons flight (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If we can't find a source that clearly shows she did make a conscious decision to keep the baby knowing it most likely would have Down Syndrome then we should minimize any reference to it other than the child has Down Syndrome. Theosis4u (talk) 02:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The section is supposed to be encyclopedic and not meant to establish anything about a leader's character. The facts are in place and there is no need for POV talking points. Zredsox (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Pious verbiage issued for media consumption is very different from "character." Edison2 (talk) 01:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, one can imagine it is staged, but no more so than anything else than comes out of a politician's mouth. Dragons flight (talk) 02:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

A leaders view on issues (in this case a personal issue) are some of the relevant facts to understanding their worldview in my opinion. Dragons flight (talk) 02:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(4X edit conflict) It seems to me it's hard to distinguish sincere from insincere quotes (or in this case, a rewording of a statement she made) from a public comment like that, so I'd tend to want to use quotes from her that can be either verified or show she's taking a stand that is controversial, or are particularly snappy or well known, or that illuminate something about her that would be hard to show in a better way. I think there are a lot of good elements in that quote, but it's impossible to say how sincere it is that she feels just that way about it. If the combination of her religion and her raising a Down Syndrome child became very important as a part of her overall notability (possible, but I think unlikely), then that statement could be useful in a passage about that. As it stands, I don't see enough value in it. -- Noroton (talk) 02:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Christian fundamentalists regard every child as a "blessing from God", so this quote, if true, says a great deal about her world view. It should be retained, if it's what she actually said. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't her world view be better established by the fact that she is a Christian Fundamentalist in the first place rather then hinge such deciphering based on the regurgitation of a quote oft said by Christian Fundamentalists? I am not quite capturing the logic here... Zredsox (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It serves as an example of her beliefs. It doesn't stand alone, no. It's in context. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Growing up in the Bible Belt, I'd say no. Lots of people self-identify as Fundementalist, but not all say things like "this [chronically ill child] is a blessing from God". Personally, I do think statements like that are more insightful. I suppose your mileage may vary. Dragons flight (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Every freaking parent thinks their kid is a blessing (including mine for some reason). It is not notable, leave it out. Wikipedia is not in the business of helping people congratulate themselves for sexual reproduction. --mboverload@ 02:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It is hard to follow what is being argued about here but the statement where Palin said "she and Todd feel blessed and chosen by God." in reference to Trig being diagnosed with Down Syndrome is very widely reported and is well referenced, in fact in references already in the article, as is the fact that she knew about this while carrying the child. I think the statement is one of her defining public statements, and in this campaign, at least, as important as "Tipppee Canoe and Tyler, Too." It is too late for us to decide if it is significant or not: almost without exception, the first reports of her being chosen for the VP slot mentioned this. It was also widely reported in Alaska back in the Spring. I don't think there is any doubt it should be in the article. It is a statement defining her moral philosophy. --Paul (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I read your comment and it is a good one. However, I disagree that it defines her. Politicians say this kind of stump religious nonsense all the time. What else would she say, she regrets it? I look forward to your response (not sarcastic). =) --mboverload@ 03:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This is part of her stump speech. That is reason for its exclusion, not inclusion. It certainly has no place in the "family" section which should be encyclopedic in nature and not have a political POV. There is no question its purpose is to say, "I am God fearing. I don't believe in abortion under any circumstances. I am a good Republican. Vote for me" Zredsox (talk) 03:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between saying those words and making choices that require one to really adhere to them. Also, it's nonsense to propose that stump speeches are forbidden. It would be like saying: "Read my lips, no new taxes" should be excluded from H.W. Bush's article. We need to include material that defines how candidates present themselves to the electorate, not exclude it. Dragons flight (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You are completely missing the point! Wikipedia is not about "defining how candidates present themselves to the electorate." I think you are confusing Wikipedia with Newsweek or maybe Rolling Stone. That methodology is not what Wikipedia is by definition. As for stump speeches, a.k.a. political positions, we have a section for those already. Zredsox (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No, we include their defining characteristics, and when it exists we present their opponents commentary on those characteristcs, and etc. We don't embellish with fluffy language and spin doctoring, but we also don't exclude mentions of actions and positions that candidates are known for simply because those are things they want to be known for. Her choice and position with regards to this Down's syndrome child is one of the things she is well known for and it deserves more of a comment than: "Palin's youngest child, Trig, has Down syndrome, diagnosed prenatally." Dragons flight (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to go in circles with you any longer on this issue. It should absolutely not be included and that looks like the general consensus here.Zredsox (talk) 04:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Dragons flight puts it quite well. This is an article about a politician. It should communicate political and moral information about the candidate. Lyndon Johnson's article talks about civil rights which he deeply believed in. Ronald Reagan's article talks about economics and the cold war. Jack Kennedy's article mentions "Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country." These were defining political beliefs for these politicians and the articles rightly mention them. For Sarah Palin, her pro-life beliefs are a big part of her political message, and her decision to carry a Down Syndrome child to term is proof that it is not just a "stump speech" it is a core belief. Zredsox might be afraid that by repeating Palin's claim that she regards Trig as a gift from God we will somehow be complicit in a cynical McCain propaganda plot. But the truth is, if we fail to communicate that Palin is fiscally conservative, a reformer, against corruption, and strongly pro-life, we are failing to communicate the basic facts that are important to this biography. (And it doesn't look like a consensus to me).--Paul (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to change my opinion on this as well. It should should describe the context of the birth and the choice involved. If you do a search for "down syndrome baby palin convictions", it's clear that this is a notable issue. Though I think the mention quote involved doesn't do the topic service. Theosis4u (talk) 04:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that her political positions should be covered in this article. Last time I checked, they were and in great detail. However, if they were removed from the last time I checked 10 minutes ago and now, by all means revert! Zredsox (talk) 04:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed the wording to alleviate 95% of the concern and work toward consensus. Although we all seem to agree the quote is a political statement and not appropriate, I expanded the entry to show that she clearly made a choice. Palin's youngest child, Trig, was diagnosed prenatally with Down syndrome and she made the choice to carry to term. Zredsox (talk) 04:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to expand the entry to show this? The article already mentions (if I'm remembering correctly) the prenatal testing and Trig was born. Commenting beyond that isn't appropriate. Movingboxes (talk) 04:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't all "agree the quote is a political statement and not appropriate." Several of us have made the point that it is a statement of core belief that Palin has become known for and as such belongs in the article. I propose incorporating it in the Political Positions section as follows:

On social issues she has "strong support from social conservatives"[13] and has described herself as being as "pro-life as any candidate can be."[44] It has been pointed out that her decision to carry her Down Syndrome child, Trig, to term and her statement that she feels blessed and chosen by God to raise such a child is proof that her pro-life stance is sincere.

--Paul (talk) 05:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You can't say it's "sincere", because that's a judgment about her inner being - but you can say it's consistent, which is the whole point of this quote. The electorate can draw its own conclusions about her family's judgment (or lack thereof) on the subject of contraception, but her comments are consistent with her political stance. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Bunch

WP:BUNCH needs to be applied to this article. The first two sections don't have [edit] tabs in the correct place. I don't know how to do it, but hopefully a regular here will. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. There was a hidden message about the images preventing whitespace below the infobox in certain browsers, so I'm trusting that whoever wrote that will drop a line here if it's still a problem.--chaser - t 02:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Why remove the map showing Wasilla? I thought it was very helpful. As between the map and the photo of the town hall, the map seems much more useful here.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the photo conveys the humble roots of her political career in a way that reinforces the text. Why do you think the map is helpful, Ferrylodge? There's a map at the top of the Wasilla article for the curious.--chaser - t 03:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of moot now, because the map has been put into the infobox. The reason I preferred the map is because most people have no idea where in Alaska Wasilla is. On the other hand, most people know what a typical small town building looks like (and this photo seems to only capture part of the building which leaves the viewer wondering how much more there is).Ferrylodge (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there's probably a good percentage of the voting-age public who don't know where Alaska is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

HERE is a three-quarter view shot or angled-profile view.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 03:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a much better photo of the building.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the new photo. I think it serves the text that accompanies it well. Zredsox (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is the cited Marijuana usage continually deleted?

I have read about Sarah Palin's admitted marijuana usage several times on Wikipedia.

The author of the thread correctly cited the incidence.

The news paper where the information was contained actually quoted this info from her own lips.

Sarah Palin admitted to using federally illegal drugs in Alaska. 

So why is this information being blocked? This is supposed to be a free and honest encyclopedia.

The American people have a right to know if their prospective Vice Presidential candidate is a drug user.

If McCain dies from old age in office (which he is likely to do) Sarah Palin would be president and a drug user.

Federally, not state. Plus it was like 20 years ago? --mboverload@ 03:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Has it been reported by a significant number of reliable sources?Geni

Someone moved that info to Political positions of Sarah Palin.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The top of the other ticket used cocaine and you're hollering about marijuana? Political campaigns are apparently brains-free zones. A.J.A. (talk) 04:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

And for the record, I don't care that Obama used to snort coke. A.J.A. (talk) 04:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well put AJA. Cocaine >>> Marijuana. --mboverload@ 04:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama's drug use in high school is mentioned in at least one WP article. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a fundamental flaw in the comment "a right to know if so-and-so is a drug user". Is there any evidence that Palin is a current or recent user of illegal substances? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The question of whether to include this information in Sarah Palin's biography seems to be answered by the Associated Press noting the importance to her political campaign. Digitalmandolin (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't belong in the SUMMARY of her political positions, when it isn't even a political position to begin with. I removed all specific positions when I wrote the summary, as per Wikipedia policy. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Keeping money for bridge to nowhere project

There's a quote used in bio - "Palin's campaign coordinator in the city, Republican Mike Elerding, remarked, "She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money.". I can't find proof though that the money was actually allocated and kept by Alaska. If anything, it looks like funds never did happen. Two 'Bridges to Nowhere' Tumble Down in Congress . Unless someone finds something different, the quote should be removed since it's fundamentally inaccurate. Theosis4u (talk) 03:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on knowledge I have of a similar situation in New York, I suspect that the State worked out a swap entitling it to use the money on other projects. On that view, the cited passage is accurate as far as it goes, but it conveys an inaccurate impression that there was some fiscal impropriety by the Palin administration. The current text also slights Congress's role in killing the project. JamesMLane t c 05:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That's what seems to happened here. Technically, Congress removed the earmark for the "bridge to nowhere" but then turned around and gave Alaska the same in funds for Alaska to use at it wills. Which means Palin/Alaska never took the money for "the bridge to nowhere" - technically. It also means, Palin couldn't of really said "No thanks" and gave it back. Her stump speech was spin and false. Theosis4u (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Snettisham avalanches, April 2008

Would someone more familiar with the issue please explain the importance of this section? It has it's own heading in the article but seems to me to be completely innocuous and superfluous.

On April 16, 2008, an avalanche destroyed several transmission towers and the transmission line on the Snettisham Hydroelectric Project,[83][84] a 78,210-kilowatt hydroelectric project located in a remote area of southeast Alaska, 28 air miles southeast of Juneau. It provides about 80 percent of the Juneau-Douglas area's electricity. No one lost power because of the avalanche, but electricity to the city and borough of Juneau was supplied by diesel generators until the line was fixed in early June 2008 for an estimated total of $5.5 million.[85] Juneau requested a state disaster declaration, but Palin, following the recommendation of her Disaster Policy Cabinet, declined to issue one.[86] She did ask the Small Business Administration to declare an "Economic Injury Disaster" for Juneau due to the abruptly higher electricity costs for local businesses,[87][88] a request that was granted a week later.[89]

This isn't an issue discussed in the national press, nor is it an issue that shows anything particularly positive or negative about Palin. Was there something more interesting here at one time? If this is all there is, I think it should be deleted.--Paul (talk) 03:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that it has gone through a few revisions, but is fundamentally immaterial to this bio. Zredsox (talk) 03:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(EC) As I understand FEMA and the DHS Grant system, most federal grants for direct disaster (and disaster-related) relief rely on state-level disaster declarations. The state says that a disaster exists, the Federal Government sends money. By not declaring a disaster, I think the implication is that Palin cost the state of Alaska a chance for federal funding - which is probably why the next sentence mentions a Small Business Administration grant. The caveat is that a disaster declaration carries a whole boatload of Federal requirements and auditing procedures with it; depending on the disaster, it might be too much to bother with. I concur, though, that the statement doesn't really need to be in the article - though it might fit in the policies article, if it discusses disaster management experience. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It sucked. We had to pay so much more money for electricity. I might have a few papers from when it happened. I'll try and find some info. Moocowsrule (talk) 05:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Moocowsrule

Early political career - ban books that included language she deemed inappropriate

The source that is used only states a hearsay and couldn't be confirmed from the direct source, it should be removed until then. From the source : "Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor." Theosis4u (talk) 03:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Which titles? (Adventures of Tom Sawyer? Or Anarchists' Cookbook?)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 03:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol. If we can find out, I think that would definitely be appropriate to include in the article. It was in office and it demonstrated a "political" action. It would have to show context of what was the final result though. Maybe Palin gave in..maybe the librarian. Theosis4u (talk) 03:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Needs to be very reliable before we even consider including it anywhere. I think we need to give this a hard thought before we would go any further. Although people revise and change their political ideas and I acknowledge that, banning books is freaking huge in America, with the 1st amendment and everything. --mboverload@ 04:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, my point is that it should be removed until there's a better source. And then given that "new" source, fully detail the issue. I do agree, "banning books" is a big issue and it should be fully explored. Theosis4u (talk) 04:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Gych's edit still does not provide a direct reference to quoted source. The sources aren't quoting the ibrarian nor do they give a documented account of the accusation. Theosis4u (talk) 05:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That's no longer the only source. It's also in a NYTimes article (with a direct quote from a witness), and I just posted details to the article (before seeing this). This info should not be removed just because it is negative. If there is an opposing explanation or view, it should be added. Superm401 - Talk 08:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasilla context for resignations

This source states the following for the reasons of why Palin asked for the resignations. "Palin sought to oust six department heads because they had signed a letter supporting the previous mayor, their old boss." There is no direct source of the quote or the letter that I can find. It might be appropriate to add that to the section that speaks about this. Theosis4u (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. It seems to also say that she may have to give a sworn deposition. We should probably wait until that happens to report on it. --mboverload@ 04:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There's two cases here - I'm mentioning the police chief in Wasilla. I think your referring to the ongoing investigation in handling the Public Safety Commissioner dismissal. Theosis4u (talk) 04:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Approval ratings

It should be included that approval ratings are for Alaska only and not the entire United States. Soon, if not already polls will be out on her approval ratings for the entire United States and it could be concluded from the way it is written that Palin has an 80% approval rating for the entire United States

VECO

The article currently states:

In that campaign, Palin received $4500 in legal campaign contributions from VECO Corporation. Four years later, the company was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service in the Alaska political corruption probe.[35]

Is there anything here more than guilt by association? A.J.A. (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove it. That is utter partisan nonsense. --mboverload@ 04:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

See WP:COATRACK. Coemgenus 11:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Article says, "In that campaign, Palin received $4500 in legal campaign contributions from VECO Corporation. Four years later, the company was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service in the Alaska political corruption probe." But the wiki article for VECO_Corporation#Alaska_Legislature_corruption_scandal gives nothing to support that she's was accused within the investigation and that the $4500 donation was the legal campaign contribution. Seems like this reference should be removed until she is accused within the investigation. She was not in the search warrants either. Theosis4u (talk) 04:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove it. That is utter partisan nonsense. --mboverload@ 04:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've avoided doing any edits so far. Hopefully, others will do it - showing consent to the issue. Dealing with the Talk section alone tries my patience enough already. Theosis4u (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh it is irrelivant to wikipedia if something is "partisan" or even "nonsense". Is it widely reported upon in relibable sources?Geni 08:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The material is currently gone & should stay that way. Only details ("good" or "bad") which are shown to have impacted her career should be included. That is how biographies work. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Track's age and the quote in the Wikipedia article

It says in the wikipedia entry: Sarah Palin eloped with her high-school boyfriend, Todd Palin, on August 29, 1988, when she was 24 years old.[6] According to her mother, "It was a shock but she did it because she knew we couldn’t afford a big white wedding."[111] Their first son, Track, was born eight months after their wedding.

In the Alaska Daily news, there is a picture of the family in October 2006 that says Track is 17. http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/story/8334949p-8231037c.html

If he was 17 in October 2006, she was NOT pregnant in Aug 1988. This is part of the smear to discredit her. If my math is right, Please remove. Thanks.

Stewie17 (talk) 05:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Without a WP:RS to the kid's age, how can we keep this in the article without violating WP:BLP? Coemgenus 11:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong math? If he were born in April 1989, both would be true. He would have been born 8 months after the wedding and he would have been 17 in October 1986.--Appraiser (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Wasilla library

There are several problems with this. First, we don't actually have Time magazine and the New York Times saying this is true. We have them saying that Palin's political opponents from Wasilla say this is true, which means that the accusation actually rests on their credibility, not on Time's and the NYT's credibility. Inclusion would require official minutes, or at least a contemporary news story by a reporter who attended the meeting. Second, the statement that the issue was "banning" books, which at best is exaggeration by one side: no jurisdiction in the United States can ban a book because of a little thing called the First Amendment. The alleged issue is apparently whether to include certain books in a library. An issue every library decides routinely. The grounds on which she allegedly wanted them excluded are considered ethical violations by professional librarians, and if the issue existed at all this should be described in neutral, accurate terms. A.J.A. (talk) 05:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Having minutes from the meeting instead of testimonials from persons involved in the situation is a little over the top, don't you think? These sources are pretty reputable in regards to verifying sources. -Gych (talk) 05:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Sarah_Palin#Wasilla_context_for_resignations. Your source doesn't quote the librarian nor does it reference a document to verify the statement. Theosis4u (talk) 06:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"Gych (Talk | contribs) (72,116 bytes) (replaced as per Talk)" ? Is that how it works? Theosis4u (talk) 06:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not correct to drop something, then when someone disagrees with the drop, puts it back, and provides direct response to the reason for removal, to then simply remove it again. Further, the refs quote person with direct knowledge of the events. -Gych (talk) 06:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's over the top. You say your sources are reputable for verifying sources. Does that mean they found the minutes? Then why not just cite the minutes directly?

The only thing you added was another new story quoting Democrats from Wasilla. But no one's arguing they were quoted inaccurately. I'm arguing that repeating their version without any separate confirmation is inappropriate in Wikipedia. A.J.A. (talk) 06:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

We have two separate sources, both of which are hard to question in accuracy. These sources don't quote every single reference they have in their articles but are known to not report on anything that they have not verified. It *is* over the top to expect any newspaper or news magazine to include every detail of the research they went through in putting together an article. Having "opposing" viewpoints may be impossible. There might not be an opposing viewpoint of these statements. Proposing that there is does not make these two references questionable. The issue is less about the sources and more about the tone. I suggest we fix that instead of wondering if the NYT or Time Magazine did their homework. -Gych (talk) 06:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You're still trading on Time's and the NYT's credibility. But all those sources actually said is that allegations were made by some people in Wasilla. To state those allegations as fact you're relying on Stein et. al. Now you're asking us to believe that the two sources did look up the minutes without their having ever made that claim for themselves. Is there any reason to believe that? A.J.A. (talk) 06:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I *am* considering Time's and NYT's credibility. Note that Palin doesn't disagree with these "allegations". There's nothing wrong or illegal with removing these persons. There's nothing wrong with suggesting that certain books be removed from circulation at the local town library either. Change the tone. The fact that the situation happened seems to be less of the argument than that it's implying the potential firing was about her personal and political beliefs. The article should fix that implication instead of questioning these time-honored sources and the research put into them. Perhaps one of us can find the Frontiersman article for the counterpoint -Gych (talk) 06:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

NYT's credibility was shot years ago - but that is besides the point. Palin was never given an opportunity to disagree from what I see in your sources. It's clear they didn't put any research into the article. No quotes from the librarian or from Palin - the two primary people involved. And the points you then go on to mention are the very reason good source material should be used if this goes/stays in the wiki article. If the claim can be verified, it's only logical to include the details of what was asked, what books were of concern, and what was the final outcome? Theosis4u (talk) 06:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not seeing any quote by the librarian (Mary Ellen Baker) in your sources. If you could place it here I would appreciate it. This is in the source, but it fails to do either of what I mentioned. "Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor." Stein is a politician in Wasilla. The librarian couldn't be reached for comment. And this report gives no details to "news reports". Theosis4u (talk) 06:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Never suggested they quoted the librarian. They quoted persons of knowledge with the proceedings of the city council meetings in what the librarian position went through. I can see how the tone and exactness of the passage in this article is in question. What I'm not getting is the questioning of the NYT and Time mag as sources, and the assumption that they didn't research and vet their sources. -Gych (talk) 06:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm calling into question the accuracy of the Time's article - "By NATHAN THORNBURGH / WASILLA, ALASKA". The guy lives in the town and he can't come up with better source materials than what he presented? The times article says, "Ms. Palin approached the town librarian". They are paraphrasing a dialog that happen between two people? One way to prove that isn't there, one of the two or close witness confirms - which the article doesn't do. Theosis4u (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm bailing. The consensus is yours to determine if the NYT and Time's articles are based on reality or if they totally made this stuff up. -Gych (talk) 06:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying they made anything up. All they actually said is that some Wasilla residents made certain allegations, and I'm sure they did. What hasn't been demonstrated is that the allegations themselves are credible enough to be included. And if it turns out they are, that would be the appropriate time to address the secondary issue of how to make it NPOV in tone. A.J.A. (talk) 06:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Objection, hearsay? 195.216.82.210 (talk) 07:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ya, I hear what you're saying. I would read the articles and believe that both the NYT and Time were able to verify that 1) there was a librarian that was fired (for whatever reason), 2) the librarian did not get fired ultimately, and 3) there was issue at the time about "banning" books. They both seemed to have validated these 3 points through local press records and interviews with persons in the know. But if you disagree, well...I guess you guys disagree. This one sentence in the article doesn't say anything more than those 3 points. What the line implies goes into NPOV arguments. -Gych (talk) 07:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The attack on this information is not in keeping with normal Wikipeia practices.

Wikipedia is full of passages that rely on a particular individual who's quoted by a particular MSM outlet. We rely on the media outlet's credibility for the truth of the assertion that the individual actually made the statement. Where it seems reasonable to take the individual's word for it, we don't name the source. For example, later in the very same section of the article, we make assertions about her tax policies as mayor. It's cited to a Times article quoting the current mayor, Dianne Keller. There's no indication in the article that the Times examined tax records to see if Keller was lying. We feel comfortable asserting Keller's statements as fact unless and until there's a good-faith dispute.

Other times, however, the individual who's the ultimate source of the information might be mistaken about a fact or might have an ax to grind or might be giving an interpretation that's not universal. Then our practice is to write something like "thus-and-such named individual said this-and-that about Person Y" followed by a link to the MSM outlet. We've alerted our readers as to the ultimate source, and each reader can decide how much credibility to give that source. In the matter at hand, we can state, for example, that the ousted police chief alleged that he'd been fired partly because Palin considered him disloyal. We shouldn't assert as a fact that her reason for the firing was as stated, but we shouldn't suppress the information about the chief's allegation. Similarly, we can cite the Time article ([14]) and say something like "According to Stein, her defeated opponent for the mayoralty, Palin ___" and then recount the incident with the librarian. Readers can decide whether to believe Stein, just as, when they read the section on Troopergate, they can decide whether to believe Palin's contention that she didn't know about her staffers' contacts with Monegan. Or do those editors who want to suppress Stein's unproveable statements also want to suppress Palin's unproveable statements? Per Wikipedia policy, both belong in the article, properly attributed. JamesMLane t c 07:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

By that standard the assertions that she was a member of the AIP were good content that Wikipedia was right to join in spreading to all and sundry. How did that work out? A.J.A. (talk) 07:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

<sarcasm>A.J.A., you're absolutely right... We should completely stub this article because everything the press says about Sarah Palin is based on second hand information and therefore can not be trusted.</sarcasm> It works both ways, A.J.A. According to the McCain campaign, Palin is opposed to earmarks and opposed the "Bridge to Nowhere", but the press has ferreted out evidence that Palin hired lobbyists to bring millions of dollars of earmarks into Wasilla and sent 70-pages of earmark requests off to Stevens earlier this year. They've also found Palin supporting the "Bridge to Nowhere" and only opposing it well after Congress had already killed the earmark... What your finding is the overall degradation of journalistic standards within the US due to the 24/7 news cycle, hyper-competitiveness to "scoop" the other news agencies, and an overall sensationalization of the news. As a result, journalists have become more trusting of their sources, rely more upon the sources to tell them the truth rather than investigating to determine if they actually are, and if the story is sensational (like Palin belonging to AIP) then they are more apt to run with it. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 08:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You'll notice that my explanation uses terms like "reasonable" and "good-faith dispute" that have to be interpreted and that call for the use of some judgment. There's no simple test that produces an automatic answer. As to the AIP, I confess I haven't followed the details of that particular ruckus. If an AIP officer says Palin was a member, that has enough substance to be worth quoting, but the officer's possible interest means that the statement should be attributed -- in other words, the Wikipedia article shouldn't assert as a fact that she was a member, but should say "Joe Blow, the state party chair, said ...." If instead Joe comes forward with a photocopy of a check written by Palin to AIP marked "membership dues", then it would probably be reasonable for us to report her membership as a fact (without attributing the assertion to Joe), unless and until there's a good-faith dispute (e.g. a contention that the photocopy was altered or that she was buying a gift membership for someone else).

I gather that what's actually happened is that voter registration records were produced showing she was never registered in the AIP. Many people here seemed to take that as refuting the "membership" statement. I'm dubious about that because I suspect that the AIP, as a minor party, functions somewhat like an advocacy organization. For example, there are probably teenagers and noncitizens who can't vote but who consider themselves members of the Green Party. Still, if you think that Joe Blow's statement about "membership" necessarily entails AIP voter registration, and there's no good-faith dispute about the accuracy of the supposed registration records, then I'd be inclined to say that Joe's mere statement doesn't create a good-faith dispute as to the fact of her membership, in the face of the documentary evidence. Joe's statement might still be eligible for inclusion as an indication of how Joe interpreted the situation, if that were deemed relevant and worth reporting. ("Palin has always been a registered Republican, but attended some AIP functions and was considered a member by Joe Blow.")

My point about the demand for minutes is that Wikipedia does not have a requirement that every assertion as to a matter of fact be cited to a documentary source. Lots of things happen in this world that are never recorded in minutes. We frequently (usually, in fact) have to settle for its being recorded by a New York Times reporter or the like who's interviewed someone knowledgeable and published a story so that the information is verifiable. You can avoid all this messy stuff about what's "reasonable" and "good faith" if you say that anything published in the MSM can be taken as true, or if you say that nothing published in the MSM can be taken as true unless backed up by documentary evidence. Neither of those absolute approaches is workable, though.

Obviously, I agree with Bobblehead that applying A.J.A.'s standard consistently would turn the article into a stub. Bobblehead's specific example seems to me to illustrate a somewhat different point, though. The McCain campaign spin on Bridge to Nowhere isn't an outright lie. It's a half-truth that's deliberately misleading though. As more than one person has remarked, Palin was for the bridge before she was against it. Her position at each stage is probably documented solidly enough that we don't need to say "According to John Doe, Palin supported the bridge". We can just say she supported it in 2006 and switched to opposing it in 2007, or whatever the dates are. JamesMLane t c 08:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Why the external links to any Media - such as NYT?

Curious that there are just a few links to media, and that one of the few is the New York Times, one of America's more liberal, mostly anti-Republican publications. Does'nt this create a dangerous precedent? Is this an implied endorsement of NYT? Does Wikipedia actually need links to any news media, since it is so easy for anyone to just look up news on their own? Thanks. Cruth 71.146.66.46 (talk) 06:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The character of the New York Times is well-known. However, the external links seem fair to me. There are also some to official Republican Party sites. In general a person with a serious interest in a topic will check out the references and links. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW we also have to watch out for McCain supporters posting personal smears against Palin in an attempt to make Obama supporters look stupid and mean-spirited. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 06:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

WHY QUOTE THE NEW YORK TIMES? NOTE: I'm a liberal. The New York Times does not conform to my perspective. E.G., If the New York Times had a liberal bias, George W. Bush would never have become president under the circumstances he did. And, ignoring that preliminary, the Iraq Mess could never have happened. (NOTE: Knight Ridder news service -- now owned by McClatchy [slogan: Truth to Power] DID ask the right questions in the run-up to the Iraq Mess, but that didn't dent The New York Times going along with the administration -- as the American people did -- accepting the President and his staff as honorable people, acting in their official capacity in the public interest. A good faith assumption.). The New York Times supports the current balance of power, sense, and stupidity that is the public consensus at any given moment. That's why it can be quoted by anyone as a reliable source (whether wrong or not). Hmmm ... does that phrase ring a bell? :) FINALLY NOTE: Wikipedia is not a forum. These comments are only to explain why the The New York Times is an acceptable source in Wikipedia. In fact, the most respectable source. "The newspaper of record." As smart, and as stupid, as we are collectively... with a bias in favor of the privileged, as usual. (FOR COMPARISON: The Wall Street Journal has a slight bias in favor of a different set of privileged people, determined, it seems, more by a purely economic calculus. Most of the WSJ is a vehicle for economic entities to communicate. For economic interests to maintain political power, there must be some persuading of people without economic resources to believe in the ideology of the economic interests, therefore inducing a slightly higher threshold of B.S. than the New York Times -- which must satisfy a prissier-with-regard-to-fact-without-ideological-blinders group of privileged, who are not all rich. Proofreader77 (talk) 08:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

National Guard pictures

Two images Image:Sarah_Palin_Flight_Simulator.jpg and Image:Sarah Palin Kuwait 13.jpg seem out of place. Their captions have quite overt references to the Alaska national guard, even though the surrounding text doesn't reference national guard (or military matters) in any way.

Just my impression, but seems sort of awkward and an attempt to continue the "active military commander" meme. If editors decide that her relationship to the national guard merits a section in the article, then it probably makes sense to have one of these photos kept, but at present, they are just disconnected opportunities to name-drop the national guard.

Tempted to just remove, but I don't think this is a good article to be bold on, so I'll leave it to others to act on this. --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed and decided already. Please see the archives. Hobartimus (talk) 08:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus can change. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but still checking the archives first is a good idea in any case. Hobartimus (talk) 08:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus can definitely change. I am confused as to the reasoning for the multiple pictures of her with the National Guard. I just looked at a random sampling of Governors and the only references that I saw to the National Guard was if they were actually used in a notable state emergency. Their visits to Iraq where not included (even though the ones I checked did go) and there were no PR photos in their bios to vouch for executive experience, let alone, TWO! I can understand that her visit to Iraq (and the subsequent photo) is of import because that was her only trip overseas, but the other photo should be rethought so we are not caught giving Undue Weight to her technical role with the National Guard.Zredsox (talk) 13:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that the same concern has been raised multiple times in the past underscores its validity. It just feels disproportionate-- particularly the way the captions explicitly mention Alaska National Guard, as opposed to a more generic term for US Military.

If the whole "What exactly was Palin's relationship to the Alaska National Guard" because an explicit part of the article at some point-- which I can easily forsee happening, then the captions might make sense. But as is, in the article this second, it feels like we, wikipedia, are trying to emphasize Alaska National Guard.

Not to imply bad faith. I see a sort of look ahead the national guard topic is probably going to given more coverage in future days-- but I think it's important for us to play catch-up on the issues, not anticipate them. --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The second photo is little more than a random photo. The first one, though, is priceless - a flight jacket, over a miniskirt and black hose. That's on my wallpaper now. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the NG pictures were out of place (not pertinent to adjacent text), I put in some brief text on her NG activities, and moved the photos there. But the text got deleted as unimportant [I don't disagree], and the photos are back where they had been. If text on NG doesn't belong in the article, shouldn't the photos also be removed, and other, more appropriate ones added? Or else, maybe someone else can write a better NG piece and put the pictures there? LarryMorseDCOhio (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

pronunciation

/ˈpeɪlɪn/[citation needed]; What is the source for this? "pay'-lynn" was removed as "nonstandard". Well, source it, remove it or accept "pay'-lynn" also. What do you call those non-latin characters anyway? Why are we including this non-english stuff few can read? The source must include "ˈpeɪlɪn" or it is original research. I suggest both be included as the rational approach. But claiming your original research be allowed but something the average joe can actually understand not be allowed makes no sense. WAS 4.250 (talk) 07:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What does the ' after "pay" mean? I've seen it used to transliterate sounds that don't exist in standard English. A.J.A. (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Those non-Latin characters are called the International Phonetic Alphabet. If you click on the IPA symbols for the pronunciation of Palin's name, you'll be taken to the Wikipedia:IPA for English article, which will help you interpret the IPA version.

The reason to use IPA is that it's a standardized set of symbols with corresponding sounds. If we write "pay'-lynn" how is the second syllable to be pronounced? In some contexts, ly is pronounced like the word "lie", e.g. "lying". Other times, ly is a short vowel sound, like the word "lip" or the female name "Lynn". When you try to make up a pronunciation guide on the spot, the reader must try to guess what your nonstandard version means. By contrast, someone who knows IPA or takes the trouble to check the help page can determine exactly what the sound is, because a particular symbol always represents the same sound.

I was assuming that, in the version "pay'-lynn", the mark after "pay" indicated that the accent was on the syllable before that mark, which is a common convention in dictionaries. In IPA, however, that symbol precedes the stressed syllable rather than following it.

We generally don't consider IPA pronunciation guides to be original research. JamesMLane t c 08:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No, just gibberish. It's more acceptable to present a "rhymes-with" guide along with the IPA stuff, using standard English words that most anyone would know. I could say it rhymes with "mail-in", for example. A more weasily way would be to say it rhymes with Michael Palin's last name. Assuming it does. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the IPA stuff is useless generally, but I doubt it needs a {{fact}} tag. Coemgenus 11:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciations are seldom given in print anyway, unless a name is really unusual. Any video in which her name is mentioned by someone who knows her would be sufficient, if there's any doubt. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin introduction: swear in date vs. elected date

I was comparing the Wikipedia article on Barack Obama with the Sarah Palin article. I noted that in the prologue at the top of the page, prior to the table of contents, the article states, "In December 2006, Palin was sworn in as the governor of Alaska...." However, in the equivalent sentence in the Obama prologue, it reads, "He was elected to the Senate in November 2004 with 70% of the vote." Now, I'm not going to bother with the inclusion of the vote differential in Obama's case, vs. its absence with respect to Palin (though an argument could be made that she deserves a similar electoral factoid here, such as, "defeating a former governor by more than 7%.") What I want to focus on is the issue of whether there wouldn't be more comity between the two entries if we were consistent in using either the date of electoral victory in both opening summaries, or if we instead use the date of swearing into office in both opening summaries. The reason this matters is, researchers may be using these pages to compare the relative length in office of each entry. And many rely primarily on the opening summary, especially as each of these is fairly long and substantial. To avoid confusion and any potential accusation that Wikipedia is featuring, consciously or not, different standards with respect to each candidate in such a way as to diminish Palin's time in office versus Obama's, I suggest that we change the relevant Palin sentence so that it reads, "In November 2006, Palin was elected governor of Alaska." (If you want to make it even more parallel, you could add "defeating a former governor by more than 7%.") If you make the change, keep in mind that the election in each case is mentioned again deeper in the article and needs to be adjusted accordingly, so that they appear for each candidate in roughly the same order. An alternative: we can change Obama's relevant sentence in his prologue to read, "He was sworn into the Senate in January 2005." I leave it to you more experienced editors to decide which version is more relevant and fair -- perhaps the latter, since what matters most is the date a politician actually starts office, not when he or she is elected? In any event, I can't think of any objective rationale for keeping it the way it is. Thanks! Catonow (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What a megillah for a simple concept: State both the election date and the swearing-in date, for both candidates, yes? The Obama omission is probably due to the "everybody knows" that Senators take office the following January. But everyone might not know that, so it would be best to cover it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It also might be a function of the fact that the specific date is in the infobox, and was removed from the lead to avoid clutter (since it's a long lead, for a long article). If the focus is on what she was elected to, then "Elected in November 2006" works. If we're talking about positions held, then "Took office in December 2006" would work better - I'd match this date to the others mentioned. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Track's Gestation Period

There is an apparent back-and-forth on the inclusion of the time elapsed between Palin's marriage and her first son's birth. Personally, I see no value in its inclusion. It's intent is transparently inflammatory and embarrassing, i.e. to suggest that he was conceived prior to their marriage, yet there is no evidence to substantiate that presumption. If the admins choose to allow this partisan shot to continue, I would like the following parethetical statistic included immediately after:

Their first son, Track, was born eight months after their wedding. (In the United States, approximately one in eight babies are premature.)

The citation for this is an existing WP article [15] which contains all the necessary factoids to support it. My personal preference is the inflammatory caveat is removed in-line, but if it's to be kept we need to show why it's there (through its variation from the norm). Fcreid (talk) 10:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

She could be prone to premature birth (the most recent one was). Although there's also the old saying, "The first one could come any time, and the second one always takes nine months." So it could also be a case of "like mother, like daughter." But 7 or 8 months is iffy. If it were less than that, then you'd have something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. In fact, a quick Google indicates the percentage of first-born children may be as high as one in three. (Oddly, that number appears to be growing for reasons I've no interest in researching.) Anyway, it's further indication that this point simply does not merit inclusion. Fcreid (talk) 10:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, there is no reliable sources as to the kid's birthdate. Alaska birth records are not public. Unless a newspaper gets his birthdate by some other reliable means, I fail to see how this info can be sourced. Coemgenus 11:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

About the only way, other than a confession (so to speak) from a family member would be if there were wedding announcements and birth announcements in the newspapers at the time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Track's birthdate was stated in a state court judgment over a speeding ticket and confirms that he was born 8 months after the wedding. I won't give the URL for privacy reasons. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it as irrelevant. Kelly ^hi! 14:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Kelly. Fcreid (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the deletion on two grounds. (1) There are plenty of people who might disagree that this fact is irrelevant to her bio. For example, the editors of the New York Times article whose citation you deleted feel it is of interest to their readers. (2) Let's have some consistency here. Trig Palin's possible conception out of wedlock is clearly more relevant to her life story than her mother's opinion that Palin eloped to spare her parents the cost of a wedding, which Kelly has decided not to delete. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS. The New York Times is a newspaper, its coverage is completely different than that of an encyclopedia. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the trivial quote from her mother. I am going to vote for Obama, BTW, and am editing WP articles in order to help him. The thing is the voting block of people who have had sex before marriage is larger than the other. ;-) Steve Dufour (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's a publicly-available record, then "privacy" does not enter into it. Relevancy does, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

While I'll admit to being a WP n00b, it seems to me that framing disparate facts in manner that leads the reader to conclude something potentially untrue that either undermines or bolsters his/her biography is disingenuous. The elopement doesn't seem to do either, but I don't see its relevance either. Regardless, if the item is reintroduced, it is only fair that the caveat "One in three first-born Americans are premature" accompanies the trail of "facts" (with proper attribution, of course). Fcreid (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I oppose dragging things out of obscure court records and adding birthdates based solely on that for nonnotable persons, since Wikipedians would be acting like private eyes. But in this case mainstream newspapers have discussed the elopement followed 8 months later by the birth. We are not acting like private detectives by including information which was delivered to millions of readers of multiple major newspapers, prominently displayed in a featured news article, and which will remain easily retrievable for the indefinite future. No one can unring the bell. The circumstances of her marriage and the birth of her first child are a biographical detail that would likely be included in any objective biography of Mrs. Palin. It should be included here. Edison2 (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what is the encyclopedic purpose for including that information only on her oldest child? Is it to promote a point of view that he was possibly conceived prior to the wedding? If not, then why? Kelly ^hi! 15:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Newspapers have judged it more important than the exact timeing of each subsequent gestation because it relates to becoming pregnant before marriage. WP:NOTNEWS is not very applicable, since it is an essay about the notability of an article's topic. I hope no one is creating an article purely about Track Palin's birth. The decision to include the 8 month interval in this article should be guided by the fact that it has been judged important enough for discussion by major newspapers as relevant to the biography of the Vice Presidential candidate. See The Globe and Mail, Canada: [16] . Edison2 (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The dilemma is that there is no solid evidence that she actually got pregnant before marriage. Given her daughter's situation, it would fit - like mother, like daughter. But it's all merely inference, with no definitive evidence - to try to prove, of course, that she's a hypocrite about "abstinence". But if her first child was a "preemie", it could have been conceived a month after the wedding. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Alaskan Independence Party Involvement Controversy

The article currenly says: "Palin registered as a member of the Republican Party in May of 1982, and has remained a Republican ever since.[16][17]"

However, it has been suggested that Sarah Palin attended the AIP's 1994 Another AIP Official Says Palin Was at 1994 Convention Members of 'Fringe' Alaskan Independence Party Say Palin Was a Member in 90s; McCain Camp and Alaska Division of Elections Deny Charge and 2000 conventions. The seperatist AIP has a plank that challenges the legality of the Alaskan statehood.

According to Lynette Clark, the chairman of the AIP, Palin and her husband Todd were members in 1994, even attending the 1994 statewide convention in Wasilla. John McCain's running mate Sarah Palin was in Alaskan independence party

She made this video in 2008: Sarah Palin and the Alaska Independence Party. Palin addresses AIP convention

I feel this controversy should be out in the open in the article since it gives additional political background on the presumptive vice presidential candidate.Kgrr (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like McCarthyism. Do you honestly think McCain's people don't already know about this? Do you think he would pick a VP who would include fracturing the Union on her agenda? Has the AIP ever been accused of doing anything illegal? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not McCarthyism by any stretch--there is an NPOV way to state it. Especially the fact she taped a greeting to their convention. Blueboy96 12:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure they know it. And, it's hard to escape the fact of her recorded video. However, the controversy is alive and should be brought up in the Wikipedia article. The AIP is involved with the separation of Alaska from the Union.Kgrr (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It already does state it NPOV. It says she was a member. The question is, who considers this to be controversial? Not McCain's people, apparently. There's a lot of stuff in the Robert Byrd article about the Senator being in the KKK when he was relatively young, and justifiably so - the KKK is or at least was officially regarded as a subversive organization. Is the AIP so regarded? Are they accused of breaking any laws? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

More to the point, is there any record of her saying, "I believe Alaska should secede from the Union"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Has she been in the national public eye to have every minute of everything she's said in public or on the phone on the Internet? I don't think so. However, it's well known what the AIP is all about. In fact, the Wikipedia article on the AIP does mention her being a member. Here is a NY Times article about her disclosures: Palin Disclosures Raise Questions on Vetting "that she was a member for two years in the 1990s of the Alaska Independence Party, which has at times sought a vote on whether the state should secede" Kgrr (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's perfectly clear what its founder thought, and what at least some of its members think. Is there a law against advocating secession? I thought we had freedom of speech in this country. Have they been accused of threatening civil war? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I also fail to see the controversy here. As far as I know, the Republican party does not have an exclusivity clause, and members are free to simultaneously be members of other parties. Also, addressing a group does not demonstrate any endorsement, either explicit or implied, in either direction. AIP didn't endorse her by simply hearing her positions in a video message, nor did she endorse the AIP by accepting their invitation to address them. There is an awful lot trying to be implied here with no basis in any reliable sources, and such unsourced implications do not meet WP:NPOV. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 13:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What's trying to be implied is that we could have a VP who would favor Alaskan secession. There is no evidence of that whatsoever, and unless McCain's an idiot, he wouldn't select someone who had such beliefs. So it amounts to McCarthyism. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"Is there a law against advocating secession?" Yes. It's called sedition.Kgrr (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No, sedition is the advocating of violent overthrow or revolution. Advocating secession, by itself, would not necessarily be sedition, but merely a political viewpoint, which could be pursued perfectly legally. For example, you could go to Congress and ask for repeal of statehood. Or you could go to court and challenge the statehood status. That's not sedition. If you advocate rebellion, a la the U.S. Confederacy, that could be sedition. Does the AIP officially advocate violent rebellion? If so, maybe you should clue McCain in on it directly rather than hoping he'll read about it here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Typing Mistake Bristol's DOB is not 1980

Ref. 114 links to court document that shows her birthyear is 1990 where as the article here states 1980. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.11 (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Since corrected. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Not directly related to Michael Palin

A bit of an opaque statement to include in an introduction IMHO. This statement implies that she is indirectly related to him, which leaves the reader wondering - how? Yet this info isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article.

This statement's inclusion in the intro could be interpreted as a bit of electioneering by enhancing her celebrity power, consciously exploiting and building on people's natural curiosity about the name. However, it isn't encyclopedic to sacrifice the quality of introductions to give the subject a bit more prima facie interest, especially in an article where neutral tone is especially important due to its political content. This ought to be moved into a trivia section and clarified.

91.105.242.61 (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Heath (Palin) is "not related to Michael Palin"? Or, for those who are name-challenged, maybe it could be pointed out that her husband is not related. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we going to list everyone named Heath that she's not related to? I took the sentence out. Coemgenus 14:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Blow-by-blow account of youngest son's birth

The issue was discussed extensively previously, but I've condensed the blow-by-blow biological details about her youngest son's birth. This is still an invasion of privacy, and I'm not sure what point was being made with the whole thing. Kelly ^hi! 14:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Would we be talking about her "leaking amniotic fluid" if she were a man? Unlikely, I think. ;) Ronnotel (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There's now a minor edit war about "water broke" vs. "leaking amniotic fluid". It all presents a great mental picture, doesn't it? I'm waiting for the video. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect we would not, but the fact is the mainstream news media are talking about it. Whatever our own opinions of privacy, this has become a part of the campaign blather. That said, the section shoudl not be over-long, just a spare account of what went on. Coemgenus 14:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Since we're WP:NOTNEWS why should we include such trivial information in such detail just because everybody else is talking about such personal matters? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree on the "spare account". I'm not sure what is going on with all these detailed timelines and medical opinions about "leaking fluid" vs "water breaking". Does Joe Biden have details about his penis in his article? :) Kelly ^hi! 14:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge, but McCain's prostate was reported on in some detail a few years back. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh - definitely in the category of "too much information". Kelly ^hi! 14:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, and Reagan had intestinal surgery while in office, leaving him with a "semi-colon", but I don't think they went into minutia about the procedure. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I took the sentence out in the interest of good taste. BTW I can not imagine anything that would be more likely to get her sympathy from unhappy Clinton voters than the Obama campaign or the media making an issue out of her pregnancies. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Why would we want to repeat campaign blather? If we put it all in here the biography would be hundreds of screens long - we have to choose what is most relevant, discard poorly sourced and NPOV stuff, allocate information to the various sub-articles, etc. I suspect that much of this is reported to feed interest in the case that she is (or is not) Trig Palin's mother, or that she is a careless mother to be, both of which are unfounded rumors that don't belong here unless confirmed. Wikidemon (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Evidently one persons's news = another person's blather. As it stands the paragraph reads strangely: the circumstances of Trig's birth generated surprise because ... [content deleted] ... and she returned to work 3 days later. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Should we just remove all the details? There aren't details on the births of her other children, though this one is possibly notable because it's rare for a female governor to birth in office. (Has any other governor done so? I don't know.) Kelly ^hi! 14:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The point that seems to be ignored here is that IF her water broke and THEN she took an 8-hour trip back to Alaska before seeing an OB doctor, many people would perceive that as poor judgment. If her water broke while in the air, some OBs would probably say that it wouldn't be necessary to make an unscheduled landing. But my point is that the sequence of events does have relevance. The analogy would be if Joe Biden felt chest pains, then boarded an airplane, flew 8 hours, then went to the ER where a diagnosis revealed that he had suffered a heart attack, he would have been taking an unnecessary risk. Some would question his judgment in that scenario. Whether the candidate is male or female and whether the medical issue is related to gender is not what's pertinent. It is about judgment.--Appraiser (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that the purpose for inclusion of the information is some kind of synthesized original research to promote the point of view that she has bad judgment? Kelly ^hi! 15:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

One observation. Palin had previously given birth four times. Given that every woman's birth process is unique, I would argue that prior history establishes her as the world's leading expert on the passage of a fetus through her uterus. Enough with the post-analysis already. Ronnotel (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the entire paragraph. It's common for women work through their entire pregnancy--many don't have a choice. There is a vast range of opinion about what is and is not appropriate during delivery. Early stages of labor are not comparable to a heart attack. There is no suggestion she went against the advice of her OB, and, in any case, pregnant women with four previous births who use their own judgement rather than slavishly follow the advice of their doctor are more the rule than the exception. Furthermore there are real risks associated with delivering in a strange city, in a facility you never checked out, under the care of doctors you never met before. This "story" is all uninformed speculation and does not belong on wikipedia. --agr (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Vetting

I removed a section about a "controversy" that she wasn't vetted. Detailed isnformation on that would belong in the campaign's article (since they did the vetting), not her - I'd like to see what kind of consensus develops there before including a summary here. Kelly ^hi! 14:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be mentioned, maybe, but the detailed coverage surely belongs at the campaign article, not here. (I have grown to hate the word "vetting" over the past few days.) Coemgenus 14:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It is much more campaign related than biographical. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the deleted section to the McCain campaign page. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to have a "Vice Presidential Campaign" section, then we should touch on the vetting as it is the number one issue concerning her appointment in the MSM. Clearly notable.Zredsox (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no question. But it should just be a summary of the consensus information in the campaign article, let's see what develops there. Kelly ^hi! 15:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Another source RE: AIP membership

NYT: Alaska Party Official Says Palin Was Not a Member —Travis^talk 14:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's been pretty thoroughly established that she wasn't a member, but her husband was for a while. Spouses don't necessarily share political opinions - see James Carville and Mary Matalin. Should we just remove the AIP stuff? Kelly ^hi! 14:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that: "Ms. Palin attended the party’s 1994 and 2006 conventions and provided a video-taped address as governor to the 2008 convention." and "Ms. Palin’s husband, Todd, was a former member of the party." is still relevant and cited in that very article. Zredsox (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

McCarthyism. Guilt by association. For an organization that, as far as anyone here can tell, is guilty of no lawbreaking or other wrongdoing. One sentence in the article should be sufficient. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Not McCarthyism, but I do agree that it is "guilt" by her association with the group. She is clearly associated.Zredsox (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The NY Times article debunks her having been a member of AIP, but does not mean her participation in their activities or any documented endorsement of their goals doesn't belong in this article. Just like Joe Lieberman attending the Republican Convention in 2008 and addressing it to endorse its nominee, without registering as a Republican, deserves inclusion in his article. That is not "guilt by association" or "McCarthyism," any more than this. Edison2 (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Lieberman speaking at the GOP convention is simply Lieberman being a "turncoat" from one established party to the other. The attempt to link her with the AIP is an attempt to somehow imply that she supports secession - hence, guilt by association. I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me what illegal activities (if any) the AIP is guilty of. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Should we also include all other organizations that she may have addressed - possibly the Better Business Bureau or the unions? Why is this particular one significant? Kelly ^hi! 15:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Because they advocate independence for Alaska. But have they advocated insurrection? If not, then it's of minor importance - one sentence in the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Without the link of her being a member, it isn't very noteworthy that she happened to speak at a convention. I think we need to look at the AIP reference for Todd as well. Celestra (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

<-Somebody beat me to removal of the AIP stuff - I also removed the Republican registration info as redundant to the infobox. Kelly ^hi! 15:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If she spoke at a KKK Convention would it qualify for inclusion? This party holds extremist views that run counter to the American philosophy of a perfect Union. The fact that Palin attended multiple conventions, is married to a former AIP member and gave an address is highly noteworthy (and why it is being covered in great detail by the main stream media.) Zredsox (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It certainly would, because the KKK is a subversive organization known for many illegal activities. What is the AIP guilty of, other than exercising freedom of speech? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I don't think the party can be characterized as extreme as the KKK. They had a governor elected in the 90s. Sources for the "extreme" claim? Kelly ^hi! 15:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to get into a ridiculous argument about AIP and if they are "extreme" or not. If they were not, you'd have no problem with the inclusion of the relevant AIP material that is being covered extensively in the MSM. Zredsox (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Meh. The AIP is probably now most notable for having pwned a bunch of major media outlets into printing unverified stories about Palin being a member. Kelly ^hi! 15:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Categories

WP:Category says: "Every page in the article namespace should belong to at least one category. The categories to be included, which serve as classifications, should be the significant (useful) topics to which the subject of the article most closely belongs to as a member, and where readers are most likely to look if they can't remember the name of the thing they are trying to look up." In light of that I am going to remove a few of the categories from the article. For instance "white" Americans don't usually feel that the European countries their ancestors came from are "significant" or "useful" to who they are, nor are hobbies. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Category:People from Bonner County, Idaho should have stayed and I'm not sure how she is notable for hunting. BJ^Talk 14:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My bad. I removed that one by mistake. The media has been talking about her hunting a lot. I am not sure if that makes her a notable hunter however. TR has the category. (I took it off Dick Cheney since he is only known as a bad hunter.) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be the subcategory, "Hunting for lawyers". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Check out Dick Cheney hunting incident. It mentions Aaron Burr as the only other VP who shot someone while in office. Maybe there should be a category "United States Vice Presidents with guns". :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

A lot of them have probably had guns. How about "U.S. Vice Presidents who shot someone while in office"? It's also worth mentioning that in Burr's day, the VP didn't have much to do, so he had a lot of free time on his hands, for duels and other fun stuff. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

A future article on "The history of American hunting" might mention her as having had an influence on the public image of hunting. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What's missing, then, is a photo of her taking aim at some dangerous Elk, Moose, or Knight of Pythias. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Recommendation,

I would recommend to form a "Controversy" section which includes:

• Troopergate (see NPR)

• Early Pregnency of Palin's Daughter

and so on......

BTW, who can edit this page?

Saharasky (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Facepalm. BJ^Talk 14:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No controversy section needed, thanks. This article has actually done a pretty good job keeping the negative/positive information well melded in a good flow. Kelly ^hi! 15:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I forget the exact guideline, but we don't do "controversy sections". Coemgenus 15:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not quite true. There is a Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (commentator) for example. However, the nature of his job and style is to court controversy, so that's a different situation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't find it. Ferrylodge would know. Something about content forking. Coemgenus 15:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)