Misplaced Pages

• Support Removal The only reliable source on Sarah Palin's religious perspectives is... Sarah Palin. She hasn't said or written enough on the matter to include. Jclemens (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Precisely what the section is for. Reliably sourced statements about what Palin has said or done. Her quoted view on Creationism is an example. The current section quotes her exactly. Atom (talk) 02:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Oppose Removal for the reasons already provided by users above. Bellagio99 (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support removal. The use of WP for political purposes is improper, and virtually all of the "religion controversy" has been primarily politically inspired. The only person who can actually state Sarah Palin's religious views is Sarah Palin. All the other speculation and anger is of no relevncy to what she, herself, thinks. Looking at it another way, would such a section be considered proper for other political candidates, ascribing opinions of others in a former church to the person at hand? I trust not. Collect (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

As previously stated, we are discussing deletion of a section set aside for actual reliably sourced comments by Palin. Some of the current comments related to her pastor have been removed, and returned a number of times. " If we accurately express her viewpoint with reliable citations, some group of people will be positively influenced, and some of them negatively influenced, That is the nature of politics. We must endeavor to be accurate, fair and NPOV and let the cards fall where they may." Comments of the type you are speaking of should be immediately reverted from this, or any other section. Atom (talk) 02:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• • !Voting is evil ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Misplaced Pages does not work by votes, it works by applying content policies and seeking and establishing consensus by discussing the merits of an edit ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a vote. It's a measure to see how editors think and hopefully reach a consensus. --Floridianed (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Remove immediately as there was never consensus for inclusion. From WP:BLP, "In order to ensure that biographical material of living people is always policy-compliant, written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material."

It's unfortunate that blatant BLP violations such as including disputed material without consensus, happen this easily. BLP states it outright that in this case material MUST STAY OUT form the BLP article until consensus is provided for inclusion. Hobartimus (talk) 07:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This survey is not about the content. It is about whether to have a section on religious perspective, or not. Of course the content must meet Misplaced Pages policies. You act as if you reject the idea of a religious perspectives section based on some temporary non-BLP content that happened to be within the section at the particular time you looked at it. Sure, non-BLP content added to any section should be immediately deleted. But -- What is your opinion on the topic of this survey? See above -- "I discussed and created a section specifically for religious issues. I feel that this benefits the article in many ways."

Hobartimus, It would have been nice if you had not interferred and interrupted the attempt to build a consensus on the matter. As you know, there is a survey in the talk section that was running until midnight tonight. Taking a brief look, indeed I think there would have been consensus for removing the section. But, your interruption of the conclusion of the survey will now always leave that in doubtm rather than the consensus being able to be quite clear, which was my hope. Sure, it is unlikely tha there would have been a vast change -- but someone who wants to have it differently in the future will always be able to argue that the concensus was not clear because the survey was interrupted. Frankly, in the scope of the article life, I don't see how 36 hours of waiting to build a consensus is that huge a time frame, or unreasonable. The benefits of making the consensus clear are huge.

Your comments regarding BLP are complete nonsense. I monitor BLP articles myself. Material that violates BLP should, indeed, be removed immediately. However, had you bothered to read ther header to this survey, you would have realized that no one was trying to support the content of the section in question. That has been dynamic during this discussion. The discussion was on having a seperate section for documenting Sarah Palin's religious background, her viewpoints that display her opinions about religion and things of that nature. Of course, like every other article on Misplaced Pages, and every other BLP article any content in that section would have had to be properly sourced from a reliable source, notable and pertinent. If you check the article history, every time someone has added unsourced material to that section, or opinionated bias, it has been removed. Their WAS originally consensus for inclusion of a section for religion, despite your personal opinion to the contrary.N o one has claimed there was a desire for a section for biased opinion. Your interference in the matter was completely innapropriate. As there was something like fifteen people who indicated their perspective on this matter, how is it that you think your sole opinion should predominate over all of them?

As I said, had the survey gone to conclusion, it seems pretty likely to me that there would have been a consensus for not having a seperate section for religious perspective. Your interuption of that process will now make that arguably unclear. Unarguably clear would have been preferable. Atom (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Oppose Removal/Merge With Personal Life Section. Sarah Palin's religious identification has become a political issue (she has made it one), and the information does not violate BLP. Instead, it is relevant, factual, cited, notable material. I am particularly upset about the repeated removal of information regarding Sarah Palin's baptism, and the fact that she identifies as "getting saved" at the Wasilla Assembly of God Church, and has appeared to use that fact as a political stance. It probably belongs in her political positions page as well. I would not oppose a similar section on Joe Biden's religious/spiritual/existential beliefs.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

How about on the Obama page? Does it have a section on Black Liberation Theology? Does it have a section on statements and discussion about Jeremiah Wright? That Obama's children were baptized there, Obama's marriage performed there, that Obama called Wright his "mentor", that he took the title of his book from one of his sermons etc etc...? These are all sourcable facts to thousands of sources but they were not considered important enough for inclusion in the Obama article. Why would facts that are essentialy trivia in comparsion be included here like qoutes about "getting saved"? How many qoutes in the Obama article relate to religion? Hobartimus (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Strawman. No one has suggested that a religious perspective section in this article, or the Obama article should contain innapropriate content, such as that you have described. We have consistently talked about describing Palin's religious background, opinions (as supported by her statements -- from cited verifiable sources). Material that DOES violate BLP should not be in this article, or the Obama article. Quotes about her being baptized, and being saved, indeed are not notable enough for most sections in the article. The purpose of a "religious perspectives" section is precisely for that kind of content, because some people DO care about those things. Would/do any of those kinds of "trivia" relate to how well she would perform in office?? No, but this is a biographical article, not an election advertisement. Although I don't care if she was baptized, or whether she was a Catholic once or not, or how long she has attended a particular church, apparently those trivia are of interest to a wide number of people of faith. That information is on topic in a religious section where it is not in a political views section. Atom (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Removal at this point in time. Policy compliant content can not be removed because of how it reflects on the subject of the article. It is already obvious from this survey that there will be no clear consensus to either remove or include the section. Editors will have to learn to work together. IP75 75.36.70.205 (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

support removal Giving weight to religious issues like this is only useful for a psychological biography - which is nothing but a POV guessing game behind a person intent to show causation between a persons public persona and actions with their internal psychological life. Psychological biographies are necessary and important works, but[REDACTED] does not represent that form of biographical data. Proper cautions MUST be used when writing for that style.

Again, my example - It would be the same if someone pushed Obama > Obama#Cultural_and_political_image > Cultural_and_political_image_of_Barack_Obama > Cultural_and_political_image_of_Barack_Obama#Religion > Jeremiah_Wright_controversy > Jeremiah_Wright > Black_liberation_theology > Liberation_Theology > Marxism correlations into one off pages from Obama. It's a long road to get to the grounding of the theology that Obama has been participating in the last 20+ years and could be used in a psychological biography justly - but it's inappropriate for his bio on wikipedia.

Theosis4u (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is a survey about whether a section in "Religious perspective" should exist in the article, not a discussion of any particular content. It is a biography, so of course a background of her religious upbringing and stated views related to religion are appropriate. You seem to imply that religious details of a public figure are not appropriate in a biography. Some people are interested in a variety of religious based details. We seek to show accurately views that she has expressed and actions (related to religion) that she has taken. POV opinions or attempts to explain or imply her psychologically are not appropriate. Your example related to Obama is not applicable because we should not let that kind if information into this article, or the Obama article. No one has suggested that was the sections purpose. Of course proper caution should be given, that is the purpose of our BLP policies. The information that has been in this section in the past, and not disputed (other than to find the right wording) include her proclamation as Governor of "Bible Week" and "Christian Heritage Week". Also, she has given an opinion and expressed a view on Creationism in the schools. People have tried to find a place for how long she went to each church and when she was baptized. This gives a section where topics of that nature (properly sourced and cited, and NPOB, etc) may reside. Atom (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, much of that material already resides in the existing sub-articles. This article is supposed to summarize those sub-articles (see WP:SS), and I think this article currently does a pretty good job of that.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a great deal of detail that is not given because it is not on topic in the section it resides. Where is the quote of what Palin actually said related to Creationism? The only article content on that is "Palin supports teaching creationism along with evolution in public schools, but says it does not have to be required" The section we had in the religious perspective section quoted what she actually said, and lets the reader form their own conclusion. Where does it talk about her proclaiming "Bible Week" and "Chritian Heritage Day"? That's right -- edited out of the article. Where does it discuss her baptism, why she was baptized a second time, her childrens baptism, the types of churches that she chooses to attend, Why she was Baptized Catholic as a child, but is now Pentasoctal? Where she described herself as "saved". All trivial? They wouldn't be in a section about her religious experience. They aren't appropriate for any of the currently existing sub-sections. So, when you say "already resides in the existing sub-articles" you mean, the information of interest to you are in the sub-articles. Atom (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Atom, let's take the Bible Week proclamation. It's currently mentioned in Political positions of Sarah Palin, and there's a discussion at the talk page there about whether it's even notable enough for that article. And you want to include it in this article? Please see WP:SS. This article is merely supposed to summarize what's in the sub-articles.

Thanks for pointing that out. I missed that. Atom (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware that "National Bible Week" began in 1941, when the first Bible Week proclamation was made by President Franklin D. Roosevelt? As of 1996, governors in 29 states declared National Bible Week. Governor Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania was in charge of the Governors' Committee for NBW. Every president since FDR has done likewise. And yet you are asserting that this one proclamation by Palin, out of hundreds she has issued, must go here in the main article about her. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I hope you at least see why most other editors have respectfully disagreed with you.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't making any judgements on whether it was positive or negative. It is a fact, and religious in nature. I didn't see how FBI day and Amateur Radio Week was applicable to her religious viewpoints. And I didn't say that it must go in the article. I did not bring it into the article in the first place. You had said that the material removed from the former section had been relocated. I pointed out that I did not think it had. I hear what you are saying -- I don't think most other editors disagree with me. I certainly think that you do. Atom (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• I support the permanent removal of this section. In the United States, religion is a private matter. We respect the rights of our citizens to worship whichever God they wish in whatever manner they may choose. Accordingly, any material on religion in a WP:BLP belongs in a section on the person's personal life, unless that person is professionally involved in religion. Governor Palin, while deeply religious, is not a person of religion, she is a politician. Despite the complete lack (so far in what I've seen) of any evidence that she has any desire to use the power of Government to further her religious views or force them on anyone else, there have been continual attempts to insert material in this article implying that she wishes to do so and is some kind of dangerous religious nut. The "religous perspective" section and especially the POV-pushing material in it has that exact goal. It is inapporpriate.--Paul (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I have asked for an admin who has not participated in the article to close this survey so that we can all move on. Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Request_for_admin_to_evaluate_survey Atom (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• not an admin, but....My take is there is not clear consensus due to a couple of items. 1) some commentors were still focused on the blp aspects of the information rather then on atom's simple question about sectionization/layout of the article, 2) the arguementation by atom of each person who disagreed with having such a section, and 3) POV of some commentors who would like this to be a political add, rather than a dynamic neutral biography. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Pregnancy with Trig

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IF, and only IF, there is consensus to include this information, there are quotes from Palin herself in People, the Associated Press, and Anchorage Daily about her being shocked, sad, and that it was challenging coming to terms with a Down's diagnosis. Regards. FangedFaerie (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Parentage

I believe it may be appropriate to report upon the controversy over the parentage of the child. It is widely believed that the child is actually her grandchild. There is also the controversy over her claim that her water broke when she was in Texas yet she flew to Alaska to give birth. I do not wish to commit slander nor do I wish to enter into an editing war.Dstern1 (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There were continual unsubstantiated rumours that the child was her grandchild - possibly fuelled by the actual pregnancy of her child. But there's been nothing substantiated. Unless that appears, the only use we have for the rumour is to demonstrate that some people are prepared to circulate unsubstantiated rumour, and that's hardly news. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It is probably as "widely believed" as Elvis Presley still being alive. Yet, I gather that an inclusion of the unsubstantiaded rumours in the article could be appropriate. --Hapsala (talk) 04:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I can attest that someone did, in fact, attempt this... and it was quickly reverted. Jennavecia 18:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Never-the-Less, it is well sourced that she reported her water broke when she was in Texas, yet flew to Alaska to give birth. The events as she reported them have been highly criticized. I agree that the question of the child's parentage has not been well sourced.Dstern1 (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The women has had five children, and I would dare to say that she is the world's greatest expert on the functions of her own reproductive system. Kelly 01:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Further, it is irrelevant. The child was diagnosed before birth. Is there any medical evidence showing that the child was negatively impacted from Palin's travel from Texas to Alaska? Jennavecia 18:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I assume the point is to imply that flying from Austin to Texas after your waters broke is somehow odd and suspicious? Regards, Ben Aveling 09:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Just odd. We don't need to get into "suspicious". Some people find it laudable. It was mentioned on Meet the Press by a correspondent who called her "one tough lady" or some such. It was mentioned from the podium at the Republican National Convention in a similar context. It was prominently reported in the Anchorage Daily News after she delivered. Including it in our article is obviously correct, and would be a no-brainer except that so many editors got caught up in excluding the speculation about Trig's parentage that they wanted to exclude anything remotely relating to the circumstances of his birth. JamesMLane t c 03:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Many things do not belong in a NPOV biographical page. This is one of them. Just because you find it important, does not make it so. Collect (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any NPOV issue here. Several different versions have been suggested that discuss the subject neutrally (neither hailing Palin's "toughness" nor condemning her "irresponsibility"). As for importance, Collect's comment is correct that my personal opinion is of little weight. That's why I cited the judgment of several non-Misplaced Pages sources. JamesMLane t c 23:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is perfectly appropriate. The fact that the lady got on an airplane after her water broke shows how shows her use of logic and reasoning and perhaps a bit of her personality. I can find no documentation of anyone recommending airplane travel after breaking water. Every reference I can find states that you should consult with doctors and head for a hospital as a birth is about to occur. What she did is far from normal. 71.97.196.191 (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Trig's Birth

MOVED BELOW

Abstinence only AND contraception education

72.86.7.161 (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC) I'm not authorized to edit, so I'll put it here.

This line contains a mistake.

Palin opposes sex education and endorses the teaching of abstinence-only sex education in schools.

This would be correct:

Palin supports contraception education, and also endorses the teaching of abstinence-only sex education in schools.

Here is the reference:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-sexed6-2008sep06,0,3119305.story

I am not so sure that is a mistake. The current GOP platform, which she has endorsed as a whole, makes clear opposition to teaching about contraception.--Dstern1 (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I would think anything she says on her own overrides anything in the platform. I made this change but retained the current well-source claim that she opposed explicit sex-education in schools.--Paul (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Reading the GOP Platform does not support the claim that it opposes contraception. http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Values.htm "We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. " It does oppose school based _clinics_ which provide abortion and contraception services. Also it opposes schools recommending or requiring psychotropic medications for children. If one were to include the entire GOP platform material on this isse, that would be fine. Making statements which are not 100% accurate is not fine. Collect (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand - it said clearly that she supported contraception (though in a different word order conveying less of a focus on 'support,' 'support', 'support') prior to your edit. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

She made her comment "supporting contraception," which is far from clear, in 2006. Is there anything current which clarifies her position?Jimintheatl (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Do statements have a "sell by" date? Absent contradictory statements from Palin, why would a 2 year old statement be invalid? Surely many of the quotes in this article are far older. Collect (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the "sell by" date is at issue here. What's at issue, to me at any rate, is what the heck she means by "support," specifically. FangedFaerie (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The article now says and she is supportive of "abstinence-only" sex education, although in 2006 said she supported contraception. This is factually incorrect. Palin has never publicy repudiated her statement supporting conceptration being discussed in sex-ed education. The Squicks (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that two very reliable sources-- and -- say that she supports comphrehensive sex education, I changed the article to reflect that. The Squicks (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus edits

I take issue with the recent edits by Hobartimus, some of which seem heavy-handed and involved the removal of large sections of well-cited information. I won't defend all of the material -- some of it needed a major haircut -- but removing all material on her policy positions on foreign policy and the environment, for example, is excessive. (Again I do agree that these sections should be kept trim.) I also argue that the material on her religious views is relevant, but the summary as Hobartimus presented it is probably sufficient. Arjuna (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The religious aspect is discussed above in several threads , it involves adding a huge religious section on top of the religion discussed as part of "personal life section" as I read the relevant policy, BLP in light of the above talk discussions especially this should stay out per BLP until consensus for inclusion. I have no extra reservations for any other part of my edit (I did change some smaller other things, feel free tweak/change anything there). My comments were specific to the presence of the religious section.Hobartimus (talk) 10:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

@Hobartimus. It is surprising that you have changed the image which accompanies the lead without any discussion with the many editors that are here (or will be here). Please revert your own edit and open a discussion before you take it upon yourself to make MAJOR changes to THE MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLE AT WIKIPEDIA. Also, regarding your changes to what was the religion section. Since the campaign of John Fitzgerald Kennedy (you remember him), a candidates religion has been of the utmost importance for the general public. There was no consensus to change what was. Editors were asked to give their opinion and there was an even split. No consensus was reached and yet you changed it. I know you have your reasons but my ability to assume good faith is starting to wain. Kennedy's Catholicism was one of the major discussion points in the media and on Main Street America PRIOR to his election. People want to know and we are obligated to give them pertinent information in a format that is obvious...not hidden.--Buster7 (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Buster, her religious beliefs are described very adequately in her own words in the Personal section of the biography. That is as much as we know with respect to Palin. I would be anxious to include manifestations of her beliefs as demonstrated by her personal and professional conduct, but everything thus far as been thinly veiled attempts to categorize her based on religious ideology and not actions. For example, find some reliably sourced information that she proselytized others in her community, spoke in tongues at a local supermarket, etc. Even more informative would be reliably sourced information that she governed based on her beliefs, e.g. she enacted statutes to close liquor stores on Sunday, initiated legislation introducing creationism in schools, etc. In other words, keep the religious crap in context of a person's biographical story. Fcreid (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Religious crap??????--Buster7 (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

FCreid, you are welcome to your opinion. Other people differed, which is why there was a discussion, and an effort to find consensus underway. The section was precisely for what you indicated. Information that was not true to her own words and actions are not allowed by BLP. The section was constantly changing, but several editors were working to keep any material that properly met[REDACTED] polices remained in the section. It referenced her viewpoints on teaching creationism in her own words. HOw can that be "thinly veiled attempts to categorize her based on religious ideology and not actions"? It refences her actions as Governor to " proclaim "Christian Heritage Week" and "Bible Week" in Alaska. How is that an attempt to categorize her ideology? Some people seem to asume that knowledge of those things would be considered to be negative by the American people, and yet, those opinions and values are what got her elected as Governor. Large numbers of Americans would view those as positive things. They would, in your own words, "be anxious to include manifestations of her beliefs as demonstrated by her personal and professional conduct". Atom (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Atom, all of those things you described are welcome in the article. Include her quoted words on allowing debate between creationism and evolution in the classroom while not desiring it be part of the curriculum and properly referenced material related to this "Bible Week" and whatever in her political history section. Include her decision to bring her Down Syndrome child to term as a manifestation of her anti-abortion beliefs in Personal section. Just resist the urge to include the speculative and intentionally fear-mongering when no evidence exists. Fcreid (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think you are understanding what I have been saying all along. Hobartimus apparently disagrees with you and I. (Could you give me a diff of where I have included any speculative or intentionally fear-mongering content? I am unaware of having done that.) Atom (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've never edited the main article, so I don't know who did what. I can tell you the majority of the new section on religion was gross exaggeration, but I have no idea who added what pieces, and the part about "dispensationalism" that made it into her Personal section yesterday was nonsensical. I don't think there's a consensus for creating a whole section on religion, though. Those salient points above would be better situated in the Personal (re: her Down Syndrome child) or political portions (under accomplishments as governer, mayor, etc.) Simply creating an entire section creates undue weight on the topic. Fcreid (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, people keep adding unsourced opinion all over the article. Just because someone adds an unsourced opinion to the polital views section, we don't decide to delete the whole political views section, some editor just removes the opinion. I don't see how the religious perspective section should have been any different. I respect your opinion that there may not have been a need for a seperate section. I disagree, and discussed it in talk many times as to why it made sense (IMO). Regardless, other people had opinions either way about it too, and were discussing it to find a consensus (See Talk:Sarah_Palin#Brief_Survey_--_Religious_Perspective We were scheduled to end the discussion at midnight, and then would have taken action based on the prevailing consensus. Perhaps your opinion would have been part of that consensus -- Hobartimus interrupted the process and decided for all of us though. Atom (talk)

Hobartimus, why was your opinion more important than the fifteen editors working to find a consensus on the issue? If someone had inserted information in violation of BLP into that section, couldn't you have just deleted the innapropriate material and wait another 16 hours to finish finding consensus on the appropriate material? Or are you saying that anything religious in nature is in violation of BLP? Atom (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I note that the section discussing her political opinions about teaching Creationism in schools seems to be gone from the article now. Even though we had minimized it to a direct quote to avoid bias in any direction as much as possible. Atom (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Let us not leave the photo change in the underbrush of prior discussions. This was a MAJOR change to the article. The picture should not have been changed without discussion. I have made a pledge not to revert anything in the article but I would hope that some other editor can revert.--Buster7 (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the new picture. Fcreid (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Endorse the changes made by Hobartimus. Contentious material in BLPs needs to be removed until there is consensus for inclusion. All the Dominionism garbage was, frankly, apparently some kind of attempt to make her look like the Martin Sheen character in The Dead Zone and needed to go. The editors at Barack Obama have been extremely sensible about applying WP:UNDUE to the theology espoused by some members of Obama's church, and we need to emulate their example. Kelly 14:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"@Hobartimus. It is surprising that you have changed the image which accompanies the lead" Yes it's very surprising as I didn't change the photo in the lead at all. It was who changed the main photo in this edit he used one of the photos from the body of the article and moved it up. Then Kelly replaced the good old picture that we always had in this edit but we lost that picture from the body of the article this way, since Zizi used it to replace the main. So with all this we have 1 less picture in the article, please reinsert that photo that was lost. Hobartimus (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Explain to me how this violates BLP "Palin supports teaching creationism in public schools. "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum...Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both." She has also stated, "I won't have religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism."" or this "In October of 2007, she signed the "Christian Heritage Week" Proclamation which "reminds Alaskans of the role Christianity has played in our rich heritage." in conjunction she declared the week of November 18-25, 2007 as Bible Week in Alaska. "the National Bible Association reminds Alaskans and people of all faiths of the Bible's unique place in American life."" Or anything else that had been in that section. Anything that had been added that violated BLP, had been consistently removed. Atom (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it violations BLP, but it is inaccurate. This section from the political positions article is accurate and neutral:

Palin supports allowing the discussion of creationism in public schools, but says it does not have to be part of the curriculum. She has said: "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum...Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both." She has also stated, "I won't have religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism."

Note that it doesn't claim she wants creationism taught in school, as your version does.--Paul (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a version. I did quote the most recent incarnation of that above. I have seen a number of different versions. Whatever ends up in that section should be accurate. The version that I most recently quoted is accurate. The version you quoted, and the one I quoted say "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information." I don't know who characterized her words to mean "teach Creationism in the schools" But I think when she says "teach both" she is advocating allowing the teaching of Creationism, isn't she? Regardless, the next edit could just as easily change that to "advocates allowing teaching of Creationism in the school also" or "advocates allowing both Evolution and Creationism to be taught". Whatever it changes to, it needs to remain true to the citation, and the full context of her words. Atom (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is she's talking out of both sides of her mouth. Either evolution is taught in public schools or not. The sources give conflicting accounts on whether she says it should or should not be, and I think this is from inconsistent and deliberately ambiguous statements so she can have it both ways. If teachers are told they can, or must, teach creationism alongside evolution it is part of the curriculum (and thereby illegal). If they are not, it is not. Perhaps there is someone here who knows more about state education policy than me, but I don't think it means anything to tell a school that they should be allowed to "discuss" something if it comes up. Of course they are. If something comes up in the classroom then of course the teacher may discuss it - saying this obvious fact is not a policy position. Although I had initially supported including the material because it is an important hot-button issue, I simply don't see that we can say anything meaningful about her position based on the sources. If all that we can determine is that she's not really taking a position, that's not notable enough to include. Wikidemon (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Let us ALL listen to one of the Leaders of America,...."You know, don't be afraid of information". I'M OFF TO CHURCH! lol...--Buster7 (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

From WP:BLP "In order to ensure that biographical material of living people is always policy-compliant, written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material." This makes it clear that there must be consensus in order to include highly disputed material into a BLP, after reading the above talk page and threads I determined that there was no consensus for inclusion of a huge religion section and that religion be discussed multiple times (personal life section and other section) and the "burden of proof" demanded by WP:BLP was not met. Thus I removed the material until consensus is reached. Concurerntly BLP makes it quite clear in order to "Restore" or "Undelete" this disputed material you must be able to show valid consensus. If someone "Restores" or "undeletes" this disputed material without showing consensus that's a direct conflict with the above quoted passage from WP:BLP. Hobartimus (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No, editors should respect consensus, and not act unilaterally in the middle of a productive discussion. It's clearly not a BLP issue to state a candidate's political positions. I think WP:WELLKNOWN is the section you're looking for. However, the addition of any disputed content (or deletion of any long-standing comment) needs to be done with consensus. I re-added the creationism and abstinence material, but later self-reverted due to the number of edits I've done today and also a concern that her favoring of teaching creationism in schools (which is well-sourced) is either equivocal and/or does not translate into a policy position (sources do not agree on this). Overall the edits were far too bold and run a bit of roughshod over consensus and orderly editing process. If people delete or add large sections of material at a time the article is going to degrade in format as well as content.Wikidemon (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You should really read the relevant part of BLP. Hobartimus (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Palin waving-RNC-20080903.jpg The image that was LOST after the edit of user:Zizi-EU please reinsert somewhere

Hobartimus -- here is what the section looked like immediatly before you took action to remove it based on WP:BLP It is quite different than when I went to bed last night. It looks like numerous edits have been made to add material, and then have that material removed, etc as well as the section being renamed, moved around, etc. It looks like you are not the only person who did not respect the attempt to build consensus. However, looking at that section as you must have seen it, I see a number of things that concern me as not being appropriate per BLP, or meeting other standards. For instance, "Palin’s former pastor believes that her religious beliefs will affect her political positions, for example by encouraging her to be a caretaker of the environment, but Palin has stated that she would not allow her personal beliefs to dictate public policy" I would have reverted. Other peoples opinions, including her pastors, are not appropriate. Pretty much that whole first paragraph also is not appropriate and I myself would have cut (if I had been given the opportunity). The other sections though, for instance discussing her views on creationism, using her own words, and her actions to proclaim Christan Heritage Week, and Bible week in Alaska. The correct edit would have been to do what myself, or Ferrylodge (who seems to have very different views than my own) would have just removed the sections that had been recently added that violated BLP. The section, as well as the other content, had seemed to be there with consensus for some time.

Now, you know that many editors were discussing this at Talk:Sarah_Palin#Brief_Survey_--_Religious_Perspective IMO the consensus would likely have ended up in determining to not have such a section. The survey would have ended at midnight tonight. You could have merely removed the select material that violated the BLP, and then added your opinion to the consensus, and then (with consensus, instead of discord) taken action upon completion of the consensus. Your action to do that unilaterally rather than waiting a few hours was essentially a slap in the face of all of those people participating, including people who had the same viewpoint on the topic as yourself.

IMO opinion, your rationale that the section was deleted because it violated BLP is specious and lame. Your actions disrupting a process underway involving many editors was disrespectful and uncivil. My recommendation is to, in the future, think first, and then act, rather than taking action -- and then thinking about it. I mean that respectfully, as it is a lesson that I had to learn at one time. Atom (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP is clear. During the discussion material stays out. What if discussion determines that a piece of material is defamatory, libelous or undue? This is why it cannot stay in the article for the duration of the discussion. Once discussion is over you have consensus you put it back, and not before when it's potentially undue or inappropriate. There was no consensus to include it and it was highly disputed, so it had to go per BLP. Hobartimus (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

For the most part it is not a BLP issue. The fact that so many people are objecting, even those who favor deleting the material as you did, ought to tell you something. Please work with other editors rather than waving the BLP flag to justify controversial nonconsensus edits. You can see, from just a few minutes ago, what happens when an editor thinks that their personal viewpoint is more important than consensus. -

BLP "In order to ensure that biographical material of living people is always policy-compliant, written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material."

Show me a thread with consensus and I will restore the material. However BLP is clear that you can not undelete or restore controversial material without consensus. Hobartimus (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

We aren't discussing any particular content here. Removing unnaceptable content is fine. You removed a whole section that included acceptable content AND recently added content that might violate BLP. You should have just removed the content that vilated BLP. Atom (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion underway was not about specific material or content. The discussion was related to having a section on Religious Perspective. No one was trying to propose any particulare text or content, just that the section, generally, be a place for appropriate religious perspective. I brought this into talk and found what I believed to be a consensus for that section being included. I included it. The next morning, people who had not participated in the discussion disputed the consensus, and wanted it removed. Rather than giving my opinion again, or removing it against consensus based on two or three other peoples opinion, or arguing about it, I started a survey to add clarity to whether the section should be removed or not. You interrupted that process. Even if there had not been prior consensus, the BLP policy applies to content related to the person that BLP applied to. Using the BLP to limit what section titles were appropriate, an editorial descision, not a content decision, would have been innapropriate use of that policy for something other than the concerns about the reputation of the person involved -- the purpose of BLP.

The section did have prior consensus to be there, and by your words quoting BLP, it met that. I saw some content in the section that had been recently added. You, I or anyone seeing content that violated BLP should have immediately removed that content. Your removal of the section and all of the material in it did NOT meet BLP. The section itself had prior consensus and was being discussed, and anyway, BLP policies do not apply to whether a section should be there or not, only content. (perhaps it would aply to a biased section title). I think you would have a hard time justifying that a section titled "Religious perspective" violated BLP. A majority of the content in that section had been around for some time, did not violate BLP, and had consensus for being in the article. Also, looking through the talk page, I don't see where anyone discussed or was disputing the content in that section (either the content that BLP did apply to, or the content that BLP did not apply to.) Your action to remove the entire section was heavy handed and did NOT meet the standards of BLP. Your BLP concerns (if that had been the motivation) should have been directed at merely removing the content that did not meet BLP, like any other editor would have done, and like other editors had done before you.

Also, I note, should you want to say that you moved the good content elsewhere, that I don't see her viewpoint on teaching of Creationism in the article anymore. Atom (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I qouted the section of BLP that was being violated at least three times now so I will not quote it again, but it's pretty clear what was going on. Many editors felt that a whole section dedicated to religion alone would be grossly undue and would misrepresent Palin to be some sort of religious figure. At the point I edited the religion related material was overwhelming had it been in the article about a Bishop. Editing on BLP articles is set up a different way "In order to ensure that biographical material of living people is always policy-compliant" this does not mean "only BLP policy compliant". BLP articles must be compliant with all other policies and guidelines such as WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:SUMMARY and all the others. Compliance can be ensured with the BLP policy setting the standard of inclusion very high. Those who seek to include massive changes such as an establishment of a whole new section MUST achieve consensus. It's not good enough to jam several pages worth of content into a BLP without consensus and hope it's compliant with WP:UNDUE and all the others. Therefore BLP put the burden of proof on those who wish to include massive changes such as a new massive section on religion. If this burden of proof was not met enforcing BLP demands that the content be removed until consensus is reached. BLP policies apply to the whole article the sections included. A biography of a living person is not the best place for leaving potentially undue, and/or inappropriate material in the article not for days not for hours not for the duration of the discussion. You lost nothing by my edit, no process was "interrupted" as you claim. Once there is consensus the section can be put back in. The only possible harm here is keeping inappropriate material in the article. There is no possible harm from not having controversial and highly disputed material in the article. And once again I must point out that this is for the duration until the religious section gains consensus. Hobartimus (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, and it is important. Other people seem to share your concerns. I certainly share some of them. The addition of a new section was not a massive change, and had already taken place. BLP does not apply to that, that is an editorial discussion. BLP could apply to the content, and you are right to remove the kind of content that you describe that violated BLP. If there was not a section for religion in the article, those people still would have added the innapropriate material -- just someplace else. If your concern was innapropriate content that violated BLP, you should have removed the innapropriate content that violated BLP. That is what I have consistently been doing. The fact is that there is a religious perspective to Sarah Palin, and as a Biography, that is on topic. Her religious upbringing, stated opinions about religious issues that affect us, and actions that are related to religion are an important part of who she is and what she has done. Readers and editors want to know those things, and they are within the purpose and purview of Misplaced Pages.

What you are essentially trying to enforce is that appropriate and good content that is related to her religious side is being drowned out because of your fear that someone will put something that is not approproate to BLP in that section. Of course anything in that section should meet WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:SUMMARY, and all other policies. No one has suggested otherwise.

The article is not a platform for the 2008 election, it is a biography. It is not our concern about whether information included is favorable to getting her elected, or not. It has to be facts that are cited from reliable sources, and balanced according to NPOV. If someone makes a decision about how to vote based on that she declared a week in November to be "Bible Week" in Alaska, or that she has supported allowing discussion of Creationism in the schools, then so be it. Given thay she was elected to Governor based on some of those positions, I think there are large numbers of people that would look on that as favorable, not unfavorable. Regardless of how they might look on it, we are trying to state facts here. It is not our job to determine whether her stance on Creationism should be included, or not, on the basis of how it might influence voters. It is our job to explain that position accurately. Atom (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. There are no substantive arguments for excluding well sourced and neutral presentation of material. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a sufficient argument. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The primary substantive argument is WP:SS. We should not be repeating everything that's in the sub-articles here in this article. We need to summarize. Jossi, almost all the material that you're referring to is already in Political positions of Sarah Palin (not to mention the new article Cultural and political image of Sarah Palin).Ferrylodge (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Comparison to other candidates' "Religious views"

I think we should be looking to the model of the other candidates' articles as a model for the weight on religion in this article. John McCain and Joe Biden contain only brief mentions of their denominations. Barack Obama, a featured article, contains the following paragraph in the "Family and personal life" section:

In The Audacity of Hope, Obama writes that he "was not raised in a religious household." He describes his mother, raised by non-religious parents (whom Obama has specified elsewhere as "non-practicing Methodists and Baptists") to be detached from religion, yet "in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I have ever known." He describes his Kenyan father as "raised a Muslim," but a "confirmed atheist" by the time his parents met, and his Indonesian stepfather as "a man who saw religion as not particularly useful." In the book, Obama explains how, through working with black churches as a community organizer while in his twenties, he came to understand "the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change."

I believe we should be striving similar neutrality and weighting in this article. Kelly 18:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is dynamic, and I think that a Biography of these individuals should fairy address all aspects of their life, including their religious upbringing and values. Just becasue those article do not have sections on that now, does not mean that they may not. Suggesting that biographical information regarding religion should not be in an article about Palin because it is not in an article about Biden makes no sense. Do we strive to make all Biographies the same? They are different individuals, and if there is a significant religious component to the life of Biden, or any other person we make a biographical article about, it should be included within the balance of NPOV and UNDUE. Atom (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the material presented is really trying to build a psychological bio which is fundamentally a POV biography on the person. Inclusion of these references is an attempt to have the read make correlations between their religious beliefs and political motives. The whole issue is best avoided and dropped from all living and political bio's. If someone says in their political advert on t.v., "I'm running in this campaign because God says I should and he gave me a list of things to do." that is something else altogether. The politician is giving us a hard cold fact of their political motive based on religious belief and interjected it in the public sphere. These references we are talking about with Palin aren't even remotely like that. Theosis4u (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the way you spin that -- "Psychological bio". *chuckles* Of course, this is Misplaced Pages -- it is a biography -- not a political advertisement. In a biography we talk about a number of aspects and attributes of a person and their life experience and history. Of course religious information is part of that. For Sarah Palin, it is, in fact pervasive throughout her life, not some unrelated and unimportant trivia. Perhaps some people will try to make some correlation between her religious experience and whether they want to vote for her or not. That is not our problem. It is our job to provide the information as accurately and fairly as possible in a non-biased way, or if there are strong, varying (but citable) views, to express those views in a balanced way. It is natural and normal that people want to know about other people. Religious people want to know the religious experience that other people, especially notable people, have had. If they choose to use the biolgraphy on Misplaced Pages as a source of information to help them learn more about Palin, they often want to know if she is like them, if she has similar life experiences, values and attitudes.

Trying to suggest that anything religious in nature should be removed from all biographies of living people, and all politicians is outrageously silly. If we should decide to have a section that is primarily about Palin's religious nature in this article, the content needs to meet all of the standards that we always apply to all other articles, especially BLP policies. NO one has suggested differently. It is not our job to spin the article to Palin's benefit, nor to make her look bad. It is our job to find information that is notable, has reliable sources and meets our other guidelines and present it in an organized fashion for our reader. Not to try and guess the intent of the reader and how they might use that data. And certainly not to spin the data so that it leads our readers in a particular direction. If one of our readers is looking to build there own "psychological Bio" in order to determine who they want to vote for, that is their business. Atom (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Apples and Oranges... There is no other candidate (McCain, Biden, or Obama) with profound (or extremist, depending on your POV) religious views, and that wear their religion as Palin does, therefore it is appropriate to have substantial coverage in her bio. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head. While I find nothing in her behavior indicating "extremist" religious views, and most firsthand accounts I've read indicated entirely otherwise, you have apparently labeled her as an extremist kook and are intent to prove that despite the lack of fact supporting it. The solution is simple -- stop making crap up and cite tangible reliable sources, but not in this disparate fashion that reads like a ransom note of out-of-context nonsense strung together to sound ominous. And I have to ask -- where you as critical of the other candidates in this manner? Fcreid (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed your recent inclusion until it's correctly sourced and placed into a proper chronology, including the dates of these alleged events as well as Palin's own explanation. For example, I will not allow any inclusion of the extemporaneous "task from God" statement she made to her theology students unless it's accompanied by her own explanation of the statement in her recent interview with Gibon. For what it's worth, this is my first actual edit to the article. It won't be my last if you keep this crap up. Fcreid (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you're obviously struggling with the exact quote (as indicated in the selective bits you used), so here it is verbatim: "Pray for our military. He's going to be deployed in September to Iraq. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do also what is right for this country – that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan." Fcreid (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"I will not allow any inclusion..." sounds like you have issues. Grsz 22:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I do. I'm very frustrated to see someone with a clear (and self-admitted) axe to grind distorting words to paint an erroneous picture of a person in his/her biography. Read the quote above? Does it really sound that out-of-mainstream, particularly given she was speaking to a group of theology students? Should she have used football analogs to get a point across to them? Fcreid (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter...you've made it clear you have an agenda as well. "A task that is from God"...I don't think that's being distorted, it is what it is. Grsz 22:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Context doesn't matter? I heard an Obama snippet somewhere the other day where he stated "my Muslim faith"--his exact words. Would it be fair to take those completely out-of-context for inclusion in his article? Of course not! Fcreid (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The only agenda I've seen from Fcreid is one of fairness. He has never pushed a POV, only tried to keep POV-pushing insinuations and distortions out of the article. Inserting the "Task from God" quote without the proper context is misleading POV-pushing.--Paul (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I put the Iraq quote in in full, so there should be no issue, unless someone deleted the rest of it, again.....LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I added the fact that it occurred inside the church for more complete context. Fcreid (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's not a big deal what she said, why are you fighting for it to be there? Grsz 23:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not fighting for it to be there. I don't think these incidental snippets are representative of this person based on all other more tangible examples of governance and person. In fact, if you scroll back to the talk history beginning on 8/29, you'll find this has been my consistent position with regards to including these quotes. Yes, I would like to think of myself as an objective person, but I'm not oblivious to the fact that one side of the political spectrum desperately hopes to paint this person as outside the mainstream in her religious beliefs. No data I've seen presented yet indicates that. To me, this particular quote represents nothing more than generic platitudes given the context (in a church speaking to a theology class). Despite, if consensus feels these are important enough to include in the article, they should be given full context and explanation and not deliberately seeded to lead a reader to an erroneous conclusion. Fcreid (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I dont know what I was trying to say there. Anyways, I went ahead and added some quotes to the personal life section.

(ec)It's important to some people that her every public mention of God be highlighted and magnified to perpetuate a meme that she's some kind of wacky Apocalypse-believing Kristianist, I think. I'm not sure why this standard applies for her and not other politicians - for example, Joe Biden recently mentioned God when he said to a person in a wheelchair "Stand up, Chuck, let 'em see ya...God love ya, what am I talking about?" However, we don't take that mention of God to have any deeper meaning than what it is on the surface, a typical political appearance by that politician. Kelly 23:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, hopefully what's there now clearly establishes that damning testimonial that Palin uses religious platitudes liberally in a church when speaking to churchgoers. Can anyone dredge up any salient quotes about makeup and beauty tips from backstage at the Miss Wasilla pageant. Fcreid (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Does the WSJ source support that these quotes were all said in the church? I can't find it. Grsz 00:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The locale is documented as being inside the Wasilla Assembly of God in the AP piece regarding the pipeline comments. The Iraq comments are from a video taken of her at the pulpit. Fcreid (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Does the fact that these quotes were gleaned inside her church give you pause on the merit of their inclusion, Grsz? It does me. Fcreid (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I know you weren't addressing me, but on the contrary, from my POV, I like it there, in context, and the fact that it was said in church tells me that she is attempting to show and/or receive support from that church audience. I know an argument can be made for apples and oranges, but do we have any knowledge of the other candidates speaking at a pulpit? That alone is worth attention, in my opinion. FangedFaerie (talk) 04:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's common for local politicians to be asked to speak to a congregation. This would be particularly true in a small town like Wasilla. In fact, according to his own website , Obama himself spoke from the pulpit of the United Church of Christ and spewed such inciteful, divisive and hateful words like "Doing the Lord's work is a thread that's run through our politics since the very beginning". Fcreid (talk) 09:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he was reminding us of the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria. But that's just my guess. Our country is built upon Puritan values. Puritan values are built on religion. But, I trust your judgement as to inciteful, divisive and hateful words and your ability to "ferret' them out.--Buster7 (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Buster - 138.145.4.3 (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

@ 138.145.4.3 - ---America has been a religious country from the very beginning. The sarcasm should only be construied regarding Fcreid's misinterpretattion of Senator Obama's comment. My sarcasm may have been off-base for which I apologize.--Buster7 (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

While on a state-funded trip to speak at a graduation ceremony, Palin urged the students to pray that God's will be done in unifying people to get a gas pipeline built. Does anyone believe that this is "mainstream" for the U.S. in 2008? This article should have considerably more space devoted to her religion than bios of other politicians, because she is out of the mainstream and that fact is important. God help us.--Appraiser (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"Out of the mainstream"? Guess who said this - Let us teach our children that the God of comfort is also the God of righteousness. Those who trouble their own house will inherit the wind. Justice will Prevail. It was Bill Clinton. Is he out of the mainstream in 2008? That quote was far more extreme than anything Palin said, and his comments were intended for a general audience. Kelly 16:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who doesn't recognize how specious this argument is based on the current evidence is either predisposed to the conclusion based on their political persuasion or has become overly complacent with the media and is foregoing critical thought. If this were a court case, it would have been tossed out eons ago. One might accuse Palin of pandering to a church audience or even of a weekend boondoggle from Juneau to Wasilla at the taxpayer's expense, but that's about all. Fcreid (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What an insidious POV article. The "graduation" was a class of ministry students, and the venue was her former church in Wasilla. What would you expect her to say to such a group in such a venue? Any other examples of her doing this in a non-church forum? No? Fcreid (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you believe that the Anchorage Daily News is biased, whether Bill Clinton's religious views are mainstream, or whether Alaska should have paid $640 for her to speak at the church school's graduation, how many people are so arrogant as to believe that they know what God's will is with respect to a gas pipeline? As far as I know, the facts stated in the ADN article have not been disputed, including the quotation attributed to Palin. I would expect her to say, "Go into the world and do God's will." I wouldn't expect her to say, "I think God's will has to be done, in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that." Someone suggested that some of us are "foregoing critical thought." yep...some of us are.--Appraiser (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Your above comment seems like your intent is to use this article, a BLP to malign and defame Palin. You state that Palin's comments in your view are extremely "arrogant" and then argue for their inclusion on that basis, not for relevance to Palin's life, not for other reason but to expose her "arrogance" to show the whole world, how arrogant she is. I hope I'm completely wrong here since this would be somewhat contradictory with BLP as an editing attitude. Hobartimus (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because I have an opinion of the woman and I shared it with you here does not mean that I want to interject my opinion in Main Space. But I do want to write in Main Space accurate and well-sourced facts that give the reader an accurate overview of the topic of the article—in this case Ms. Palin. My suggested wording is, "While on a state-funded trip to speak at a graduation ceremony, Palin urged the students to pray that God's will be done in unifying people to get a gas pipeline built." Some readers will be endeared to her based on that fact; others will not. In Main Space, I am happy to leave out commentary and let the facts carry her where they will. Apparently others are afraid of doing so.--Appraiser (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not a[REDACTED] expert, and I don't know the proper protocol for making changes, but it seems that this portion of the Personal Life section of the article is not an accurate characterization of Palin's comments:

In a 2008 speech, Palin urged a group of graduating ministry students at her former church to pray for the military and to consider the military's job as a task from God. In the same remarks Palin asserted that "God's will" coincides with the building of the Alaskan national gas pipeline project.

The full speech is here but basically, when talking about growing up in the Wasilla Assembly of God Church, Palin made these extemporaneous comments:

My oldest, my son Track, he's a soldier in the United States Army now. He's an infantryman ... and Track -- pray for our Military -- he's gonna be deployed in September to Iraq. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God -- that's what we have to make sure that we're praying for -- that there is a plan, and that plan is God's plan. So bless them with your prayers....

So she is not asking people to consider the war to be "a task from God," but merely asking people to pray "that there is a plan, and that plan is God's plan." That seems similar in nature to John Kerry's remarks in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention (July 29, 2004):

"I don't want to claim that God is on our side. As Abraham Lincoln told us, I want to pray humbly that we are on God's side."

Same goes for the pipeline comment; these are merely prayers, not statements of fact or belief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.228.36 (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

59+1=60

This article says: "According to a New York Times article, for which reporters interviewed 60 Republican and Democratic local officials and legislators, Palin has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and blurred the line between government and personal grievance."

I have no problem including most of this sentence, but I would remove "60 Republican and Democratic" because it tells us nothing. It could mean 1 Republican and 59 Democrats.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the source,yet. Surely there is something that one of those 60 said that is positive. But, I agree, the "60" does not add to the text. It distracts me by making me think, "only 60" and "I wonder what the makeup was", etc.WTucker (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

read the source. That is what it says. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Throughout her political career, she has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and sometimes blurred the line between government and personal grievance, according to a review of public records and interviews with 60 Republican and Democratic legislators and local officials.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, we have no idea if there there were 59 Democrats interviewed and only one Republican. Therefore, I'd like to re-phrase what's in our article. Do you object?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Just stay close to the source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this portion of the article is biased and based on an article that does not cite its sources, and should therefore be removed. The wording is not npov. JenWSU (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This proposed addition is ridiculous because all politicians do this. The bread and butter of politics is rewarding your allies and marginalizing your enemies. Almost all politicians-- across the entire political spectrum (Left, Right and Center) do this.

The New York Times, once a great paper, now has a bad reputation for articles like this.

Sean7phil (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

We have no reason to believe any such conjecture (indeed, are there 59 Democratic legislators in Alaska?); nor is it customary for newspaper articles reflecting general currents of opinion to cite their sources. (We must, because we do not have the professional credentials of the NYTimes.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Creationism redux

Not sure if a mention should be made here, but Palin's views on creationism in education are apparently shared by the Director of Education for the Royal Society. Is this a common position among education policy professionals? Is Palin's position even remarkable? Kelly 01:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Palins views do not appear to be remarkable unless you spin what she has said to distort them into something they are not.WTucker (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As a politician, unless she has put forth an act, a law, a measure, etc, that directly mentions something (and is directly labeled as part of a movement, group, etc), then I think it has very little place. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Unbelievable, folks. Absolutely unbelievable. According to LexisNexis, over 400 articles have been published in reliable sources discussing Sarah Palin's political statements regarding the introduction of creationism into the school curriculum. Another 20 articles have been published in magazines. Another 59 articles have been published in newswires and press releases. Another 14 in aggregate news sources. Currently, her statement (such as it is) occupies one sentence in the Sarah Palin article, hardly undue weight, and three of you would like to remove it because of a unrelated BBC article that does not even discuss Sarah Palin. "Is Sarah Palin's position even remarkable?" Apparently, the mass media think it is. For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone would want to complain about this one sentence. J Readings (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, the problem with your statement above is that she never advocated, or implemented, placing creationism in the school curriculum. She advocated allowing student-initiated discussion. Kelly 02:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, this is not an exercise in semantics for me. The point stands: reliable sources reported on it. Our job is very simple: we accurately reflect what the sources say. We don't "interpret" them. We don't spin them. And we certainly don't censor them for political purposes. It's not our job. If anything, I'm sure you'll agree on that last point. If not, we have seriously problem with how this article is being edited. J Readings (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Calm down. And please don't put words in my mouth. I never advocated removing this well sourced info from her bio. The sentence in question has been spun and respun so many times, I am dizzy -- and all from reliable sources.WTucker (talk) 02:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite calm, WTucker. I didn't mention you or your statements in reply to Kelly. But I'm thankfully relieved you also agree that it isn't our job to remove sourced material from multiple independent reliable sources. J Readings (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for removal either - I'm asking if we should include the view that her opinion on this is a mainstream one. To speak in a more general way, though, we do have a serious problem with how this article is being edited in regards to anti-religious POV. Kelly 02:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, if a reliable source (preferably multiple reliable sources) connect the idea that Palin's political position on creationism in education is "mainstream", then I have no problem at all with that addition provided that we accurately reflect what the sources say. I leave my political positions at the door. I *do* have a serious problem, however, with original synthesis being introduced to an article. Obviously, that applies to all articles not just this one. FWIW, J Readings (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Anti religious POV? Is there a problem in being a Pentecontalist, a Jew, a zoroastrian, or a Muslim? Is there a problem in a person describing her religious views and opinions? I don't think so. I would further argue that Palin is proud of her beliefs, so what is the problem? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No, but there is a problem in giving specific aspects of religious beliefs undue weight, or repeatedly mentioning the same things repeatedly throughout the article, or in multiple articles, as you continue to do with the prayer thing. Kelly 03:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

read WP:SUMMARY. And what is wrong about a prayer? Are you anti-religious? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the aspects of weight is to justify it in relationship to the individual. Do these sources say that it is the main focus of her life? Do they say it is the most important focus? If not, then there is little argument to be made. Every source could say Abraham Lincoln's hair is brown, but that doesn't necessitate a paragraph devoted to it. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

she never advocated, or implemented, placing creationism in the school curriculum. So what? Are people here asserting that her views are not notable? A VP candidate's views are notable, by default, regardless if in their short career they did not implement policy as is the case here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read the conversation - it's over whether we should mention that her views here are in the mainstream. Kelly 03:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Who decides what is mainstream and what is not? And how that argument is relevant to this material? Palin's views on anything related to politics, religion, economy, hobbies, etc can be included in her biography, in particular if covered extensively in published sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) :: Mentioning that her views are on the mainstream, or mentioning that her views are not, would be a violation of WP:NOR, unless we have a source that makes that assertion, that is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

But especially religion, right, Jossi? Lots and lots of religion? Kelly 03:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, why not. It seems that Palin is very proud and outspoken about her religious beliefs. AIs there anything wrong with that? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Very outspoken? And there is a problem with giving undue weight, or repeating the same thing over and over in different sections of the article, which makes the weighting problem even worse. Kelly 03:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward jossi somewhat, insofar as Palin is proud of her beliefs, and arguably is using them to garner support. I haven't analyzed the article, but if the sources repeatedly reference Palin's religious views, it's hard to avoid them in the article itself. The idea is to reflect the facts that are out there, yes? (Please don't bite me.) FangedFaerie (talk) 04:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the assertion is coming from that she's using religious beliefs to garner support. I don't remember a single mention in her speech at the Convention, for instance, or in any of her stump speeches that I've read about. I recall only a very brief, somewhat generic mention, of faith in the Gibson interview, in response to his "Crusader" questions. In fact, she seems to keep her religious beliefs private. What am I missing? Kelly 04:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly, the convention speech was pretty low-key on religion, with only a mention of a prayer and the grace of God. Her state of the state address for 2008 included the bit "Proverbs tell us there is no strength without unity. So, Alaska, let us be united to be strong."

But on other issues: soldiers in the Middle East on a task from God; the gas line being God's will. Her other opinions are often argued by others from a religious standpoint (murky thoughts on sex ed. and Creationism in school; abortion: "faith that every baby is created for a good purpose" and strongly pro-life; opposed to stem cell research as being related to abortion; same-sex marriage about preserving family structure; against physician-assisted suicide according to a few sources), though admittedly we haven't heard her speak extensively about them yet. My point is that what little we do know about her tends to have at least a tinge of religion attached, but I'm not trying to argue for any content changes one way or the other.

I'm fairly amused by the "Thank the Lord that we do have that freedom of speech" when discussing the separation of church and state.

Um, by the way, "any of her stump speeches"? I'm not aware that she's made more than one, yet, at least as a VP candidate. Regards. FangedFaerie (talk) 05:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Separation of Church and State is an issue of "Freedom of Religion", not "Freedom of Speech". There is a strong difference between the two. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. FangedFaerie (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridge(s) to Nowhere Redux

Bot Brought Bridge to NOWHERE! (seriously...) (I brought this section back here, because the bot that archived the old pages, at the exact same time I was commenting here, didn't put this section in the old archives or leave it in the current talk pages. The bridges were brought to "nowhere." (accidentally deleted). Ironic, huh?  :-)GreekParadise (talk) 03:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, we've done pretty good. The version that's there has stood, with minor stylistic changes, for almost a week now. Every now and then when someone deletes content, I bring it here to the talk page and the consensus is that the original version should stand. So for the, I dunno, seventh time? eighth? I ask you please do NOT delete content from the Bridges to Nowhere section unless you come to the talk page and give a reason why. The reason the Congressional earmark and reversal in 2005 is there is because it's relevant and notable and gives important history to explain the pre-history of the bridge. Further, there's no POV there, just fact. Why would anyone remove it? The reason why Newsweek quote is there is because it explains the criticism. It is only one quote, a compromise between the anti-Palins who wanted several newspapers quoted (and then at least just their names mentioned) and the pro-Palins who wanted no mention of the criticism at all. If you disagree with the consensus, come to the talk page and try to get your own consensus before willy-nilly deleting content that, thus far, has stood the test of time. Thank you.GreekParadise (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the change of this sentence:

In 2005, Congress earmarked $442 million to build the two bridges but later reversed itself under strong criticism and gave the transportation money to Alaska with no strings attached.

to this one (modified a short time ago):

In 2005, Congress passed the 2006 National Department of Transportation appropriations bill 93 to 1 which included $442 million earmarks to build the two bridges, but later removed the earmarks under strong criticism tied to Ted Stevens' strong disapproval of the Coburn Amendment, which gave the earmarks national media exposure. Congress still sent the money to the state for other transportation projects. Sarah Palin supported this transaction and agreed to it.

Usually, I like detail, but I'm not sure what this one adds. That Congress made the earmark and reversed it is relevant to the story of Palin and the Bridge, but the details of why Congress reversed it and the adding of an unexplained detail (what the heck is the Coburn Amendment?, asks the reader) raises more questions than it answers. Obviously this belongs in an article on the Gravina Bridge, possibly one on earmarks, or even on Stevens, but I don't think it belongs in an article on Palin. So I will revert back. I know if I don't then someone's going to again complain this section is too long. Please let me know if you support or oppose this decision. And if opposition is strong, then obviously, put it back in.GreekParadise (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Apologies for not including citation for the amendment, it has since been added. This is simply a brief summary of the extensive information listed in the Gravina Island Bridge topic. If the information about the reason of the earmarks being removed isnt detailed, you are providing undue weight against congress, when the situation primarily was tied to Stevens and the coburn amendment, which was designed to strike the development of the bridges alltogether. It is still brief and it tells the whole story, without distorting the facts, why would we not want it like this? Duuude007 (talk) 10:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about it and won't fight with you any longer on it. While I still think it's unnecessary, as I said before, adding unnecessary (but accurate) detail bothers me far, far less than taking out necessary detail. But I'll tell you this: if someone else starts cutting this section mercilessly -- as has happened several times and may happen again -- I will argue that if brevity is what people want, these additions should go first. But if no one bugs us about the section arguing it's too long, I'm willing to let sleeping dogs lie. I did throw back in the "no strings attached" quote from CNN, however. It's not true the money went to "other" transportation projects, because the money allowed the Governor if he/she saw fit to spend the money on the bridges OR other transportation projects, but Congress didn't rule out the bridges.GreekParadise (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

New Issue: Bridge or Bridges or Bridge(s)

"Bridge to Nowhere" almost always refers to the Gravina Bridge. "Bridges to Nowhere" almost always refers to the Gravina Bridge and Don Young's Way. "Bridges to Nowhere" has been used tens of thousands of times (according to Google). "Bridge to Nowhere" has been used hundreds of thousands of times (according to Google). These are the facts. Still, I think it's confusing to have a heading "Bridge to Nowhere" and to then discuss two bridges. I don't want to change the content, which we've worked hard on, but I do have a question about the title, ever since a wikipedian removed my original

"Bridge(s) to Nowhere"

and replaced it with

"Bridge to Nowhere"

I don't like either "Bridges to Nowhere" or "Bridge to Nowhere" in the title, because I think either title is confusing and doesn't tell the full story.

I propose the following solutions in the title:

"Bridge(s) to Nowhere" -- This is how I put it originally and I still like it best. But there are other options:

"Bridge/Bridges to Nowhere"

"Bridge to Nowhere/Bridges to Nowhere"

What do other editors think?GreekParadise (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• I personally have no issues with it being purely plural without parentheses. Duuude007 (talk) 04:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Both plural alone and singular alone are incorrect factually.  :-( Do you like any of the options above?GreekParadise (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• My problem is the quotation marks. As far as I know, Palin has never used the term "bridges to nowhere". The only place I have found that the plural form exists is in a few news sources which are trying to clarify that two bridges were involved and here. Either it should appear as she has used the term ("Bridge to nowhere") with quotes or in one of the plural forms without the quotes.WTucker (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The section is way too long and bogs down with irrelevant detail. The overall effect on the reader (on me, anyway) is entirely confusing. I think readability is being lost in the effort to squeeze in detail. The Coburn Amendment? WTF? I would propose a) shortening and b) focusing the paragraph. We already have articles on the 2 bridges themselves; we should focus a bit more here. I've made a proposed revision to the section; if you guys don't like it, feel free to revert and I won't reinsert it, but would prefer to discuss it further here. MastCell  20:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's been reverted... could someone explain how the new version is an improvement? To me, it's unfocused, it crams unecessary and irrelevant detail into run-on sentences; it rehashes a lot of unecessary information not related to Sarah Palin which is already covered in the bridge articles one click away; the tenses are screwy; etc. Reading the section, it is very difficult for me to follow either chronologically or logically what happened. MastCell  20:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• If you can explain away "congress earmarked the bill but then reversed themselves as anything other than a clear violation of WP:NPOV, I'd be glad to hear it. Facts at times are necessary to tell the whole story (instead of distort), and at any rate, this is an extremely brief summary of what is listed in the other page. The other page is a subarticle, not just a "for more information" page. Even if the info here is truncated, it shouldn't be distorted into something dubious. Duuude007 (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What's dubious about it? What violates WP:NPOV? Congress did earmark the money and then reverse itself under strong criticism. The sources say that:

• "When the earmarks became a political embarrassment, Congress in 2006 formally withdrew them."
• "Under mounting political pressure over pork projects, Congress stripped the earmark -- or stipulation -- that the money be used for the airport."
• "Straining to show new dedication to lower spending, House and Senate negotiators took the rare step of eliminating a requirement that $442 million be spent to build the two bridges, spans that became cemented in the national consciousness as "bridges to nowhere" because of the remote territory and small populations involved."

Would you prefer wording which clarified that Congress, rather than "reversing" itself, lifted the restriction that the money be spent on the bridges? I don't see a huge difference, but I'm failing to see the "clear violation" of NPOV since I think the wording follows the sources reasonably. How does this "distort" the section into something "dubious"? MastCell  21:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

perhaps because of the fact that the earmark itself was carefully concealed in the bill, and only exposed by the Coburn Amendment, and given massive media coverage by Ted Stevens' protest? The omission of that detail lays the blame purely on congress flipflopping over public opinion of the bridge, when there was a lot more behind it. We do not want to provide an OR assumption that Congress flipped out of popularity, do we? Just listing the facts. Keeping them brief. Letting the reader come to their own conclusion based on the facts. Is that not the intention? Duuude007 (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not OR; the 3 cited reliable sources all indicate that Congress reversed themselves under the pressure of public opinion. It's a verifiable fact. The OR would be to assume that "Congress" as a whole were entirely unaware of the "carefully concealed" provision of a bill they had voted for (and thus, presumably, actually read). MastCell  00:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

My point is that you are omitting facts relevant to the cause, and whether you think so or not, its distorting the origin of the change from a debate over the amendment, versus a whim popularity vote that changes the overall weight of the statement. Omitting one sentence could make all the difference in a paragraph's accuracy, and that is why I am so adamant in maintaining this simple fact. Because it clarifies that which the blame game does not. In closing: I believe that this is meant to be a summary of Gravina Island Bridge, not necessarily an alternate recollection. Duuude007 (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand, especially your last comment. The sources say that Congress reversed its decision under public pressure (which, incidentally, is how democracy is supposed to work - I'm not clear why you attach such negative significance to it). You're attaching a lot of value-laden terms to this very simple, source-based statement. I'm asking that we concisely reflect what the sources say. MastCell  05:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Right. All of the sources. Including the relevance of the coburn amendment, which, since this debate has begun, has been expanded in the article by other people and cross referenced, because it is an integral part of the subject matter. I'm in complete agreement that the facts should tell the story, and that was a glaring omission that has since been fixed. Have a nice day. Duuude007 (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Other editors? The only other commenter in this thread raised the same issue I did, and ultimately gave up, stating that while he still found the level of detail unecessary, he didn't feel like "fighting with you any longer on it." That's hardly a ringing endorsement. I notice that nearly all of your edits here focus on the Bridge(s) to Nowhere, and I understand your perspective about the importance of detail. I'm asking you to consider that someone without a deep interest in the arcana of the Bridges may get an equally accurate and much more comprehensible view of the role of Sarah Palin by trimming some of your favored details in favor of brevity. The sources you're touting for the Coburn Amendment all discuss Ted Stevens, not Sarah Palin. This is an article on Sarah Palin, and you're employing borderline original synthesis to drag in these extraneous details. MastCell  19:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, other editors, which you would have noticed if you had followed the history of the topic, and not just the talk. Kaisershatner and Jossi both contributed to the new consensus compromise, and I am perfectly fine with the edits that have been created. Kaiser has in fact cross referenced the coburn amendment, which I commend him for doing. I call bs on your OR allegation. Every drop of this is info that i am protecting from the ], and the ] IS a BLP merge of Sarah Palin. Accuracy is absolutely important, and this is not some sort of obscure bridge 'arcana' as you want to call it, it is the specific reason the USA even knows about the bridge. So it is absolutely notable. Duuude007 (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following the reasoning here. Instead of "protecting" your favored wording, can we see if we can understand each other? Do you follow why I think this might be off-topic (not agree with, but at least follow)? You're pulling a bunch of sources/factoids about Ted Stevens into an article about Sarah Palin. The correct place to handle the minutiae of Congress' dealings with the Bridge(s) are in the Bridge article(s). I'm asking that we summarize that info to focus on Sarah Palin, the ostensible subject of this article. I completely fail to see how summarizing that "Congress reversed itself in response to strong public criticism" violates WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, or any of the other policies you're throwing out. There is no loss of accuracy here. MastCell  20:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• There is such a thing as becoming too vague in coverage of the facts, to the point where a mix of statements becomes misleading. Its just one sentence, which successfully summarizes the jist of two and a half paragraphs of the other article; And you want to omit it why? Because targeting the congress for full and complete blame of flipflopping on the earmark is the "easy way out"? That, my friend, is not accurate reporting of the facts. Duuude007 (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Please stop assigned value judgements - why would someone "blame" Congress for responding to the opinion of their constituents? Why the obsession with "flip-flopping"? I don't particularly care to "blame" anyone, especially not in an article about Sarah Palin. Could I ask you to cease speculating about my motives and respond to the content question? I'd like the passage to be readable; right now the prose is poor from both a stylistic and comprehensibility point of view. I've explained why I want to "omit" it several times now; it introduces tangential and off-topic factoids and compromises the quality of the section. MastCell  20:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If its tangential, then why did other people find it important to link it to a specific subarticle of Tom Coburn? The notability origin of a topic isnt offtopic, btw. How about considering rephrasing it, rather than omitting it alltogether. I'm sure we can come to a middle ground. That is unless, of course, you are the one trying to protect this text? Duuude007 (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Bush doctrine?

Regarding foreign policy, Palin generally supports the Bush doctrine of preemptive military action in the face of an imminent threat. Really? My recollection of the ABC interview and many sources published on the subject point to a very different situation. I will find sources to make this sentence more accurate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, according to the Washington Post, Palin got it right, and Gibson got it wrong. Kelly 03:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

But at the end of last week we were granted an audience with the Princess of Alaska. It was painful. She had no idea what the Bush Doctrine was – the central and most controversial foreign policy innovation of the past eight years: the doctrine of preemption against states with WMDs. Moreover, in her speech the same day, she described the war in Iraq. She said her eldest son, who has just enlisted, would “defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans”. "Sarah Palin: the most underqualified vice-president ever? - Times Online". Retrieved 2009-09-14.

Jossi, you really need to learn the difference between an opinion piece and straight news. Also, presumably you know that there are such people as Al Qaeda in Iraq. Not many of them left, though, thanks to Petraeus and the Iraqis. Kelly 03:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(Ahem) No need to get into polemics, but there was not Al Qaeda in Iraq before 9/11. In any case, there is obviously an enormous amount of sources that describe the Palin;s gaffe (or the wit, depending on who you ask) and we should include this in the article, sans spin. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically, there wasn't even al qaeda in Iraq After 9/11. They didn't exist in Iraq until a year after America's 2003 ocupation of Iraq. Duuude007 (talk) 04:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)No polemics, the pre 9/11 situation is pretty much irrelevant in this context. Al Qaeda carried out 9/11. Al Qaeda is now getting its ass handed to it in Iraq, where Palin's son has deployed to. Charles Gibson didn't know there are multiple interpretations of the Bush Doctrine, whereas Palin did. Even Charles Krauthammer, who invented the term, says that Gibson screwed the pooch. Kelly 04:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Guys. This isn't a blog. Take it outside. What is the specific content issue here, again? MastCell  05:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue is any objective person who saw the interview with Gibson knows that it's obvious Palin had no idea what Gibson was talking about when he mentioned the Bush Doctrine. Even if other doctrines could also be considered, Bush "doctrines," according to the Wasington Post, it was painfully obvious that Palin didn't know any of them. (I guess the McCain crammers trying to teach her all of foreign policy in a week hadn't thought of this one...)GreekParadise (talk) 07:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Our article includes the sentence "In the interview, Palin answered questions about her experience, national security, Iraq and the Bush Doctrine."

The source cited for this says:

"Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about."

The sentence in the article is a flat contradiction of the source, IMO. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh, not really. See the Post article I linked above. Apparently it was Gibson who was confused. Kelly 16:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kelly: My point is that IMO the article contradicts the source that is cited in the article. We are not supposed to backup a statement with a source that does not support it. That some other source is different is not the point. Wanderer57 (talk) 12:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Approx. transcript:

Gibson: Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?

Palin: (pause) In what respect, Charlie?

Gibson: What do you interpret it to be?

Palin: His world view?

G: No, the Bush Doctrine, enunciated on 2002.

P: I believe

G: The Bush Doctrine as I understand it, is the right to preemptive strike. Do you agree with it?

P: Charlie, yes, if there is legitimate evidence against a country.

I don't see many ways that can be interpreted. --Loodog (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Interpreted by who? The Post interprets it as a Gibson screwup, as does Krauthammer, the coiner of the Bush Doctrine term. And Krauthammer is no Palin fan. Kelly 17:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see why Gibson was wrong on this. Can comeone please clarify? Duuude007 (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's not quite what the Post article says; it merely quotes some Republicans as saying that there are multiple Bush doctrines, and James Fallows as saying that the issue wasn't Palin's inability to precisely define the "Bush Doctrine", but her failure to recognize even the term or general concept. Charles Krauthammer is a partisan figure, to put it very mildly. But I'm sure he'd offer the same principled semantic defense if Obama had been the one to flub a question about the "Bush Doctrine" :)

In any case, reams have already been written about this particular question/answer. Perhaps the best we can say is that "Palin's response to a question on the 'Bush Doctrine' provoked criticism from those who saw her as unfamiliar with the term, though some Republicans defended her by pointing to multiple 'Bush doctrines'." MastCell  17:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear, MastCell! FangedFaerie (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Krauthammer's editorial is rather clear that the idea of the "Bush Doctrine" has four definitions, and that Gibson screwed it up by choosing the wrong one. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, to be fair, while Gibson didn't do his homework on the question, Palin's answer was iffy as well - the response she came back with didn't precisely fit any of the four "Bush Doctrines". That whole interview was just odd...the weird camera angles, the choppy editing (sometimes in mid-sentence), and Gibson's sighing and white-knuckle demeanor. I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like it, and I'm a huge politics junkie. It's a little puzzling that Gibson's interview with Obama earlier this year was Oprah softball-style, but Obama has had a few tough interviews, such as the one with O'Reilly last week. Overall, I don't think either Gibson or Palin came out covered with glory here. But, my amateur punditry aside, when using that interview as a source, we should stick to the quotes and the definitive policy statements, and leave the interpretation aside. There will be more interviews and I'm sure the secondary sources will have wildly varying interpretations of them, just as they did with this one. Over time a picture will build up. Kelly 22:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Krauthammer does say that she didn't know what it was. Regardless of what Gibson said that he should or shouldn't have said, she didn't know what he was talking about when he asked her. Grsz 22:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What kind of text did you have in mind? I do think that any mention, if included, should include the muddled nature of Gibson's question, since we have plenty of sources that discuss that. Kelly 22:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

How and why? Palin screwed up before Gibson went into detail. Grsz 23:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It was not a quiz, so saying she was "wrong" is inappropriate. Also, since the term is vague and unscholarly, I don't know how to you can really begin to discuss it, especially when it has four various ideas with little overlap. She asked what he meant, and he basically refused to answer at first, which was quite strange. Even in Spelling Bees you have the right to ask what a word means. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:FA nomination

Perhaps it's time to nominate Sarah Palin for featured article status WP:FA. There has been a lot of bumping and trading paint to get the article to the status it is today. I, for one, think it has gotten to a pretty refined state. I would encourage an editor with more history on this page to make the nomination. Mytwocents (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been paying too close attention, but one qualification for FA status is stability. This article is still getting heavy editing on pretty big article aspects.--Loodog (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Don't you think you are skipping a few steps? This article hasn't even qualified for A-class rating, let alone featured. Plus, with over 50-100+ edits a day, and the frequent bickering and edit warring, I don't see it qualifying for A-rating anytime soon. Duuude007 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Article has a long way to go for any consideration like that. I would wait until after the election at the very least before raising that issue. Ronnotel (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Not that Misplaced Pages is beholden to the same rules as other media, but in the interest of fairness, equal time practices should be given consideration until after the November election. Robert K S (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The main reason I think we should start the WP:FA is that Barack Obama and Joe Biden are FA's. Admittedly, the Palin article is new, and in flux, but I think we could achieve an A-class rating and FA status if a group of editors work with those goals in mind. Mytwocents (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't pass due to stability. See 1 (e) stability: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. The sheer volume of edits precludes this from FA/A/GA. Stability is a criteria for FA/GA processes, and A is not really used by many projects. Regards. Woody (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The Obama, McCain, and Biden articles have been in existence for much longer than the Palin article (well, at least to a degree in which they had substantial information about the subject), while Palin's article existed as little more than a stub until two-three weeks ago. It should also be noted that Biden's article is not a featured article. It is currently B-class, but has been nominated as a good article. --Bobblehead 23:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, wait for this thing to simmer down and then nom for GA. It may take until October. It may have to wait until post-election, just because of the stability issue.--Loodog (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: both McCain and Obama are FAs. Obama's achieved FA in 2004 before becoming very high profile. McCain's became FA in mid-August during a considerable lull in McCain news. It will take a while for Palin's article to calm down.--Loodog (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually Obama was quite high profile at the time he was FAed - it was within weeks of the keynote address and during a high profile Senate race/walkover (which was getting noticed even in international news coverage). Mind you at a glance the 2004 incarnation of that article looks very B class by today's standards. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Terminology discussion - "earmarks" vs "federal funding"

I'd like to open up some general discussion of the terminology we use on Palin's requests for federal funding for both Wasilla and the state of Alaska, the fact of which occurred is agreed by all. I think we have a POV problem, though, in the use of the term "earmark" for all of these requests. Technically speaking, mayors, governors etc. request federal funding from their Congressional delegations. The Congresscritters can either put in a general budgetary request, or direct the funds in the form of an earmark. Our article Earmark (politics) explains the process relatively well. The mayor or governor who makes the request really doesn't control how the money is appropriated, if it is. How do we address this in our article? Should we only use the term "earmark" if the source says that's the form in which the money was disbursed? Should we simply use the term "federal funding" throughout? Should we attempt to address the point that the Congressional delegation actually were responsible for using the earmark process, as some of our sources say? But I think it's a mistake to use the generic term "earmark" for all federal funding, this is technically incorrect. Thoughts welcome. Kelly 00:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree precisely. The use of "earmark" as a term for just about every appropriation request is misleading in the extreme. Collect (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If reliable sources use the term "earmark", then we should. If they use other terminology, then we can mirror them. Let's not get into the business of editorially deciding what is and is not an "earmark" versus a "request for money". MastCell  05:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

By the same token we shouldn't conflate the two concepts by putting sentences about the two different processes side-by-side thus implying a connection.--Paul (talk) 08:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Birth Of Trig Palin

I propose an addition of information regarding the controversial birth of Trig Palin. I tentatively propose the following text following the report of the child's down syndrome: "Headlines were made after Sarah Palin reported that she entered labor and her water broke with Trig while she was in Texas. She then flew 11 hours to Anchorage and drove an additional hour to Wasilla, AK to give birth at a local hospital. Some healthcare professionals had criticism of the risk she reports taking; while her own physician reported supporting her decision." This account is well documented in press reports and more specifically by Sarah Palin herself. I believe that it is relevant to the personal life section. I have also been careful to attribute to her directly to avoid concerns over the account having been doubted in blogs.--Dstern1 (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. This has been discussed here before, and always rejected. We don't try to synthesize some POV about her judgment via some misogynistic speculation about the operations of her reproductive system. Kelly 01:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

While I would respectfully disagree about the misogyny, I do believe that it is relevant. Perhaps, it may be better to exclude the references to controversy? I am seeking opinions. I shall look through the archives for previous discussion; unless someone could point me to that discussion. --Dstern1 (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I welcome response from someone who is not partisan. A fan of Palin is not a valid responder to my questions (nor is one of her hater's for that matter).--Dstern1 (talk) 02:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

For having begun to build their tower of Babel without us, they will end, of course, with cannibalism. But then the beast will crawl to us and lick our feet and spatter them with tears of blood. And we shall sit upon the beast and raise the cup, and on it will be written, "Mystery."

Excuse me, pard, but who is not a partisan? Sarah Palin was selected, irresponsibly IMO, precisely because the Rovian strategy to which John McCain subscribed to ten days ago is to run a polarizing figure such that members of the electorate neatly partition themselves into people that love the polarizer and people who hate her.

This makes the job of a political-consultant-ho bag like Rove easier even in the mathematical sense! Political consultants need political intelligence inversely to the way in which they destroy, like coal companies destroying mountains, voter intelligence, and the response to the polarizing figure contains less "dark matter" in the form of the undecided voters produced by the more nuanced politician.

Predictability, control, and stage management are what the political hos want.

Anybody who pretends to be "objective" about Palin (which is NOT the same thing as writing NPOV) has crawled out from a trailer or from under a rock, works in a convenience store, handles snakes on Sunday, and is aliterate and dyslexic. Of course, many[REDACTED] editors fit this description to a "T". But, as soon as they bone up on that mad bitch, they will like her because she represents the large and growing ignorant dirtbag element in American culture and life, an element that has long since taken[REDACTED] over.

You can be, and the[REDACTED] guidelines on NPOV affirm, partisan in your political views and still WRITE npov. NPOV is (or was) NOT a pretense to a pseudo-scientific ignorance which is by definition impossible if you're an editor reading a text with editorial attentiveness, or a writer writing with his brain turned on, it is a writing style which gives due weight to fact, and opinions (considered as the fact that they are held by certain people) and especially lies when in fact they are lies.

A "fan" of Palin can be "a good responder" in your clumsy phrasing. See the NPOV guidelines. Your "reasoning" has destroyed good journalism because while pretending to be used against the right-wing "fan", its substance is the attempt to disempower progressive politics on the left on behalf of wealthy private media owners.

"Liberal" reporters on balance and even in America probably produce far more good and NPOV copy for respected organs all the time. Hell, there's even some conservatives can do that, and who don't have to wangle a promotion to the op-ed page. Whether or not the "responder", your correspondent, the contributor (god your scrap of writing makes me ill) is or is not a "fan" or enemy of Palin is not material, does not apply, and is fucking moot.

Your foolish statement is precisely wrong, and precisely the sort of personalization/daemonization that is driving real contributors out, but not before ruining reputations in meatspace. It's an invitation to a witch-hunt in which a cybernetic mob hunts out people with "bias" as opposed to the very different, and to the ignorant just boring, issue of a text.

And the fact is that in dirtbag online culture, consisting as it does of academic failures and out and out criminals because of anonymity, simple tests indicate "bias" in a person.

Any gentleness or solidarity is "bias" of the left-wing sort. The ability to write a complex thought is "bias". These people are then hounded and harassed as having "agendas" by people whose only claim to freedom from an agenda is their ignorance, an ignorance that having been "soured by true miseries and maddened by false promises" in C. S. Lewis' phrasing, a brutalized ignorance, comprises the shock troops of Fascism, and biases this and many other articles to the bonehead boneyard right wing.

It's much, much harder to demonstrate right-wing bias. Your prose in fact has to drag its knuckles on the floor.

You can take the Dosteoevsky quote as read, pard. Misplaced Pages is a latter-day tower of Babel, and today resembles the concentration camp barracks being built in Schindler's list, right down to the engineer who's shot for criticising the foundations, whose suggestions are then adopted. Misplaced Pages was started as a form of legal fraud to steal content, and is now crawling with aliterate "editors" bearing stupid barnstars whose purpose is to privatise the content and make Jimmy Wales rich by driving out genuine contributors on flimsy and ridiculous charges.

The Sarah Palin page went right to a lock because trailer trash, including today's[REDACTED] editors, are trying to use their witless reading of NPOV to make this similar in REAL objectivity to the article about Joe Stalin in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia.

Edward G. "spinoza1111" Nilges

p.s.: you're an editor, and you can't even form a plural from a two-syllable verb? Hater apostrophe s?

pp.s.: People who pretend to be above politics are usually people who are completely uninformed.

I appreciate your sentiments though I would not have been quite so blunt. At this point, any sincere feedback is appreciated. I would like to include the information and I wish I knew how to achieve consensus on inclusion. It seems that any mention of the information despite the fact that it is solely from her own reports gets me threatened with being banned; and I was banned for 24 hours because I stood firm. I was accused with defamation by repeating her own account of the events. Again, thanks for the feedback.--Dstern1 (talk) 23:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked through the Archives and see that Archive #12 previously had discussion of this topic. I see much support for inclusion. So far the only opposition seems to be from a cheerleader for Palin. But I shall certainly wait until tomorrow to hear more opinions before I make an edit. The topic is obviously sensitive.--Dstern1 (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There are many examples of this being discussed in the archives and the consensus has always been to exclude. Take a look at archive #8 for instance. There are others.--Paul (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have looked over the archives including #8 and #12. I am proposing inclusion of an astonishing report of her personal life as she reports it. I contend that her own report of the events is relevant as stated. Can conjecture develop from this issue? Perhaps, and it has. Am I proposing report of that conjecture? No. Is any of that conjecture relevant to this article? Not at this time, in opinion; at least not unless that conjecture can ever be sourced as fact. I am proposing inclusion of information which is relevant and well-sourced.--Dstern1 (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I like Palin and I say include it.--Rosebud999 (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I am making the edit. If anybody disagrees, please say so here; I would like to discuss it. Please do not just reverse my edit. --Dstern1 (talk) 05:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If it is kept, I suggest a little different wording: "Palin's youngest child, Trig, was diagnosed prenatally with Down syndrome. A month before his due date, while Palin was in Texas for a conference, her amniotic fluid began leaking. She went on to give the keynote address for the conference, then flew to Anchorage and drove an additional hour to Wasilla, AK to give birth at a regional hospital. She consulted her doctor during the trip, and though Palin did not get explicit permission to fly, she later stated that she was not in active labor. Her doctor supported her decision to return home, but some healthcare professionals criticized Palin for not going immediately to the nearest hospital." FangedFaerie (talk) 05:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I have been careful to keep it to her own reports. Many have questioned those reports and I do not wish to start a battle over accuracy; thus I phrased the reports to indicate it is her own reports.--Dstern1 (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Understood. It's just kinda awkward phrasing.FangedFaerie (talk) 06:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

A vandal deleted my edit. I just reversed it. If anyone has concerns, lets discuss it.--Dstern1 (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a vandal. Get consensus for controversial material before including it. This information has been previously rejected, more than once, as mentioned above. Kelly 14:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

yes, vandal. I reviewed the archives. Please discuss your concerns before reversing my edits.--Dstern1 (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Dstern1, please stop with the personal attacks, that doesn't help. Why is the material you want to add relevant? How does it improve the article? It seems to give undue weight compared to the rest of the family section. Also, who are the health care providers that are critical of her? I left a note on your talk page as well. Thank you, --Tom 14:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, my edits were reversed. I am asking that they remain until someone can show why they need to be changed. Thank you.--Dstern1 (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The onus is on the one proposing new material to prove why it should be included in the article. Review the advice that several editors have given you in this thread, including directly above your comment. If you continue to edit war, I will block you. GlassCobra 15:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Not if I get to the block button first. This topic has been discussed extensively since Palin was named as VP nominee. Consensus has been against inclusion. You need to change consensus before edit warring over the content. Ronnotel (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Dstern1, the citation quotes one California doctor as saying "If your water breaks, go to the hospital". Again, whom are critical of her travel plans before giving birth, but more importantly, why is this relevant and what is the point for inclusion. Why is so important that this be included. You are going to be blocked because 3-4 different editors have reverted you but you continue to edit war?? --Tom 15:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• I put this content back in because I find it properly sourced, relevant, MUCH-discussed by the media, and I add myself to the developing consensus that it should remain in the article. To assert consensus when there is none is against the precepts of Misplaced Pages. This appears to be a matter of record, to be a matter that is true, to be multiply sourced. To remove it from the article is only to purge inconvenient truth that one group of partisans wishes to suppress, and that is anathema to what we do here. This article should contain whatever the sources indicate, good or bad. It is not a PR piece for the candidate or a PR piece for the candidate's opposition. NPOV demands that if there is valid information that it be in the article whether or not somebody can spin it as negative. --BenBurch (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

What inconvenient truth that one group of partisans wishes to suppress are we talking about? The artilcle should NOT contain whatever the sources indicate, good or bad. The article should include relevant, notable, balanced, well sourced, consensus reached, common sense material. This "issue" broke very early into the Palin arrival and has turned up what exactly? --Tom 15:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read the revert in question? All it contained was Palin's OWN story that her waters broke in TX and she flew home in labor, and a mention that many have expressed alarm that she would take that risk. SHE brought this story out or we would never even know of it. --BenBurch (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why "do not insert controversial information without gaining consensus first" isn't getting through. This has been discussed several times. None of those discussions resulted in the information being included. In BLPs, we don't put content in and then gain consensus to take it out. Quite the opposite. One editor has already been blocked for edit warring over this. Unless you're inclined to join him, don't revert it back in. It's undue weight. Just because it's discussed in the media doesn't mean it is encyclopedic. Jennavecia 16:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see it as controversial. YES, the interpretation of it clearly is, but the event is acknowledged by all sides in the matter. How can an acknowledged fact with no controversy about whether it happened or not, the interpretation of which has been central to much of the public discourse about the subject of this article, be controversial for its very inclusion here? The answer is that is is not, and to insist otherwise is an attempt to whitewash this article. If it is on everybody's lips, how can it be undue weight? Is that what Misplaced Pages stands for? Or are we to include what is referenced, verifiable, and relevant to the subject? Answer THAT question please? And please do not threaten to block me over a good faith edit made for reasons that are entirely coherent with the rules here. That was uncalled for. --BenBurch (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we discussing why people shouldn't edit war to insert disputed content on one of Misplaced Pages's most important articles? If so, you can infer that it is controversial by the fact that so many well-established editors oppose it. Whether you agree with them or not, that more or less proves that the matter is in dispute and requires consensus. Or is this discussion yet another try to reach consensus on something that so far has not had consensus? In the latter case I would say that the bodily details of how a woman goes about delivering her fourth child are simply not a suitable or relevant topic for her biography. To the extent they are an attempt to show she is irresponsible or caused her child's Down's Syndrome, or that the child is not really hers, that is either a WP:BLP violation or if you are of the school that she is too WP:WELLKNOWN about this issue, still a significant WP:WEIGHT, WP:SYNTH, and/or WP:NPOV problem. Although there are some sources, I do not believe there are sufficient sources to show that these particular details are a significant issue in her life. There are hundreds of thousands of newspaper articles about her now. It takes more than a few to show that an event is notable. Wikidemon (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Wikidemon and Jennavecia. Also agree that the material that was attempted to be added here was not suitable for the main article. Hobartimus (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that the general theme of Trig's birth is notable. However, speculation and third opinions aren't. If/when she speaks about her feelings and perspective on Trig's birth, we should quote that accurately. Until then we should do no more than discuss well known facts (When and where he was born, etc). The previous entry was certainly controversial, which is why it was reverted by several different people. Atom (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Speculation about Track's birth also fit into this category, and should only be allowed if we are citing something she (or her husband says) and not other peoples opinions. Atom (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Atom, you hit the nail on the head here. Thank you. Kelly 23:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked over the proposed edit and I really cannot see any objection to it. It does not speculate. It does not defame anybody. I like the way it was worded to show it was Sarah Palin's own report. I am tempted to restore it myself as a step towards gaining some consensus (I read about being bold and then discussing with those that object). I am as much a supporter of Palin as anybody. I am in FFL. I usually vote Republican. I tend to favor inclusion of as much relevant information as possible. Lets discuss it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahsposse (talk • contribs) 18:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm an Obama supporter, donor and campaign worker. I think it should not be included, it reeks of opinion, synthesis and coloring with an agenda. 76.238.24.49 (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

How is it any of those things? It is a well sourced anecdote from her remarkable life. Where is the agenda or the opinion? Certainly no synthesis. It is all taken directly from a secondary source, as the instructions indicate is preferred.Sarahsposse (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 76.238.24.49. Most Misplaced Pages biographical articles involve someone who was born after a mother's water broke. And none of those thousands of Misplaced Pages articles mention it, for the very good reason that it's not sufficiently notable. Let's move along.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I meantioned my politics solely because it looked like some were saying the account reflected poorly on Sarah Palin. My point was to say I disagreed. The account is significant and appropriate for inclusion because it is extraordinary. Thus I say include it.--Sarahsposse (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

How is it exraordinary? Also, welcome. --Tom 19:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think others may have put it better above. However, it is extraordinary that a woman could tolerate giving a speech, and then flying 11 hrs. in labor to make it to a small town hospital. I can understand need to have trust in your personal physician. I think she said something about needing to give birth in Alaska out of pride. At minimum it proves her extraordinary stamina. Mostly, it is an interesting story about her. Humanizes her (if that's the right word). I also believed that the edit has become a battle between her supporters and opposition; her supporters calling it defamatory. It is not defamatory. It is her own story! Someone called it "opinion, synthesis and coloring with an agenda;" I could not disagree more. Regardless of politics. It is her story. BTW, thanks for the welcome. --Sarahsposse (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. Maybe there is hope for consensus. I think you made a good argument. Even though we come from different perspectives, we came to similar conclusions.--Dstern1 (talk) 23:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Headlines were made after Palin reported that she entered labor and her water broke with Trig while she was in Texas; approximately 1 month earlier than expected. She said that she then flew 11 hours to Anchorage and drove an additional hour to Wasilla, AK to give birth at a local hospital. Some healthcare professionals had criticism of the risk she reports taking; while her own physician reported supporting her decision.

I would like to hear opinions for and against. I am trying to build consensus for inclusion. I am also capable of being convinced otherwise. Please note this report is well supported by the noted newspaper article and it is solely as reported by Sarah PAlin. Someone accused me of being defamatory before; I contend that it cannot be defamatory because it is what she had reported herself. I will note upfront that this account has caused a certain amount of speculation; none of that speculation is reported here. A couple of her supporters have so far told me that they would like it included (see above); a few Obama supporters have also agreed. I note one person identified as an Obama supporter has asked for exclusion and several Palin supporters have objected as well. But that is before. Lets hear some opinions. Please.--Dstern1 (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please merge this with the discussion above rather than forking the discussion all over the place, thanks. The discussion will not be archived while it is ongoing. Kelly 01:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected and will do as you suggest.--Dstern1 (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Dstern1, the topic you propose to cover hardly seems either relevant or particularly notable. As per eMedicine, "PPROM (leaking amniotic fluid) complicates 3% of all pregnancies and occurs in approximately 150,000 pregnancies yearly in the United States." And you think this is extraordinary because. . .? Ronnotel (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I cannot discuss your medical citation until I can review it. I added my edit and it was reversed almost immediately. I made the edit to get the discussion moving. I contend that it is a notable event in the life of Sarah Palin. Again, I am presenting it in as neutral form as I can identify. If someone has more neutral language, I want to listen.--Dstern1 (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for slowing down. Yes, getting on a plane while leaking amniotic fluid might seem odd at first. However, from the available information we simply don't know if that was unusual for her. Were her other four births similarly complicated? She was in a much better position than anyone else to weigh the risks of getting on a plane and being delivered by her regular doctor or taking a chance on a unknown doctor and strange hospital. I just don't see this as particularly extraordinary so that it warrants a mention in her bio. We'd have to research all of her other births and/or medical procedures for a standard to judge it by. Ronnotel (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Dstein, simply repeating the same argument over and over until other people get tired of repeating theirs is not "consensus". You have yet to substantively address the concerns that have been raised over and over here. We should no more be discussing the childbirth process for female candidates than we should be discussing the penis size of male candidates. (Sorry for any unintended mental imagery caused by my comment.) Kelly 03:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

First, let me implore people to stop making phony claims of "consensus". I've heard this claim advanced on multiple contested issues. "I made an argument and no one stated a refutation that convinced me" does not translate to "there was consensus".

Ferrylodge writes, "Most Misplaced Pages biographical articles involve someone who was born after a mother's water broke." Very funny! But I'll put aside the snarkiness and address Ronnotel's question about why this is extraordinary. As has been pointed out, most women don't go through such an experience -- giving a speech and undertaking a long plane ride -- after their waters broke. It was reported on in some detail in the Anchorge Daily News at the time of Trig's birth. As another example, look at the entire birth report on Alaska Public Radio Network -- three sentences, two of them devoted to the unusual circumstances that some editors want to omit from our article. Furthermore, the episode has been mentioned since then by Palin partisans as a demonstration of how "tough" she is. The subject receives several paragraphs of coverage in this recent AP story (scroll down about halfway, to the heading "From Texas to Alaska before delivery").

The version suggested earlier in this thread mentions the medical issues raised. That gets into criticism of Palin -- criticism advanced by prominent spokespersons, and so worth being considered for inclusion, but, simply because it's criticism, it generates problems in the minds of some editors. For starters, we might omit that part and simply recount the unusual timeline of the birth. Here's another version that was in our article at one point:

Palin's announcement in March 2008 that she was seven months pregnant generated publicity and surprise, as did the circumstances of Trig's birth. More than a month before the baby was due, she was in Texas to deliver the keynote address at a conference. At about 4:00 a.m. local time, she began leaking amniotic fluid. She remained in Texas to deliver the speech before taking the eight-hour flight back to Alaska. She landed in Anchorage at 10:30 p.m. and arrived at the Mat-Su Valley Regional Medical Center an hour later. She gave birth at 6:30 a.m. the next day after her physician induced labor. Palin returned to work three days later.

This information was originally expunged at a time of Internet speculation that Trig was actually born to Bristol. I agreed with excluding that speculation from the article, and I thought it wasn't surprising that some people reacted viscerally to any discussion of the circumstances of the birth. With that speculation apparently dead, however, we can now take note of the news judgment of such sources as the Anchorage Daily News, Alaska Public Radio Network, and the Associated Press, and include some undisputed facts. JamesMLane t c 07:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Many women have some unusual experience during childbirth. We don't need to include the "interesting" birth stories of all mothers who have Misplaced Pages articles, even if they made headlines at the time. The fact that she had to be induced 26 hours after the leaking started suggests her and her doctor's assessment of the situation was an unnotable judgment call. --agr (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Well, based on Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dstern1, it appears that Rosebud999 and Sarahsposse were socks of Dstern1. It's actually kind of hilarious that they were conversing with each other. Kelly 04:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if Sarah and Hillary can converse on SNL....Ferrylodge (talk) 05:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying that Sarah and Hillary are sockpuppets? Now that I think about it, I've never actually seen them in the same place at the same time... Kelly 05:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And if you had, it was probably a body double! Jennavecia 05:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

References

1. Leonard Doyle. "Palin 'hid her pregnancy from aides'". New Zealand Herald. Retrieved 2008-09-09.
2. ^ Jodi Kantor. "Fusing Politics and Motherhood in a New Way". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-09-09.
3. http://pregnancy.about.com/od/laborbasics/ss/waterbroken.htm
4. MAUER, RICHARD (2008-09-07). "State paid for trip when Palin told students to pray for pipeline". Anchorage Daily News. Retrieved 2008-09-08.
5. MAUER, RICHARD (2008-09-07). "State paid for trip when Palin told students to pray for pipeline". Anchorage Daily News. Retrieved 2008-09-08.
6. Demer, Lisa (April 22, 2008). "Palins' child diagnosed with Down syndrome". Anchorage Daily News.
7. Wesley, Loy (March 6, 2008). "Secret's out: Palin pregnant". Anchorage Daily Times. Retrieved 2008-08-29.
8. George, Rebecca (April 22, 2008). "Palin says she felt safe flying to Alaska to have baby". Daily News-Miner. Retrieved 2008-08-30.
9. Demer, Lisa (April 22, 2008), "Palins' child diagnosed with Down syndrome", Anchorage Daily News{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
10. Quinn, Steve (2007-05-10). "Alaska governor balances newborn's needs, official duties". USA Today.

The Truth about Earmarks

While initially supporting $223 million in federal funding for the "Bridge to Nowhere", Palin backed off when Alaska's share of the cost increased. In February 2008, Palin's office sent a 70-page memo to Ted Stevens' office, outlining $200 million in funding requests for Alaska.

Second, it was undoubtedly intended to providing a counterpoint to the Palin/McCain objection to the current system of earmarks. Earmarks are federal expenditures that are placed into appropriation bills that "earmark" funds for particular projects without those appropriations ever going through a debate and a vote. Politicians who argue against earmarks (including McCain and Palin) want to reform this process. They do not want to stop spending federal money in the states. No one wants to do that, because that is how government works today. The federal government collects personal and corporate income taxes and then all of the senators and representatives try to get some of it back for their states and districts.

The fact that the Palin administration wrote a 70-page memo to their senior Senator is completely non-notable. Every state government works with their congressional delegation to get the maximum amount of dollars out of Washington to support state programs. The issue at debate in this election is the reform of the earmark system. A governor cannot request an earmark. A governor can only request funds. It is up to the congressional representative to decide if they will get that funding through an appropriation bill that spells out what is being funded with a vote, or if they will try to get money by stuffing it into an appropriation bill as an earmark. That fact that the Palin asked Stevens to work for $200 million of funding for projects in Alaska, has no bearing whatsoever on the argument over the Bridge to Nowhere or the reform of the congressional earmark system. Accordingly, I have deleted that sentence as a non-sequitur.--Paul (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, good edit. I was trying to think of how to approach that with my question above, but your approach was the correct one. Kelly 01:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

While I have no problem with the edit for its grammatical worth (the sentence does appear to be out of context), the reality is that any request which directs funds to a particular state (location) is, in fact, an earmark OMB Earmark Definition. While you've made an interesting argument about "every state government work with their congressional delegation to get the maximum amount of dollars out of Washington," that is exactly what I believe that McCain is against. Earmark opponents would suggest that money should be directed to federal agencies without recipients specified and that the executive branch should then distribute funds based upon the merit of proposed endeavors. The statement about her request for $200 million is notable in that an individual might perceive it as working within the existing system or as being committed to it-- having a direct bearing on their impression of Ms. Palin. It is, as I said earlier, not well-placed, though.Iceborer (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that many earmark opponents are against any direction of funds to a particular use, if you do a Lexis search on earmarks, I think you'll see that the current outrage against them is that most are inserted as "report language" after the bill is passed, thus bypassing the debate and vote process of a congressional bill. The desire to prevent circumvention of the Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes is really a Utopian goal that few really argue for. Personally, I'd like to reduce federal taxes and increase local taxes so the states would have money and discretion on how to spend it, but I am aware enough of realities to realize that cutting down the size of the Federal Government to allow a redistribution of taxing and spending to a more local level is never going to happen.--Paul (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I never thought of the OMB as Utopian OMB Earmark Data Collection :)Iceborer (talk) 04:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any specific suggestions? See WP:DUE for why the sentence was removed. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

My concern was that the rationale for the edit was one sentence about context followed by, apologies to Paul, 2 paragraphs of his POV about what earmarks are. The second portion of the rationale given for the edit seems to poorly support it.Iceborer (talk) 04:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"Every state government works with their congressional delegation to get the maximum amount of dollars out of Washington to support state programs." But not every state governor is campaigning on a platform of ending earmarks. Grsz 02:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again, Governors do not ask for earmarks, they ask for funding. There is no conflict between the state government writing a 70-page memo to the congressional delegation outlining the need for funding and being against earmarks. A memo outlining funding requests and needs will necessarily contain information on why the funds should be allocated using a competitive allocation processes. There is no obvious connection between such a memo and the current system of congressional earmarks. If someone is against the current earmark system, that does not mean they forsake all federal funding.--Paul (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well when Ted Stevens got funding for the Bridge to Nowhere, it was (very publicly) in the form of earmarks. She didn't refuse it then. Stevens is known for his pork . And obviously if Palin sent him a list of funding she wanted, she knew how it would come. It goes to show that Palin was certainly not against earmark funding until McCain called. Grsz 02:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"...obviously if Palin sent him a list of funding she wanted, she knew how it would come." This is not obvious. Plain has a reputation as a reformer. Saying that she knew such a list would be funded through earmarks because it was sent to Stevens is close to libeling Stevens and is implying guilt of Palin by association.--Paul (talk) 03:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're bringing a constructive tone to the discussion here. I agree with you that in most situations this would not be notable. In that light, the best place for a detailed conversation about earmarks is probably on the campaign page. Aprock (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying a governor should decline federal funding? Should all of the money the federal government collects be spent in the District of Columbia? Being against the earmarking process is very much different from declining federal funding. Kelly 03:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The edit was fine. Let's stick to sources rather than debate the nature of earmarks amongst ourselves. At least some reliable sources have noted an apparent incongruity between current rhetoric and past actions with regard to federal funding. MastCell  05:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That is another problem with this sentence, it has a single source: an Obama talking points release.--Paul (talk) 08:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

ZOMG - TANNING BED!!!11!1!

Politico is reporting that Palin installed a tanning bed in the Governor's Mansion in defiance of the American Cancer Society! This needs to go into the article immediately, preferably in the lead! Palin is pro-cancer!

Seriously, could this election get any more inane and tabloidy? :) Kelly 01:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And if Politico says it, it must be important and true. I had an argument with an IP a couple days ago about how just because Politico says Obama got a discount on home loans 10 years ago, there is no reason to insert it into the "Early life and career" sections. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but Misplaced Pages is not a chat forum. If this sourced fact was raised in order to consider its inclusion into the article that would be one thing. But apparently, the issue is being raised for the sole purposes of ridicule and sarcasm. It's not really appropriate to bring this kind of stuff up on the talk pages. In fact, the whole section should be removed. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 02:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's just commentary on the sources we have to filter here. Lighten up, Francis. Kelly 02:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is Francis? And again, how does it help us to edit an encyclopedia entry? *sigh* J Readings (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"Francis" is from this film and is meant in a light-hearted way. Very well, I formally propose that we add the fact that Palin installed a tanning bed in the Governor's Mansion, based on Politico's hard-hitting reporting. :) Kelly 02:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Pvt. Francis "Psycho" Sawyer. That's the character's name apparently, right? I see. J Readings (talk) 02:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't seen the film, I guess you wouldn't understand. But honestly, no offense intended. With respect - Kelly 02:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The press has gone insane on both sides in this election. Since we have to rely on them for sources, it sucks to be us. I wish some of the editors who have successfully kept out garbage on the Obama article would help us out here. Maybe they will trickle over here eventually, but for now the insanity continues. Kelly 02:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'll try to slow the garbage, although it might be challenging. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks - we need all the good editors we can get here. Kelly 02:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll jump in too, though my schedule is tight at the moment. --Clubjuggle /C 02:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The press is doing OK. They're actually calling out some of the more blatant untruths in campaign ads, which is more than they usually do. What do you expect from them? Everyone wants to know more about Sarah Palin, she has virtually no record on issues of national significance, and the campaign has her avoid unscripted encounters like a vampire avoids holy water. Reportage on tanning beds is the natural, and perhaps intended, result. MastCell  05:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Mastcell, there are may other sources that are not frivolous, such as this: "Palin's Project List Totals $453 Million - WSJ.com". Retrieved 2009-09-15. - Better focus on these sources... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Yeah, you've got a point there. You can't really blame the campaign for being a little skittish, though, given all the garbage the press threw out there about the family, and some of the frankly vicious stuff in the op-ed columns. I'm happy to see the press getting punished, after being forced to deal with their trashy reporting here at this article. :) If the McCain campaign is smart, they'll just bypass any hostile press and talk directly to the American people. Kelly 05:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Or this one from The Sydney Morning Herald: "Press picks over litter of lies on the Palin trail - US Election - smh.com.au". Retrieved 2009-09-15. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for an irrelevant, non-original news source. The article is a rehash of articles and columns from the US, including the NYT story, and editorial columns. It would make a really bad example of a source in WP. Collect (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's a good source because it speaks directly to the issue: summarizing editorial reaction to the ads. The applicable policy states:

Material published by reliable sources can be put together in a way that constitutes original research. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. (from Misplaced Pages:No original research#Synthesis of published material which advances a position)

If a Wikipedian had produced a meta-analysis of this type, it would arguably violate the policy. It's not original research, however, if the newspaper reviews several sources and synthesizes them to come to a conclusion, and we then quote the newspaper. JamesMLane t c 15:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. By your argument, any news release from a campaign which cites genuine sources then becomes citable in itself. Reductio ad absurdam. In the past such agglomerations of precis from other sources were regarded as less than cites for the original sources. In this case, the SMH iterates material already given in other cites in the article, and then is counted as a new source. It isn't. Collect (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

An international news source is indeed reliable, in partiular because it does summarize the collective sources on the subject from US news media. Please re-read WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue is "source." This "source" is being used to reintroduce material already discussed, from sources which have alrready been discussed. It offers, in fact, absolutely nothing new. Where the actual original source has already been discussed, and the material either allowed in or ruled out by consensus, it is disingenuous to use the back door argument of the source being "international" to get around the discussions already found on this Talk page. Collect (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(1) A campaign's release is indeed citeable, whether or not it cites sources, because it's an expression of a notable opinion, and we report facts about opinions, per WP:NPOV. Of course, we don't cite every campaign release; we cite very few, but they're just about all eligible for inclusion if important enough (and if properly attributed). The newspaper article is obviously more reliable, though. (2) If a new source is offered, its availability can change a previous consensus. Some editors who thought that the material had to be excluded under WP:RS might now think it could be presented in accordance with our policies. (3) In any event, no alleged consensus on Misplaced Pages is cast in stone. Individual editors (and hence the community as a whole) are allowed to change their minds even without new evidence. I don't know if there actually was a consensus before, because I can't claim to have mastered every nook and cranny of this page's voluminous archives. (As an aside, it would help if anyone claiming a consensus, on this or any other issue, would provide a link.) Even assuming your assertion to be correct, though, it doesn't end the issue. Defenders of the status quo need to address the merits of the proposed change. JamesMLane t c 00:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions

The "Political positions" section is supposed to be a neutral summary of the subarticle, but in the current form it is far from that. Tagged accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Good specific critique there, Jossi. :) Any suggestions? Kelly 04:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure: Take the main points from each one of the sub-sections in the subarticle and summarize these here. Not easy, but doable. As it stand this is a very poor summary of what is there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Interested to see what you've got in mind. Please post here on the talk page first, that section has been controversial and there's been a lot of back-and-forth. Best to obtain consensus first, I think. Kelly 05:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

16 September 2008- Sarah Palin has never entertained the idea of war with Russia. The hypothetical situation discussed by Palin and Charlie Gibson refered to a possible attack from Russia on a NATO member. Nato members are absolutely obliged to defend NATO soil as if it is the soil of their own nation. The United States is obligated to defend militarily in times of an invasion on a NATO member. Palin simply expressed her understanding of NATO policy, not the implications of War between the US and Russia respectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.72.65 (talk) 07:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Since when? Her comments came regarding the invasion of Georgia or another former Soviet nation, most of which are not NATO members. Besides, Misplaced Pages is to report what she said, not offer lengthy defenses. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 21:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you never bothered to even read her comments, so why are you even commenting, even being so brazen as to assert it's a "defense" when she is clearly being misquoted here? She said "... We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to...It doesn't have to lead to war and it doesn't have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies ..."

Margaret Thatcher and "reception"

I've seen several UK-based and US-based commentators/columnists note an eerie similarity between Palin and Thatcher, such as these articles: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/09/04/do0404.xml and http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122143727571134335.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_mostpop . This should be touched on in the reception section, particulalry in light of the claims the "intense scrutiny" was only a result of Palin being a new political commodity. Obama who was similarly unknown received little to no scrutiny by the mainstream media outside of Fox news. It took them a year to find out about his racist, bigot of a reverend despite Wright's very well known controversial church and speeches and controversial associations, like Farrahkan, and the fact that video evidence of his extremist views were readily available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.29.150 (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Further, I have serious issues with the claims that "only republicans" have seen the attacks on Palin as unfair. Highly notable and visible democrats like Kirsten Powers and Geraldine Ferraro, among many others, have come out condeming the unfair media attacks on Palin.66.190.29.150 (talk) 08:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Public Safety Commissioner: Kopp resignation

A notable event in Palin's administration was the turmoil concering Charles Kopp, Monegan's replacement. 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 a prior letter of repriimand for sexual harassment (information that was available on any minimal background check), plus a $10k severance payment). Would such an event be notable in reporting on the administration of a governor? Of course it would be. The question shouldn't be distorted just because the circumstances of Monegan's departure were even more notable. 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. I've restored those two sentences. I've added a third about Kopp's successor, just so no one thinks the post is still vacant, but I think that sentence is much less important and could well be dropped. If people don't want the Kopp affair in the same section as Monegan, we can put it elsewhere, but it deserves a brief mention somewhere here. Of course, the full details concerning Kopp are left to the daughter article. JamesMLane t c 07:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

James, this summary section mentioned that "Monegan's replacement resigned on July 25 due to unrelated misconduct." That is more than enough. Kopp is a very very peripheral figure to the dismissal of Monegan. Kopp does not help to explain why Monegan was dismissed. This is a frigging summary for Christ's sake. (It's late and I'm irritable.) You want to insert a little novella about Kopp in this SUMMARY of the Monegan dismissal: "To replace Monegan, Palin appointed Charles M. Kopp, chief of the Kenai police department, on July 11, 2008. He resigned on July 25 after it was revealed that he had received a letter of reprimand for sexual harassment in his previous position. After the tenure of an acting commissioner, Palin appointed Joseph Masters to the post on September 12."

Can't you humor me just this once, PLEASE? All of this stuff can go in the subarticle. People resign in disgrace all the time. People get replaced all the time. Why do we have to feature Kopp here? Geez. Putting in this kind of excessive detail is just a flaming invitation for people to jam in all kinds of other details. You won't even let me put info related to the dismissal into the subarticle, and yet you want to put all this into the main article summary, even though it bears NO RELATION WHATSOEVER to the dismissal of Monegan. Can't you please STOP, so we don't have to go round and round and round here?Ferrylodge (talk) 08:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind your being irritable. I have a thick skin. What I do mind, however, is your failure to pay attention to my arguments. You harp on how Kopp's dismissal is unrelated to Monegan's. Please read what I wrote above -- I'm not arguing for inclusion on the basis that it enlightens the reader about Monegan, so you needn't refute that straw man.

• I'm arguing for inclusion in the article on the basis that, when an important commissioner resigns after two weeks under scandalous circumstances, that's a notable event in a governor's administration. It deserves mention somewhere in the governorship section. Your ES says that people are hired and resign all the time -- yes, but not under circumstances like this. If you have evidence that a $10k severance payment for a two-week stint was typical of the Palin administration, or that several other commissioners resigned because of issues relating to sexual harassment, I'd be interested in seeing it. This wasn't business as usual. (You even say, "People resign in disgrace all the time." If other Palin commissioners resigned in disgrace, we should consider those events for inclusion, but I'd guess that the Kopp resignation was unusually dramatic even as resignations in disgrace go.)
• I'm arguing for inclusion in the "dismissal" section because the Kopp affair was an indirect consequence of the Monegan affair and that section is where people would logically look for it. As I said above, if people are going to go into hysterics (or even just get irritable) about including it here, I'm not averse to putting it somewhere else. I think the "dismissal" section is the best place but putting it in the second-best place would be better than bickering about it.

You describe my insert as a "novella". C'mon, the discussion of Kopp is a mere two sentences. As I stated above, the third sentence was just so that no one could accuse me of trying to imply that the position was still unfilled. Drop that one if you want to.

As for going round and round and round, the two-sentence "novella" was in this version at the end of September 15. I think it had been in there for several days, but I'm not going to wade through the history to compile a chronology. As far as I can tell, it was deleted without talk-page discussion. If you want us to stop going round and round and round, stop deleting it.

Finally, as to what I allegedly won't let you put into the daughter article, you're being disingenuous (which is also far less excusable than being irritable). You refer to "info related to the dismissal". As you know perfectly well, I contend that the information from 1993 is not related to the dismissal. That issue is being hashed out at Talk:Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal#2nd death threat? and at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal. Let's leave it to those fora; it doesn't affect whether we should include Kopp's resignation here. JamesMLane t c 08:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

How does it enlighten anything with monehgan, as the only connection seems to be one you are trying to arbitrarily pencil in yourself. further, you assert a background check was not done(Or was ignored), but could you cite me the Alskan state laws that allow such inquiries to even occur? My state has certain laws agains such things, and you have posited the claim this search is simplistic to do-- where's your proof a state employer can do such? It may not have been the case at all, but it's interesting that you come from that angle. You also suggest there is something odd with severance pay, but do you have any evidence it's odd for police chief in alaska or anywhere else for that matter to not have such a contract? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.29.150 (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You ask how this enlightens anything with Monegan. I'll say to you what I said to Ferrylodge: Please read what I actually wrote. "I'm not arguing for inclusion on the basis that it enlightens the reader about Monegan...." (emphasis added) As for the background check issue, Palin says she knew of the Kenai Police Department investigation of Kopp. She somehow had the impression that he'd been cleared. She faulted him for not telling her about the letter of reprimand, he said she never asked, blah blah blah. We don't need to get into that level of detail here. The point -- pardon me for repeating myself yet again but it's apparently necessary -- is that a commissioner was appointed and then resigned two weeks later under extraordinary circumstances. The severance payment was certainly odd at least to the extent that Monegan didn't get one after his much longer service. Please note also that I'm not suggesting we include, in this main article, any information about the severance payment or any of the back-and-forth about why Palin didn't know of Kopp's record in Kenai before she appointed him. JamesMLane t c 09:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

James, because I'm such a nice guy, I just unilaterally dropped my request to mention the extremely relevant San Fransico Chronicle article in our Misplaced Pages sub-article. So now that's moot, as a favor to you. As far as Kopp is concerned, I've extended a nice big fat olive branch to you by maintaining a mention of it in the main article, with a footnote for people who are interested in learning more ("Monegan's replacement resigned on July 25 due to unrelated misconduct"). That seems like plenty. It's just not very notable. I get 92 Google News hits for "Kopp" and "Palin". In contrast, I get 6957 Google News hits for "Monegan" and "Palin". As far as failed appointments and people resigning in disgrace are concerned, Bernie Kerik is not mentioned in our George W. Bush article, Bert Lance is not mentioned in our Jimmy Carter article, John Tower is not mentioned in our article about George H.W. Bush, Webb Hubbell is not mentioned in our Bill Clinton article etc., etc., etc. I know it must pain you to contemplate not describing Palin's appointment of an alleged sex fiend in the main article, but really we must stick to the most notable things.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we do need to get into those kind of details because you've asserted things that are merely assumptions on your part to include material that may be in violation of the rules of biographies. If Palin could not access the record on what reprimands he received, then his hiring is no fault of her own. The woman in question that was allegedly sexually harrassed never filed anything that would mark a permanent record that I know she could access, such as a lawsuit. So I have no evidence she was privy to this infromation of any kind of a reprimand, and form the sounds of it, nor are you. I just did my own investigation. Palin had no access to this information. Further, no reprimand EVEN EXISTS anymore because of an agreement made by Kopp with the city. Additionally, Kopp contends that he never sexually harrassed anyone and no actual judicial proceeding was every initiated to prove or disprove the allegations and never brought any formal suit whatsoever. He resigned because of media attention to this incident in his past, as it was interfering with his current position to perform his duties.66.190.29.150 (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, thanks for unilaterally dropping your request, after everyone who responded to the thread you started (well, all three editors who responded) disagreed with you. If you make one more post here arguing that Kopp is less important than Monegan (true), and concluding that Kopp is therefore unimportant (a complete non sequitur), then I myself may get a little irritable. Did any other top-level Palin appointees resign after two weeks? It's also apples-and-oranges to make comparisons to articles about presidents. A four- or eight-year stint as President of the United States generates more notable events than twenty-some months as Governor of a state with fewer people than Austin, Texas. As a result, the standard for inclusion in an article about a President is higher. Is this really a contentious point? (As an aside, however, I would include Lance's resignation in the Carter article, along with the article's current references to him. His resignation was a fairly big deal. Kerik and Tower never took office. Hubbell was in between and I could go either way on that one.) Putting aside Presidents, a better comparison would be to some other state or local official. The first one that occurred to me was Rudy Giuliani, who spent eight years overseeing more than ten times as many employees as Palin has managed for less than two years. Giuliani's article does indeed include the noteworthy troubles of some of his appointed commissioners.

To the anon: You seem to be responding to a proposal that this article include a full-fledged flaying of Palin for her inadequate vetting of Kopp. No one has made such a proposal. My actual proposal is to state that Kopp resigned "after it was revealed that he had received a letter of reprimand", a phrasing perfectly consistent with your point of view that the revelation came only after his appointment. My proposal does not include what I believe to be an undisputed fact, namely that Palin knew before she appointed him that he'd been accused of sexual harassment. That fact certainly supports a criticism that Palin should've checked more carefully into the disposition of the accusation. Nevertheless, my two-sentence novella omits that fact. We can go into it in the daughter article, along with any well-sourced information that says the Kenai Police Department would've refused to tell the Governor what happened. For purposes of this article, though, the issue isn't whether the incident shows fault on the part of Palin, but whether it was a notable event in her governorship. Conceivably we could say: "On July 25, after it was revealed that he had received a letter of reprimand for sexual harassment in his previous position, he resigned, stating that the resulting media firestorm was interfering with his performance of his duties." I'm inclined to see that as too much detail here, though. The reader can infer that, if the state's newly appointed top cop is found to have been reprimanded for sexual harassment, the media would be all over it. JamesMLane t c 10:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

James, regarding my unilaterally dropped request, I assure you that I would not ordinarily drop a request like that at such an early stage. But this Palin article desperately needs editors to be more cooperative so that some of the zillions of disputes can be settled. As you know, this is a BLP, and so consensus is required to insert stuff, not to remove stuff. I do not anticipate budging one inch on this Kopp matter. You can put as much about him as you like in the subarticle, but it is not sufficiently notable for the main Palin article. The brief sentence in the article now should be more than enough, and I'm apprently not the only one who thinks so. I could cite other analogies to you besides presidential ones, but I'm sure you'd find some reason to discount them too. For example, there is nothing in the Frank Murkowski article about Tom Irwin ("Supporters of an all-Alaska gas pipeline, including Republican and Democratic candidates for governor, reacted with outrage Friday to what is being called the Thursday Afternoon Massacre, Gov. Frank Murkowski's dismissal of the state Department of Natural Resources commissioner Tom Irwin, followed immediately by the resignation of six Irwin aides.") There is also nothing in the Murkowski article about Renkes or Blatchford ("two members of his cabinet, Attorney General Gregg Renkes and Commerce Commissioner Edgar Blatchford, resigned under ethical clouds").

I am not arguing that Kopp is less important than Monegan, I am arguing that he is VASTLY less important than Monegan in the grand Palin scheme. Did any other top-level Palin appointees resign after two weeks? Probably not, I don't know. It doesn't really matter, IMHO.

In any event, is there any chance that you might let this drop now? Please?Ferrylodge (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see much relvance to the discussion of whether to include completely different information (the 1993 incident) in the daughter article, when no one is arguing that it belongs in this article. Because you raise it, though, I'll note that you said, "When I get a chance, I may bring it up at the BLP noticeboard for their opinion. Will that convince you, James?" I responded that I would abide by a consensus on the BLP noticeboard. You did bring it up there and no one agreed with you. If your implication is that dropping the point in the face of such opposition shows you to be a nice person, and that you're owed a favor in return on the main article, then, sorry, I just don't see it that way.

Turning to the real issues, your interpretation of WP:BLP doesn't seem to be supported by the policy. "New material should generally be discussed in order to arrive at a consensus concerning relevance, availability of sources, and reliability of sources." As I pointed out, this isn't new material. Beyond that, there seems to be no serious contest on these points -- the material is relevant to Palin and it's confirmed by reliable sources. The issue is rather one of editorial judgment, specifically whether it's important enough to expand your favored one-sentence version into two sentences. I don't read the BLP policy as giving automatic preference to either side in a dispute of that sort.

I'm completely ignorant about Murkowski's sacking of Irwin. Your quotation about it gives me the initial impression that it should be mentioned in the Murkowski article. I see no discussion of this subject on Talk:Frank Murkowski. Thus, my reaction is: First, it appears that the people editing Frank Murkowski have not reached a considered decision that this should be omitted; rather, it seems simply not to have been brought up. Second, even if they had considered and rejected it, that wouldn't be binding as to other articles. Certainly there is no blanket policy that the resignation or firing of an executive's appointee must be omitted from the executive's bio article.

As to your concluding request, I believe there are several respects in which this article reflects an improper pro-Palin POV. The attempt to suppress information about Kopp, an incident that obviously could lead many people to question her executive ability, is not an isolated example. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to devote nearly so much time to this corner of Misplaced Pages as would've been necessary to even try to correct all the problems. In this instance, I thought that turning one sentence back into two, undoing an undiscussed deletion of information, would be a comparatively easy fix to accomplish. The length of this thread shows that my powers of Wikiprognostication are minimal.

So, where do we go from here? In light of your statement, I'll stop trying to reason with you. For the moment, I won't get in a revert war with you, although I regard your unilateral deletion of the information as clearly wrong. Instead, when I have time I'll work with the open-minded editors to craft appropriate language. If there's a passage that has broad support, but you continue to try to keep it out, then I suppose we'll have to go to RfC over it. The short-term result will be, as it too often is on Misplaced Pages, that obstinacy is far more important in shaping the articles than is reason. For the longer term, if your goal is for editors to be more cooperative, then I respectfully suggest that deleting properly sourced material that's been in for several days, and making this deletion with no talk page discussion, and announcing that you will not budge on your deletion, is not an approach that is likely to generate a spirit of cooperation. JamesMLane t c 15:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If your goal is to disparage others for not agreeing with your decided POV, then I must respectfully (and tersely) demur. If your goal is, instead, to imply that you and your friends will be obstinate in your own turn, then I sincerely regret ever trying to make this page truly NPOV. Collect (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be ignorant of the facts in this situation, and you have continually asserted things that you don't know are true, and are, in fact, demonstrably untrue. The reprimand does not exist. Read that again. The reprimand does not exist. Kopp had always asserted he was innocent in any wrong doing and he maintain his part of an agreement with the city that ensured the reprimand no longer existed. Assume he had cancer and was in remission and given a clean bill of health, yet then he died after appointment to the position, of a return of cancer, would you still aggitate so readily for inclusion?? You really have made no compelling argument whatsoever, instead you continue to let your agenda slip out in your psuedo-arguments for inclusion. This is not despotic communist country and Palin is not omniprescent. You might as well fault her for any wrong doing anyone from a trooper to a garbage man did during her ternure are governor. 66.190.29.150 (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

James, I'm disappointed here. It is not true that no one agreed with me regarding the BLP issue. Additionally, I have not differed with you about Kopp due to "obstinacy" on my part. I have differed with you for a variety of different reasons that I fully explained. I provided link after link after link, for four different Misplaced Pages presidential articles, and for multiple resignations during the Murkowski administration, to support my position, in addition to providing you with contrasting search results from Google News. In response, you have provided nothing. I gave you plenty of reasons for saying that "I do not anticipate budging one inch on this Kopp matter." I am not refusing to budge if you provide compelling reasons in response to my objections, but I do not anticipate you doing so.

And I note that others have provided some additional reasoning in this talk page section why the Kopp matter is already adequately addressed in this Misplaced Pages article. It is not being suppressed. This Misplaced Pages article mentions the matter, and provides a footnote with link. And I already invited you to write as much about it as you would like in the sub-article.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Several points in response to Collect, Ferrylodge, and the anon:

• Collect's first comment, with two "If" clauses that are both divorced from reality, hardly merits mention. What I actually said was that I would not re-insert the material unilaterally deleted by Ferrylodge, but would instead work with others to develop language that would, if necessary, be put to RfC. That's pretty much the opposite of obstinacy.
• The anon continues to assert that no reprimand even exists, allegedly because of a subsequent agreement between Kopp and Kenai. No such agreement can change history. I believe these facts to be undisputed: Kopp was reprimanded at some point in the past; the reprimand was not public knowledge at the time Palin appointed him Commissioner; the reprimand became public knowledge during his tenure as Commissioner (I think it was on or about July 22); the report of the past reprimand generated much media attention and criticism of Kopp (and if you think that was all an outrage because the reprimand "didn't exist", you're entitled to your opinion, but the fact of the public criticism is not a matter of opinion and cannot reasonably be disputed); soon after the media firestorm broke, Kopp resigned. The daughter article can go into this detail, including whatever well-sourced information supports a contention that the reprimand had become nonexistent and, even more dubiously, that everyone was morally obligated to ignore it because of subsequent dealings between Kopp and Kenai. For the Palin article, the point is simply that saying that Kopp resigned "after it was revealed that he had received a letter of reprimand for sexual harassment in his previous position" is completely accurate. It's an important aspect of Palin's administration, and it's reasonable for us to use a few extra words to state the cause, which received widespread public attention, instead of leaving the reader hanging as the current version does by coyly saying he "resigned...due to unrelated misconduct".
• In fact, the current version asserts that Kopp engaged in misconduct, which is arguably a BLP and NPOV violation given that Kopp denies it. By contrast, the statement that he had received a letter of reprimand is an objective fact. BLP protects Palin but it also protects people like Kopp. The BLP violation could be cured by changing "unrelated misconduct" to "unrelated issues", leaving the reader to wonder if Kopp had a heart attack or some such, and further obscuring any inconvenient facts that might sully Palin's desired image as a skilled government reformer.
• Contrary to the anon's implication, the issue isn't whether we can "fault" Palin in the Kopp affair. This is neither a campaign puff piece nor a hit job. In fact, it isn't even a balanced consideration of whether or not she should be VP. It's a biography of her life, and the issue is whether the Kopp affair was notable enough to be mentioned in that context. It doesn't have to be relevant to her qualifications for national office, any more than her high-school role as a point guard is.
• Ferrylodge, you should check the timestamps. When I wrote my comment, it was true that no one at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal agreed with you. Thereafter, almost ten hours after you said you would drop it, and some hours after I wrote, one editor did chime in on your side. Please consider my comment updated accordingly.
• You write, "I have not differed with you about Kopp due to 'obstinacy' on my part." I agree. "James, I disagree with you" could not be characterized as obstinacy. "I do not anticipate budging one inch on this Kopp matter" can be so characterized, and the latter is what you wrote.
• You're entitled to your opinion that I have provided "nothing" in response to your arguments. To my mind, I distinguished the presidential examples and the Murkowski example, and I provided the Giuliani counterexample. Your Google searches compared Kopp with Monegan, and I have written again and again that "Monegan-level notability" is not the standard for inclusion here. Most aspects of Palin's life would have fewer Google hits than would Monegan. I continue to believe that if Monegan had resigned for health reasons, it would be obvious to every unbiased editor that the resignation of an appointed Commissioner, after two weeks in office, under circumstances of public scandal or controversy or outcry or whatever you want to call it, was a significant enough event to merit two sentences in the main article.
• Finally, you state that "others have provided some additional reasoning" here. Except for Collect's comment, which provides no reasoning about the substance, this thread has consisted of you, me, and an anon who implausibly asserts, "The reprimand does not exist." I've answered the anon above. If you, as a lawyer, agree with that position, that is of course your prerogative.

This thread hasn't attracted wide participation, so when I'm ready to devote time to restoring the information to the article, I'll start a new thread. JamesMLane t c 01:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point about the word "misconduct" in the current article. I'll fix it to clarify that it was just an allegation. Also, in view of the timestamps, you're correct that no one was supporting me at the BLP Noticeboard when I dropped the matter. However, I intend to leave the matter dropped, even though there is now support for my position there, because I want to encourage some give and take here. I do not look forward to going through this Kopp matter again and again. But I do apologize for my recent irritability; I usually try to be sweeter than that.  :-) Anyway, you're free to revise and extend this debate as long as you would like, though I wish you would not. I hope you will keep in mind that this section of the present article also omits details that I wish could be included, such as the fact that Wooten had been disciplined for making a death threat, and that the state Senator overseeing the investigation predicted it would be damaging and called for impeachment long before the report was due to be issued. So, you're not the only one unhappy with the present summary.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The onus is on you to provide compelling reasons why this is material which should be included in a biography. You have yet to support that position. Despite wrting much, you say little. The fact Kopp was appointed by Palin and he later resigned is not satisfactory. If there was something more here, then perhaps so. But if there is, you sure haven't provided it thus far. The reprimand does not exist. The reprimand did not exist on his record. There was no error in his background check, as yu erronously asserted. Even you tried to add the "Extra" bit required to make it something even remotely worth considering for the wki, too bad it was a complete lie.66.190.29.150 (talk) 04:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

@66.190.29.150...Please use some method of specifying which "you" you are responding to. It's hard enough to follow. You may get an edit-conflict and your response will not directly fall in place where you had intended, leading to confusion...Thanks...--Buster7 (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Buster,I believe that the indentation is sufficient to determine whom I am speaking to. It really does not matter if someone else also replies, assuming they do not modify the identation of the person we both responded to.

Dear 66...For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.--Buster7 (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

militaries

militaries? you mean military's? how do you change that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aashideacon (talk • contribs) 07:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"Thanks, but no thanks" widely questioned

Regarding these sentences: "These claims have been widely questioned or described as misleading across the political spectrum, in the news media . Factcheck.org said "it’s inaccurate to say that she “told the Congress ‘thanks, but no thanks.’”" Newsweek, commenting on Palin's "astonishing pivot," remarked: "Now she talks as if she always opposed the funding."

The Sydney Morning Herald reported that virtually every media group in the US has concluded that Palin exaggerated her claim that she said "Thanks, but no thanks to the Bridge to Nowhere"."

I count 7 references and 3 expounders for the one good statement. Isn't this becoming WP:UNDUE? Can we boil this down to one good statement with a reasonable number of references to make the point and maybe one good expounder? Although I think an expounder is not needed to make the point.WTucker (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried to boil down to one good statement and no expounder, and it was rv'd as vandalism. IMO there should be NO expounders in this article. We need to stick to one statement with a reference for every point. Let's use summary style w/o quotes as well. This will help keep this page NPOV Mytwocents (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If it was restored without consensus (which it clearly was since we are trying to achieve that consensus) and without "significant change" then it is a violation of BLP (see restoring deleted content). Are we not going to enforce this portion of BLP? And calling it vandalism was uncalled for -- a good faith edit should never be called vandalism. I am sorry that that happened to you -- it is an embarrassment to WP.WTucker (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If we wish to assign primary importance to factcheck.org ought we not include http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html . And http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html states "Palin may have said “Thanks, but no thanks” on the Bridge to Nowhere, though not until Congress had pretty much killed it already. " which is not exactly the ringing refutation attributed to factcheck.org. The SMH article, again, is a rehash of American articles and editorials. Using it is like using a precis on a foreign site to iterate cites already made for its sources. Collect (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This is sourced in the article, to WSJ, NYT, AP, and Factcheck. I removed Newsweek and the Sydney Morning Herald. "Thanks but no thanks" is adequately debunked by the first four citations. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Too true. Please see my thread "we need to delete", below. Mytwocents (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Is[REDACTED] really supposed to be the place to debate the semantics of campain slogans/talking points? Will you argue in the Obama wiki for the inclusion of the questioning of Obama's claims he won't raise taxes on the middle class, when almost any economist will tell you that if you tax businesses, they pass the tax on to the consumers? Or that his claims of "95% of americans will get a tax break" when less than half of americans even pay taxes at all? Those are some pretty misleading bits of rhetoric.66.190.29.150 (talk) 04:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

accent

Her accent is very notable, especially as it adds to her folksy-ness. I was going to add a note on this in the article, but I realized many people are probably more knowledgable about this than me. Her accent rings very similar to one I heard when living in Minnesota, but I've heard people call it an Idaho or Alaska accent as well:

• "flat prairie accent"
• "strange Northern accent"
• "charming quasi Minnesotan / Canadian accent"
• "chirpy Matanuska Valley girl accent"
• "nouveaux-"Fargo" accent"
• "Fargo-meets-"Northern Exposure" accent"
• "grand Pacific Northwest/Alaska variant on the Midwestern accent"

Thoughts?--Loodog (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe for Public_image_of_Sarah_Palin? I'm not sure. FangedFaerie (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting and semi-amusing, but in my opinion a color detail like that should only be included in an important article as a throw-away if it's generally understood to be an uncontroversial way of setting up context rather than a sly insult or put-down. The sources so far are not terribly reliable, and do not mention it in such a major way that we can conclude that it is a significant biographical detail. In fact, it might say more about people's reaction to her accent, particularly for light-hearted entertainment, than her accent itself. Also, on matters like this even serious journalists are prone to make unreliable statements because for many, neither they nor their editors seems to think normal journalistic standards apply. This is one of those things like saying something happened "in droves", repeating aphorisms, anthropomorphizing animals, writing hook lines, saying that "Freud would have a field day" or that some other scientist is spinning in his grave, etc., where you can't necessarily trust an otherwise reliable source.Wikidemon (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not meant as a commentary on her. It's an interesting and notable piece of information like Giuliani's lateral lisp.--Loodog (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that mentioned in his bio? If not, I would argue that this thread be removed as this is not a forum. --Tom 19:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. So is Churchill's stutter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

. It's a blog, but very detailed with regard to her speech patterns, says it has "classic western/northwestern features" as well as Upper Midwestern (e.g. Minnesota, Wisconsin)examples.--Loodog (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyone has an accent. The only reason you may think of it as very noticable is because --you-- are not accustomed to it. To people from the upper-midwest, it's surely not noticable, nor does it convey anything "folsky", which itself is a strange term being applied here. 66.190.29.150 (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for stating the obvious. She does not speak "standard" American English like Obama, McCain, Biden, newscasters, movie stars, sports commentators, sitcom actors. Maybe if you read some of the links I provided, you could say something useful.--Loodog (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

She doesn't speak "standard" english? Oh really? I think you should actually understand the terms you use, particulalry when you take such condescending tone. Michelle Obama is the one who does not use standard English, "my babies' daddy" for instance. Let me go take a look over at the Bill Clinton wiki and see if his accent is mentioned.66.190.29.150 (talk) 05:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, isn't that interesting. Not only is his characteristic, er, "folksy" accent not mentioned, but you happen to be a patron editor of the Bill Clinton wiki. Quite interesting given the running political joke of his accent becoming more and more pronounced the further south he was during his many times on the campaign trail. Do you have an excuse for your double standards or is this where you slink away?66.190.29.150 (talk) 08:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources

At this time, there are 201 sources in the article. It's hard to think some of these sources don't say the same thing. It's probably a good idea to see if we can condense some references together. Grsz 15:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Good luck trying to sift through it all. You are right, there is a ton of information that wasn't there three weeks ago. This article will only get bigger and bigger and it may not be the best time to start condensing citations because the circus isn't over yet. Jojhutton (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

We're just as well off with multiple sources. Some of these links may go dead. With multiple articles cited, the reader may be able to find the same information in a different cited source. JamesMLane t c 16:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You can do a lot of good if you want to be a wikignome on this. For example you can find refs that are incomplete or not in citation style and fill them out. In the process you'll probably find a few broken links, cites out of place, and cites to nowhere to fix. Also, once that's all done you might notice that there are some duplicates that can be consolidated. Do be careful - broken links are best fixed rather than deleted, and even if a link isn't there does not mean the source does not exist (cites without online links are still valid but in an article like this, best supported with a courtesy link or secondary citation). Wikidemon (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's time to delete

This comparison shows my edit. I removed several expounders. I want NPOV. It's important that we keep a summary style with citations. But any interjecting of a POV with a mention of the New York Times(or some other paper) does not remeove the fact that it is POV, being parrotted by a news article. Statements on[REDACTED] must stand on there own wieght, without quotation marks or inflation of their importance with a mention of the "esteemed" news source. In light of that, they should sumarised, or if covered already by another statement, deleted. Mytwocents (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:NPOV. MastCell  19:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if I've been here another 3 years I'll learn what NPOV is .............. An editor restored the 2 expounders I deleted with this comment "(these statements need this context. and npov means "neutral point of view")" .... a little snarkey, but I agree! Without the expounder text the statements are a pure hatchet job. But here's a newsflash, theyr'e just as POV with the expounders, just easier to swallow!

"According to a New York Times article, for which reporters interviewed 60 local officials and legislators, Palin has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and blurred the line between government and personal grievance. An article in USA Today states that Palin teamed with Democrats in the Legislature to raise taxes on the oil industry and to pursue a populist agenda that toughened ethics rules, while taking few steps to advance culturally conservative causes."

Here is the text w//o the softening expounders; "Palin has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and blurred the line between government and personal grievance. Palin teamed with Democrats in the Legislature to raise taxes on the oil industry and to pursue a populist agenda that toughened ethics rules, while taking few steps to advance culturally conservative causes. "

Now, if you can condense and summarise these statements in a way that they can stay in in the article, be my guest. But I'm giving you a fools errand. There's no way to make this stuff encyclopedic and neutral, even in contrast to the rest of the section. It needs to go. Mytwocents (talk)

Subject addressed in #36 and Wikidemon archived topic.

Saturday Night Live/Fey parody

10:24, 2008 September 16 SnapCount (Talk | contribs) (92,139 bytes) (Undid revision 238831667 by Loodog (talk) We'll put it in when the spoofs of Obama are mentioned in his bio) (undo)

Fine with me. Some editor who is up on parodies of Obama can insert one over there provided that it is tasteful and on target like Fey's spoof of Palin. But perhaps more appropriately a spoof on Biden could be included to counterbalance mention of the spoof on Palin. McCain too. These spoofs should not form a digression in any article but do deserve mention as comic relief in the campaign, especially spoofs which become news stories in themselves. Richard David Ramsey 16:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because it's all about "being fair." What a crock. Grsz 17:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The SNL skit was quite funny. Has no place here. At all. Keeper ǀ 76 17:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think that's what SnapCount meant. I would consider it relevant for inclusion in Fey's bio, but not Palin's. Jennavecia 17:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This kind of false equivalency is completely inappropriate. The McCain, Obama, Biden, and Palin articles should all be NPOV, should all include the important information about the subject, etc. If a parody of one is notable enough to be reported, it should be reported, even if there's no similarly prominent parody of any of the others.

Looking just at this article, without the false equivalency, I'm inclined to say that the Fey portrayal shouldn't be mentioned. It attracted more attention than some SNL parodies, chiefly because Fey nailed both a remarkable physical resemblance and a superb imitation of voice and mannerism. Nevertheless, none of that adds up to enough impact to be mentioned here. It should probably go into the Tina Fey article, though. JamesMLane t c 17:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing about Dana Carvey's years of parodying the former president on the George H. W. Bush bio page. I really can't see how Fey's one time parody of Palin is substantial enough at this point to need to be mnetioned here.—Gaff 22:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's triva really not biographic material. Hobartimus (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}. If you think Carvey notable, make the case at Bush's article. Otherwise, this is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin's $600 million second {other} bridge

htt://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090916/ap_on_el_pr/palin_bridge_to_wasilla

A $600 million bridge and highway project to link Alaska's largest city to Palin's town of 7,000 residents is moving full speed ahead, despite concerns the bridge could worsen some commuting and threaten a population of beluga whales.

--MisterAlbert (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin unqualified to run a major company like HP

...per ex CEO of HP, Republican Carly Fiorina.<:ref>http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/16/palin-s-favorability-ratings-begin-to-falter.aspx Fiorina admits to Palin's inability to run a major company</ref>

• A story in a major newspaper reprinting the comment would be a better source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a major qualifier. Should it be included? She is an avid McCain supporter, so this recording is ironic to say the least. Duuude007 (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there the slightest bit of relevance to this? Collect (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Relevance? Certainly. The problem with it is that, without other opinions on Palin's competence, including it may be undue weight. If substantially all opinions are in accord, we should reflect them - as we do with the criticism of Richard Mentor Johnson. But in the meantime, this is a sourced assertion which may well be notable; removing it from this talkpage, as one editor did, is no help to Misplaced Pages. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No real relevance. If anyone bothered to actually read the blog, they'd say that a more complete version of Fiorina's comment was "No, I don't. But that's not what she's running for." I.e., Fiorina herself didn't think it was relevant, but she had to answer the interviewer's question. It would be hard to come up with something less relevant, but I have confidence that somebody will. GRBerry 20:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is not worthy of inclusion in our biographical article. Let's try not to get caught up in 24-hour-news-cycle syndrome here. MastCell  20:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)Of course that is Fiorina's take (and should be included if anything is, as context). But the fact that Palin is being defended by calling the vice-presidency suitable for Throttlebottoms is itself a non-trivial development. If there is more than one datapoint, we should consider again; that's why this one should stay accessible, even if unincluded. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• More info from FirstRead

In this, she is followed up with questioning, and stands by her statement. Duuude007 (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Fiorina, McCain's campaign co-chair, says Palin is not qualified to run HP but that she is qualified to be Vice President, and that she has more executive experience than Obama. Yes, it is getting coverage in major media as part of the news of the day. However, it is so not notable I have a hard time understanding why the newspapers are bothering to print it much less why it would be here in an article about Palin's life. It's more of a rhetorical trick over what an executive qualification is than a news item. Wikidemon (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Palin running a major company? No. If you would bother to share the rest of the comments, she said that McCain wouldn't be able to run a major company, nor would Obama, or Biden. She said though, that she isn't going to be the CEO of a major company and the comparison is null. Grsz 21:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Is America not the most complex business in the world, with over 1.8 million employees, and where "the buck stops here"? Sounds pretty dang major to me. Duuude007 (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That's what I mean by rhetorical trick. Few vice presidents are qualified to run a day care center, sandwich shop, or scuba dive school either. The qualities of political leadership are clearly different than those of business leadership. Wikidemon (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you not read Grsz's entire entry. Good point. Fiorini also said that Palin has more experience running a govenrment than Obama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.135.56.32 (talk • contribs)

church is assemblies of god

The description of Palin's church as "joined the Wasilla Assembly of God, which belongs to a Pentecostal association of churches" can be improved. It is part of the Assemblies of God. I suggest rewriting this to read something like "…which belongs to the Assemblies of God, a Pentecostal denomination". Dark and stormy knight (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, on the face of it, to wikilink Assemblies of God, if not already done. Keeper ǀ 76 23:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Federal Funding

Palins projects totals are $453M. in federal requests.

From the Wall Street Journal.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122143893857134389.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_mostpop

These projects include more than $130 million in federal funds that would benefit Alaska's fishing industry and an additional $9 million to help Alaska oil companies. She also has sought $4.5 million to upgrade an airport on a Bering Sea island that has a year-round population of less than 100.

her first year in office, she sought $256 million for dozens more projects ranging from research on rockfish and harbor-seal genetics to rural sanitation and obesity prevention. By comparison, her predecessor, Gov. Frank Murkowski, sought more than $350 million in his last year in office. --207.232.97.13 (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)fred

Charging for post-rape medical exams - second term in wasilla

The following content was removed a while ago:

In 2000, the fact that rape victims in Wasilla were being billed for post-incident medical examinations caught the attention of Alaska legislators. The Legislature banned the practice state-wide that year. Sources say Palin was probably aware of the situation and did nothing to change it. Palin's campaign supporters have said that Palin "does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test."

Apparently this "has been discussed on the talk page" here, and it was decided that the well sourced information should not be kept up. I disagree. While I agree that we should not report that Palin definately knew about the practice (as no source confirms that), I think we should put up the fact that it happened, and the fact that it has caused controversy. It is well sourced and notable information.

Comments? Fresheneesz (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I very much disagree with including this material. The issue is already dealt with in Mayoralty of Sarah Palin. This summary is not accurate, and much of it is not supported by the cited source.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The material is less likely to be noticed in a subarticle; I trust this is not Ferrylodge's intention. We should at least mention a few words on the subject, so that the reader will know which subarticle to look at, and future editors will know it is somewhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with including this in the biography article. The source does not provide any evidence that Palin knew of or approved of the practice. A biography should not be a collection of rumors and charges. Besides, this is hardly a matter for a biography at all!--Paul (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed - see here. »S0CO 23:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is permissible in a BLP, one sentence is pure speculation for example. Even using the word "probably" outright which should be a HUGE red flag. Hobartimus (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The "probably" sentence should go. In its place, after the quotation from the Palin spokeswoman, should be the additional information, as reported by USA Today, that the spokeswoman did not answer the question whether Palin knew about the practice. The current state of our knowledge about her knowledge is that her own spokeswoman won't say, so that's what we report. This subject has received attention in the media. Some people would say that if Palin knew, that's interesting, and if she didn't know, that's also interesting. (They argue that it shouldn't be hard to keep track of stuff like this in a town of 6,000. With these changes, the material should be restored. JamesMLane t c 01:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It would still be POV rubbish. "Palin's campaign supporters have said...." Come on. Try her spokesperson. Additionally, this doesn't mention that insurance companies may well have picked up the tab, or that the Police Chief wanted to make the rapists pay for it rather than having taxpayers pay. This matter is already adequately addressed in the sub-article and it is not significant enough to mention here. Rape is obviously a very sensitive subject, and we would need to take up too much space in this article to address the matter neutrally. There is no evidence that Palin had any role here.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

According to Wasilla, the city has never charged for these exams (" City Documents - Recently Requested - Former Mayor Palin" → "Billing of sexual assault victims for forensic exams" PDF). Grsz 04:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Your link does not seem to work, Grsz.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Instructions given. Grsz 04:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"A review of files and case reports within the Wasilla Police Department has found no record of sexual assault victims billed for forensic exams." Straight from the city itself. It's just more of the tabloid-esque hit pieces/lies the leftist media has beenpumping out the last couple weeks as Obama slips further and further downin the polls. Desperate times require desperate measures.66.190.29.150 (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible Misquote

"In a 2008 speech, Palin urged a group of graduating ministry students at her former church to pray for the military and to consider the military's job as a task from God. In the same remarks Palin asserted that "God's will" coincides with the building of the Alaskan national gas pipeline project,"

I'm not sure if it's considered a misquote or not, but at the very least, this can be misleading. The section is referenced, but it seems that some of the information in the second sentence, is taken from two different sources in order to misconstrue her words.

Also, it seems that the first sentence is paraphrased incorrectly. Palin's original words are:

"Pray for our military men and women who are, striving to do what is right also for our country, that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That is what we have to make sure we are praying for: that there is a plan, and that that plan is God's Plan... So bless them with your prayers..."

I transcribed that from the video that was cited in

I don't see (and didn't hear) her tell the graduates that they should consider the war a "task from God" --] (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You won't succeed in making this neutral. Some here are bent on erroneously painting her as a religious zealot based on this singular commencement speech to a graduating class of ministry students just finishing a year in a Pentacostal church program. Unfortunately, their position is bolstered by the others who are simply afraid of anyone who exhibits religious beliefs, even when those happen in the church. Our suppose our next generation of leaders must be atheist to succeed. Fcreid (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

At least it's refreshing to see we've moved beyond race and gender and are focusing on those prejudices that count! Fcreid (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Questioning the content

Why did Wikidemon archive #18 and #36. I thought the subject of the discussion was how to improve the Palin page. Both questioned the biased tone of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.135.56.32 (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Redirects, what?

Why is there a link specifically to Palin's Endangered Species policy in her Governorship page under her Political positions on this main page? If we must cross-link, why not to her Governorship page in general? That's kinda confusing to me. Regards. FangedFaerie (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Because the animal "rights" activist that Palin pissed off have been on her page since the second day of her nomination and only one admin (so it seems) has had the backbone to challenge them on their extreme POV entries. Example - the use of the word "gunning" rather than the term culling. Theosis4u (talk) 06:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Caribou Barbie?

Where did "Nickname(s) Caribou Barbie" in the InfoBox come from? Any source for this or is that someone's idea of a joke?WTucker (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. Pending a reliable source, of course. Right now, it felt very "recentism-ish" Emphasis on the "ish".... Keeper ǀ 76 23:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be both, a sourced joke. According to David Freddoso (author of The Case Against Barack Obama), leftists used the word to describe her supposed ditsiness, and commentators picked up the word. Sourced or not it seems too frivolous for the article. I find it kind of sweet and disarming, and fail to see why Barbie is such a bad thing. But nevertheless it does demean her unless and until they call Obama "Sasquatch Ken" or something - that's a joke! - I support its removal.Wikidemon (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Source is Liberal talker Stephanie Miller, later picked up by Liberal talker Mike Malloy. Would a cite to a specific show date be sufficient? --BenBurch (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the removal. Hobartimus (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There was a poll on Democratic Underground to pick a nickname. "Caribou Barbie" won overwhelmingly. Nicknames generally need to achieve a lot of use in the general media before we include them. I don't think this one is yet close to that level of currency. JamesMLane t c 00:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

And here I thought it was a reference to her action figure. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Frankly this is inappropriate to include regardless of the usage. Hobartimus (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The article about Richard Nixon mentions "Tricky Dick". A nickname that reaches that level of usage is appropriate for inclusion. Obviously, though, that's not common. JamesMLane t c 01:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

'Caribou Barbie' is a common name for her? This is the only place I've ever that term mentioned ever. The Squicks (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Nixon is not a living person, it's not comparable in Misplaced Pages terms. Hobartimus (talk) 10:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

God Made Us Invade Iraq?

She urged students to pray “that our leaders -- that our national leaders -- are sending out on a task that is from God.”

What she actually said "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan". So, the interpretation is disputed. She herself says that she was not saying that God made the US invade Iraq (praying that God should get on our side), but that she was actually saying that they should pray so that US actions will line up with God's will (praying that we are on God's side). See and and .

We as Misplaced Pages editors may very well believe that McCain/Palin is lying through their teeth, but that doesn't matter. We need to fairly represent McCain/Palin's POV so this article is balanced and NPOV. The Squicks (talk) 01:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

So basically, she was saying, "You better hope that God wanted us to invade Iraq, or else we're fucked." Either way, we can't publish your personal analysis of her comments. Also, your sources are all blogs or other unreliable sources. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

She was saying, "You better hope that God wanted us to invade Iraq, or else we're fucked." *Claps softly*

your sources are all blogs or other unreliable sources I didn't post those as sources. I posted those as things to read for background. I apologize that I should have been more clear.

Either way, we can't publish your personal analysis of her comments. It's not my opinion. It's the opinion of Sarah Palin and John McCain. They have both said that the quote was taken out of context. The Squicks (talk) 02:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If this article is going to be NPOV, it needs to=

(a)Mention the actual exact quote, not a paraphrased or edited quote

(b)Mention the specific allegations by the left about it (Like how The Huffington Post described this as Palin "paint(ing) the current war in Iraq as a messianic affair in which the United States could act out the will of the Lord")

(c)Mention McCain's and Palin's response the allegations (Like how a spokesperson referred to "a distortion of what she was saying." And said, "She very clearly was saying that she's praying for military men and women to do what's right... Every religious American prays that what the U.S. is doing in Iraq is something that is a righteous act." And how Palin herself disputed the liberals interpretation on her ABC-Gibson interview.) The Squicks (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I misinterpreted what you were suggesting. I'm all for adding your a,b,c into the article, so long as it is concise and doesn't violate WP:DUE, as this is her biography, not just a summary of her campaign. Why don't you be bold and add it yourself? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think how it is right now is better than adding a bunch of crap from whoever. Right now it's raw quotes - exactly what Palin said, and nothing more. This leaves it to the reader to think for himself, imagine that. Grsz 04:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no... right now it is NOT raw quotes. Right now, the article does not say the full thing that she actually said. It gives a hacked off chop of her quote. The Squicks (talk) 05:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I put in the correct quote, and I added a snippet about the controversy in there. The Squicks (talk) 05:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Photo caption

Shouldn't the caption on the photo of Palin pointing the rifle at the viewer explain the photograph instead of stating policy positions? I think the readers will want to know what she is doing. They will read the text for statements about her positions.WTucker (talk) 02:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The Squicks (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

VP Selection Process

I think the following sentence is WP:OR and also has the wrong ref.: "Palin had been under consideration since a private meeting with McCain in a February National Governors Association meeting at which Palin made a favorable impression on McCain."

The source only says she made a favorable impression on McCain during their 15 minute private meeting in February. The selection process did not begin until March. None of the sources state she was "under consideration" at that time IP75 75.36.70.205 (talk) 02:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridge to Nowhere - Redux REDUX

A week ago, this section was short and, dare I say, elegant. It said:

"Bridge(s) to Nowhere"

See also: Gravina Island Bridge and Knik Arm Bridge (Don Young's Way)

Two Alaskan bridge construction proposals supported by Palin in her 2006 gubernatorial race have been derided as a symbol of pork barrel spending: a proposed bridge connecting Ketchikan to Gravina Island (population 50) where its airport lies; and a proposed bridge ("Don Young's Way", named after Alaska's Congressman) crossing Knik Arm to provide an alternate route from Anchorage to Wasilla. The nickname "Bridge(s) to Nowhere" has been used for the Gravina Island Bridge alone or, more rarely, both bridges.

In 2005, Congress earmarked $442 million to build the two bridges but later reversed itself under strong criticism and gave the transportation money to Alaska with no strings attached. In 2006, Palin ran for governor on a "build-the-bridge" platform, attacking "spinmeisters" for insulting local residents by calling them "nowhere" and urging speed "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist." About two years after the introduction of the bridge proposals, a month after the bridge received sharp criticism from John McCain, and nine months into Palin's term as governor, Palin canceled the Gravina Bridge, blaming Congress for not providing enough funding. Alaska will not return any of the $442 million to the federal government and is spending a portion of the funding, $25 million, on a Gravina Island road to the place where the bridge would have gone, expressly so that none of the money will have to be returned. Palin continues to support funding Don Young's Way, estimated as more than twice as expensive as the Gravina Bridge would have been.

In her nomination acceptance speech and on the campaign trail, Palin has often said: "I told the Congress 'thanks, but no thanks,' for that Bridge to Nowhere." Although Palin was originally a main proponent of the bridge, McCain-Palin television advertisements claim Palin "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere". These claims have been widely questioned or described as misleading in several newspapers across the political spectrum. Newsweek, commenting on Palin's "astonishing pivot," remarked: "Now she talks as if she always opposed the funding."

Then folks started adding detail after mind-numbing detail about each of the bridges. I usually don't fight additions, though I found them unnecessary. But then I knew what would come next. After these details were added, more important details would be subtracted. The fact that Congress removed the earmark was removed. (Wouldn't that be the most important fact?) There were claims the bridge was proposed to go to the airport. (It wouldn't have. It would have gone to the island on which the airport lies.) Time was added, making sentences longer (two months after she became governor; two years after the bridge proposals...can't our readers count? Why can't we just give the date if the other things (when she became governor; when the bridges were proposed) are already in the article?) The detail of how Palin blamed Congress was added. OK, fine. But then a praise by TCS was added--I guess for "balance"--without noting the many critical articles on TCS' website condemning McCain/Palin for purposely misstating the facts on the bridge. Oops. Then lots of stuff on the second bridge was added, often repeating information found earlier in the very same subsection

Most importantly, the whole reason why the bridge was important was removed: it's use in the McCain/Palin campaign and the criticism for it. It is doubtful there would be thousands of articles over the last week on the "Bridge to Nowhere" if it weren't used by McCain and Palin at the Republican National Convention in every campaign stop. And yet, literally hundreds of thousands of articles according to Google have accused McCain and Palin of "lying" on the issue. Perhaps no other accusation in the entire McCain campaign has been more contested as a lie -- by newspapers across the political spectrum from far right Wall Street Journal to mainstream to far left Nation--than the bridge to nowhere. Even Palin herself admitted in the ABC interview with Gibson that she was for the bridge before she was against it, that she kept the earmarked money and that she only wanted to build the bridge if federal taxpayers footed the bill. And yet, Palin continues to give it as an example of her saying no to federal spending when the truth is Alaska kept the federal spending and didn't even build the bridge. (One could argue the only thing more fiscally irresponsible than taking federal money to build an extravagant bridge is to take the money and not build the bridge.)

At any rate, my rant is over. I propose going back to the original article, short and sweet, but so as not to delete anything, I simply added back the deleted material. I did not add back any quotations from the many critical press articles, except Newsweek's very brief one which encapsulates all the criticism.

If you like the long, convoluted article, that's your choice. But please do not remove the criticism that is at the heart of why the bridge is so notable: Palin's stating--or misstating--the facts about the bridge on the campaign trail.

(And if someone wants me to revert back to my original consensus version that lasted a good week with very few changes, just let me know, and with enough support, I'll happily do it.)GreekParadise (talk) 05:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Last point: perhaps the longer version, if not used here, should be used in the article on the bridge(s).GreekParadise (talk) 05:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, be bold and revert to the good version. The current text is much more suitable for the actual bridge article. Grsz 05:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. All the stories of the bridge fail to mention that Ketchikan is land lock and can only be reached by air or boat. That the airport is on an island across from the town. That the island provides multiples of sq. miles of development as compared to what is left in Ketchikan. Look for yourself here. Also, Palin has never said she agreed to the "bridge" as is in regards to the projected dollar amount of the project - she agreed to a link. But I suppose all those facts and contexts are worth much to make the topic exciting. And please, show me the law and the process that allows the Governor to "return" the money that Congress (Obama & Biden voted yes on by the way) gave to Alaska that use to be allocated to the "bridge to no-where"? Theosis4u (talk) 06:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're going on about Theosis4u. If you think that stuff is important, by all means bring it up. None of those issues have been discussed much by any of the candidates of late, and as it is now the article does deal more directly with the issue as it's being debated by the candidates and in the popular press. But that doesn't mean that the other details need not be discussed. I do think that a balance needs to be struck between the length of material here, but certainly this stuff should be in the sub-article. Aprock (talk) 07:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I am bringing them up and have else where. I've lived in Alaska and know many of the cities, towns, villages are only accessible from air or water. Those in the lower 48 don't appreciate this situation and will most likely not even consider this as a possibility. Also the fact that the town is constrained for development (geographically) and could use the island for expansion if a bridge was done only gives support to WHY a bridge would be consider being built. It's much more than a "because the airport was on the island". This inclusion doesn't take away or add to the debate about the cost of the project and if it was corrupt or excessive. I do believe that leaving these two points out though does slant the story to a POV agenda. Theosis4u (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, this should be included with the above context. Palin didn't support the bridge as an "as-is" blanket statement of approval. She supported a "link" for the residents of the islands. And that she would "evaluate" the details when it was appropriate. Palin said, "The money that’s been appropriated for the project, it should remain available for a link, an access process as we continue to evaluate the scope and just how best to just get this done," from Boston Herald I think that is notable considering the current description and qoutes implies she did, when we know she didn't. Theosis4u (talk) 07:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

@GreekParadise...Yep...I agree w/Grsz11. Pre-changes, the segment was clear and NPOV. Until election day, there will be attempts to cover them (the bridges) with camoflouge (sp) since they represent many angles to Gov Palins tenure. You have stated somewhere, days and days ago, of your desire to keep this section free of partisanship. Good Luck. --Buster7 (talk) 07:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Partisan? 9/16/08

I was reading the article and it's tone struck me as off...it seems very much in Sarah Palin's favor, and doesn't seem to give much of a balanced perspective, especially in regards to her use of travel funds. I think someone should take a closer look at who has been editing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modelliv (talk • contribs) 05:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You must have read a different wiki. 66.190.29.150 (talk) 05:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY!

Seriously guys, stick to possible improvements to the article. Keep the tinfoils hats off and remember WP:AGF. The Squicks (talk) 06:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, other people would say quite the opposite - that it contains a lot of tangential stuff that looks bad but has little to do with her. Plus, for every thing that actually ends up in the article there must be ten things that keep getting proposed. You should see the stuff that ends up here on the talk page. Please keep in mind that the purpose of this particular article is to present a balanced, informative picture of her life - meaning her personal and professional history. This article is not about the campaign or about whether she will be elected, or a good or bad Vice President. Some of that is in articles related to this. Other stuff is best left for sources outside of Misplaced Pages - forums, newspapers, and the like. Some scandal or mistake, misstatement, personal embarrassment, might be better put in the article about her tenure as Governor, in the campaign, or just not on Misplaced Pages. We're not trying to favor her or disfavor her, just say who she is. When you get down to it, that usually sounds more positive than not for most people. It's not supposed to be a 50/50 balance, it's supposed to tell her story. So when we decide whether something fits or not we're supposed to ask the question, first, is it solid, verifiable, sourceable factual information. But after that it has to be relevant, not too long or too short, avoid being tabloid/bloggy, and so on. We try to be neutral, which a little different than trying to be equally balanced between good and bad. I know that's kind of long but I hope it helps explain the focus here. Wikidemon (talk) 06:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

A well-stated explanation of "the process that is Misplaced Pages". Worthy of BOLD Script. My hope is that Misplaced Pages survives the "bad press" it gets at times for its content during the process of editing. The continuous efforts of all the editors envolved here at Sarah Palin is a testament to the free and fair mind of the common man at work. No matter all the pulling and tugging, we should all be proud of the finished product. (Whenever that is?)--Buster7 (talk) 07:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

@ Squicks...I thought we were supposed to use aluminum foil???--Buster7 (talk) 07:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

VP Selection Process

The key turning point in Sarah Palin's life was her selection as Vice Presidential Candidate. So the factors leading to the selection are very relevant to this article. Several times, I have tried to include the specific sourced information (from NY Times) that: "McCain had wanted to name Joe Lieberman. But outrage from Christian conservatives over the possibility that McCain would select Lieberman, a supporter of abortion rights, became too intense to be ignored. With this in mind, he called Palin on August 24 to discuss the possibility of having her join him on the ticket." I have seen this same information in other reliable news sources, and have not seen this disputed. If it is disputed by other reliable sources, that information could be included. However, Hobartimus simply reverted the edit, saying it was unsourced. Not true. Either Hobartimus is lying or did not read the referenced article. Next, Hobartimus wrote a nasty note on my talk page, threatening to have me blocked from editing wikipedia. Hobartimus said I was being defamatory and including unreferenced materials, when the facts are totally opposite. If anything, Hobartimus is the one who perhaps should be blocked for threatening me and making mis-statements. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sarah_Palin&oldid=238924768 was my edit, so anyone can verify that my edit does have a reference (139), which is still in the article.

I am requesting to include the specific factual information concerning the VP selection process, and not in some watered-down version. Misplaced Pages is here to report the facts as best as they can be determined, not to make spin for either Democrats or Republicans. On a separate issue. I request that Hobartimus stop the bullying tactics and heavy-handed threats. If possible, I would like to have Hobartimus' unfair and inappropriate comments removed from my talk page. Dagoldman (talk) 07:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Is your factual information a direct quote from McCain? Becuase McCain did not say antyhing even remotely close to what you have claimed here when I heard him speaking about how he arrived at his choice of Palin. It sounds like you are trying to pass off some op-ed heresay as "factual". 66.190.29.150 (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• It was not an op-ed. And the source was advisers close to the McCain campaign. You obviously did not even take the trouble to read the reference. Dagoldman (talk) 07:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

In principle, I would agreee with you, Dagoldman. And WikiDemon does an excellent job in the section just above to explain why I feel that way. This is a BLP. What a wonderful, fullfilling life achievement it must be to be nominated for such a high office. I certainly don't know how or where you'll squeeze it in but I support your efforts. I would suggest you KEEP the comments on your page...should you ever need them or if others want to "witness" them.--Buster7 (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Anything unsourced by the times is essentially an op-ed. That rag has lost nearly all credibility these days. The reality is that it's claims are completely at odds with what I've heard McCain himself say in the interviews. given that's the case, it would require the addition of too much material to properly place in context her selection, not even getting into the obviousness of McCain's words are infinitely more important than unsourced "aides" from the NYT.66.190.29.150 (talk) 07:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

@66.190.29.150.. "That rag", as you call it, is still a reliable source. At least it is not anonymous.--Buster7 (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Ironically, the anonymous comments are the real op-ed. On wikipedia, personal opinions about the New York Times or your opinions about what McCain said don't matter at all. Our job is to include relevant, factual, sourced information for the article, as best as it can be determined. I agree with Buster7 about the need to make it shorter, and could do that. Also, I appreciate Buster7's suggestion to KEEP the discourteous and highly inappropriate remarks on my talk page. But I'd still prefer they be removed. I don't think false and defamatory remarks should be tolerated on wikipedia. I must go to sleep now, but will respond to further comments in about 8 hours. Dagoldman (talk) 08:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

true?

Is it true Sarah Palin's e-mail was hacked, some serious stuff was found and posted on 4chan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.182.53 (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Since editing the article is limited to registered users, why doesn't that also apply to the discussion page? Dagoldman (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, maybe yes, most likely not. It's dubious that anyone with the means to hack Palin's email would choose 4Chan as their place to disclose. And if it's true Misplaced Pages will be the last to know. Why ask here? We try to stay at least a few days behind the latest gossip and news. If something is true and important enough to say it will appear in legitimate news sources long before it gets into Misplaced Pages. Hope that helps. Wikidemon (talk) 07:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

NOW supports Obama? What a shock!

Not sure how this crept in the article. NOW is a highly partisan organization, and I doubt you'll find an example of NOW ever supporting any conservative candidate. Unless we want to list the position of the national women's advocacy groups, NOW's position has no relevance to this article. Fcreid (talk) 08:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Abortion tied to rape and incest?

Inclusion of these specific types of pregnancies amounts to pure POV-pushing because of the negative connotation of those terms. There is no reason to enumerate these or any other of the potential means a woman could become pregnant, and the existing statement of "only when the mother's life is in danger" adequately describes her position. Fcreid (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. This reminds me of pro-life people calling pro-choice people pro-abortion, or was that anti-choice people calling them that?66.190.29.150 (talk) 09:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. These "negative connotations" you mention are in the eye of the beholder - I'm sure there are plenty of people who would support her hardline position. In any event, there is nothing POV about fully elucidating that position. Gatoclass (talk) 09:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What's the point in wasting space? "Only if the mother's life is in danger" is quite succinct and elucidates well all by itself. Should we iterate every possible scenario where she believes abortion should be an option? If you believe these various phraseologies are largely irrelevant, why do you even care?66.190.29.150 (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The article should present facts regardless of whether it garners support on one side of the political spectrum or the other. Would she oppose abortion in the case of teenage prenancy? Yes, unless the mother's life is in danger. If conception occurred while drunk? Yes, unless the mother's life is in danger. If the woman claimed it was an immaculate conception? Yes, unless the mother's life is in danger. See the trend here? Fcreid (talk) 09:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

One such fact is that her opposition to abortion rights for women who have -- how can I phrase this without "negative connotations"? -- been impregnated against their will. (There, I've avoided that shudder-inducing word "rape".) Some readers (e.g. those who haven't benefited from "Focus on the Family", etc.) that any woman running for high office and born after the eighteenth century or thereabouts would acknowledge such a right; such readers may appreciate being informed (of course in a way that couldn't possibly reflect any point of view on any issue) that such an assumption is mistaken. -- Hoary (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

And the existing condition "unless the mother's life is in danger" clearly conveys that. Would a mother's life be in danger in the case of rape or incest? Or are you suggesting that you *intend* to lead the reader to some conclusion? Fcreid (talk) 09:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

First I misphrased myself. Not "impregnated against their will" (which of course would cover consensual sex) but "penetrated against their will" or something along those lines. (Actually I'd prefer "rape". Similarly, I'd prefer "incest" to some circumlocution. They're both simple, easily understood terms, and Misplaced Pages is under no obligation to mince words.) Secondly, no, the "existing condition" does not convey this. Consider: "I'll meet you for dinner tomorrow unless the conference I must attend goes on after 7 p.m." says nothing explicit about what would happen if I wake up tomorrow with a head-splitting cold. Many people (I think most) would assume that the head-splitting cold, although not explicitly mentioned, would prompt cancellation of the dinner date, even if "definitely" or similar were added to the mix. (It seems that you would not be among them.) I don't understand your question "are you suggesting that you *intend* to lead the reader to some conclusion?" What I'm suggesting is that the article makes clear what Palin's position is. -- Hoary (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've already debunked this claim with the logistics of "making it clear". Feel free to address that argument specifically, or concede the argument entirely.66.190.29.150 (talk) 10:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I take umbrage at your suggestion that a WP reader is not smart enough to conclude what the statement means. I think you made your own position on this matter clear with your Eighteenth Century comments above. However, if you'd like to expand this point to include quoted material where she stated she would "choose life" even if her own daughter were raped, that would seem to be acceptable (whether it makes your point or not). Some may argue undue weight to include point/counter-point in this political summary, however. Fcreid (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

1. "Palin's Alaska Town Secured Big Fed $$$, Washington Post: Gov. Palin Hired Lobby Firm To Secure $27 Million For Town Of 6,700 - CBS News". Cbsnews.com. Retrieved 2008-09-15.
2. ^ Cite error: The named reference NYT2000913 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. Dilanian, Ken. “Palin 'governed from the center,' went after big oil”, ‘’USA Today’’ (2008-09-11).
4. Dilanian, Ken. “Palin 'governed from the center,' went after big oil”, ‘’USA Today’’ (2008-09-11).
5. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/16/1407090.aspx Fiorina