Jump to content

Talk:Sarah Palin and User:Archangel axis: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Zsero (talk | contribs)
12,092 edits
No edit summary
 
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{babel|en|fr-1|la-1}}
{{skiptotoctalk}} <!-- please do not remove this tag -->
==About Me==
{{noindex}}
I am Archangel. I'm here to help you. I was born in [[1994]], educated at [[Harved]].
{{notforum}}
{{talk header}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=yes}}
{{Failed GA|14:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)|page=1| subtopic=Politics and government|status=}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|activepol=yes|blp=yes|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=B|priority=High|politician-work-group=yes|subject=Person|listas=Palin, Sarah|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject United States presidential elections|class=B|nested=yes|importance=High}}
{{Project Alaska|class=B|importance=High|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProjectPolitics|class=B|importance=High|nested=yes}}
{{WPIDAHO|nested=yes|class =B|importance =Low}}
}}
{{pressmulti
| collapsed=yes
| title= Wikipedia Edits Forecast Vice Presidential Picks
| author= Brian Krebs
| date= 2008-08-29
| url= http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/29/AR2008082902691.html
| org= [[The Washington Post]]
| title2= Palin's Wikipedia Entry Gets Overhaul
| author2= Yuki Noguchi
| date2= 2008-08-29
| url2= http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyid=94118849
| org2= [[NPR]]
| title3= Tug of war over Wiki entry on Palin
| author3= Chris O'Brien
| date3= 2008-08-29
| url3= http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_10338833
| org3= [[Mercury News]]
| title4= Sarah Palin Wikipedia edits--fast and furious
| author4= Natalie Weinstein
| date4= 2008-08-30
| url4= http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10029598-38.html
| org4= [[CNET News]]
| title5= Don’t Like Palin’s Wikipedia Story? Change It
| author5= Noam Cohen
| date5= 2008-09-01
| url5= http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/technology/01link.html
| org5= [[The New York Times]]
| url6= http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10029598-38.html
| org6= [[CNET News]]
| title7= Sarah Palin's immensely flattering Wikipedia entry
| author7= Jemima Kiss
| date7= 2008-09-01
| url7= http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/digitalcontent/2008/09/sarah_palins_immensely_flatter.html
| org7= [[The guardian]]
| title8= Sarah Palin Wikipedia entry gets glowing make-over from mysterious user Young Trigg
| author8= Mike Harvey
| date8= 2008-09-01
| url8= http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4653971.ece
| org8= [[The Times]]
| title9= Wikipedia e la biografia “ripulita” di Sarah Palin
| author9= Roberto Reale
| date9= 2008-09-02
| url9= http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/rainews24_2007/magazine/scenari/scenari_estate_09.asp
| org9= [[RAI]]
| title10= Wikipedia war emerges over details about Palin
| author10= Mark Sabbatini
| date10= 2008-09-02
| url10= http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/090208/sta_326628504.shtml
| org10= [[Juneau Empire]]
| title11= Who scrubbed Palin clean?
| author11= Iain Simons
| date11= 2008-09-02
| url11= http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/culture-tech/2008/09/usa-vote-palin-wikipedia
| org11= New Statesman
| title12= The Odd Lies Of Sarah Palin II: The Bridge To Nowhere
| author12= Andrew Sullivan
| date12= 2008-09-15
| url12=http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/the-lies-of-s-2.html
| org12=The New Statesman
| title13= Sarah Palin winning the Wikipedia popularity contest
| author13= Stephanie Condon
| date13= 2008-09-17
| url13=http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10044085-38.html
| org13=The Atlantic
| title14=Why Google's online encyclopedia will never be as good as Wikipedia
| date14=2008-09-22
| url14=http://www.slate.com/id/2200401/
| org14=Slate
| author14=Farhad Manjoo10
}}
{{messagebox|
{{hidden|'''Milestone article versions'''|content=
:
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&oldid=25893140 First version] (19 October 2005)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&oldid=234718011 Pre "Young Trigg"] (27 August 2008)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&oldid=234778085 "Young Trigg" edition] (28 August 2008)


==Interests==
}}
I'm a fan of [[sci-fi]], especially [[Torchwood]], [[Doctor Who]], [[Babalon 5]][[Stargate Atlantis|gate]] and [[Star Trek books|Star Trek fiction]]. I play [http://www.neveron.com [Runescape], watch [[Football]], and sometimes update [http://mattbuck.irongalaxy.com/ my website].
}}
{{Userboxtop|Annoying boxes for you all}}
{{archivebox|auto=yes}}
{{User admin Wikicommons}}
<!-- Metadata: see [[User:MiszaBot I]] -->
{{User:Blast san/userboxes/User website here|mattbuck.irongalaxy.com}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{user:UBX/Flickr|mattbuck007}}
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}}
{{User:Audacity/Userboxes/last.fm|mattbuck}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K
{{User:3p1416/Userboxes/Keen mathematician}}
|counter = 31
{{User:Disavian/Userboxes/Colbert Bears}}
|minthreadsleft = 10
{{User:UBX/Doctor Who}}
|algo = old(48h)
{{User:UBX/Torchwood}}
|archive = Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive %(counter)d
{{Template:Stargate}}
}} <!-- Note: regardless of "algo" setting, the bot only visits once per day -->
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
{{User:UBX/hignfy}}
{{User:UBX/House MD2}}
|target=Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive index
{{User:Mkdw/BBC}}
|mask=Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive <#>
{{User:UBX/Muse}}
|leading_zeros=0
{{User:UBX/lostprophets}}
|indexhere=yes}}
{{User:UBX/Radiohead}}
<big><big><big>'''Put new text under old text.''' <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title={{TALKPAGENAMEE}}&action=edit&section=new Click here to start a new topic]</span>.</big></big></big>
{{User:Sceptre/The Wall|song=''19''}}
{{User:Bobdoe/Longcat}}
{{User:Modest_Genius/Template:User_Notts_Uni}}
{{Userboxbottom}}


==Useful links==
== abstinence only education? ==
[[Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace/Multi_level_details|Vandalism templates]]


==Subpages==
: ''"Abstinence only" failed in her own case & in that of her daughter.'' Really? Did either she or her daughter ''have'' "abstinence only" education? Maybe if they had had it, it would have stuck. The debate over the effectiveness of such education will go on, but the fact that it didn't have its touted effect on someone who ''didn't'' have it is hardly an argument against it! -- [[User:Zsero|Zsero]] ([[User talk:Zsero|talk]]) 19:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
* [[User:Mattbuck/Templatetest]]
* [[User:mattbuck/Eugenics]]
* [[User:mattbuck/funny|Funny vandalism]]
* [[User:Mattbuck/Wikipedia - FUCK YEAH!]]


==Images I have uploaded==
LOL she told her daughter not to root around, even if her daughter had/did not know condoms exist. Obviously her daughter was not abstinant, and she had been told to do this!--[[Special:Contributions/203.192.91.4|203.192.91.4]] ([[User talk:203.192.91.4|talk]]) 00:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


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


:Just to clarify, the issue is not Palin but the child. There is no reason why you should need to know the exact birthdate / birthday. [[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] ([[User talk:Hobartimus|talk]]) 20:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
::Just to respond to BenAveling. No, we are not all in agreement that ''almost certainly conceived prior to marriage''. Did you miss the part about 1/3 of the births being premature. Unless you or others have specific knowledge about when these two were having sex or about the birth details, drop it. --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] 20:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


===Wikimedia Commons===
:::One third of births are premature? Your source for this statistic being? You don't mean "pentecostals who practiced 'adstinence-only sex education' report that one third of their first births are premature?" [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan|talk]]) 10:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
[[Commons:User:Mattbuck/Gallery]]
:::Medically, "premature birth" refers to "under 37 weeks" -- 34 weeks is "3 weeks premature" by that standard. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/premature_birth . [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 13:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Even the McCain campaign has acknowledged the discrepancy <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/us/politics/02palin.html?pagewanted 1] nytimes</ref>. There can be no real doubt. [[Special:Contributions/140.139.35.250|140.139.35.250]] ([[User talk:140.139.35.250|talk]]) 20:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
:Should Palin announce that her first son was conceived prior to marriage, it will then become biographical. At this point, considering it's not certain, it's sole intent here is to embarrass the subject of the article potentially very unfairly. I strongly vote it has no place in the article (beyond the obvious privacy concerns of identifying birthdates). [[User:Fcreid|Fcreid]] ([[User talk:Fcreid|talk]]) 21:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
::Are you kidding?? If something is not explicitly announced, it certainly does not mean it is not biographical. That is absurd. [[Special:Contributions/208.255.229.66|208.255.229.66]] ([[User talk:208.255.229.66|talk]]) 15:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I'd like to think that Track was just prem. But I gotta admit, the 1/3 prem claim probably doesn't apply here. According to [[Premature_Babies]], 1 baby in 8 is >3 weeks prem. Track, as I understand it, arrived 33½ weeks after the wedding. So that would be 6½ weeks. There's a chance of a baby being that prem, but it's small. And it's certainly enough time to miss a period and arrange a quick wedding. But, arguing about whether she walks the walk isn't important. She made a mistake. Ideally, nobody would care what she does in her private life. It's what she would do as VP or as President that matters. She knows that abstinence only education leads to pregnancy, statistics show it - her own experience is just one datapoint. And she still supports it. She believes that abstinence only education has benefits that outweigh the costs. And that's what we should be saying. Regards, [[User talk:BenAveling|Ben Aveling]] 21:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
: ''She knows that abstinence only education leads to pregnancy, statistics show it - her own experience is just one datapoint.'' How is her experience a data point? Did she have abstinence only education? -- [[User:Zsero|Zsero]] ([[User talk:Zsero|talk]]) 19:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


===Non-free use images===
"But, arguing about whether she walks the walk isn't important. She made a mistake"
*[[:Image:Drcox_scrubs.jpg]] - [[Perry Cox]] from ''[[Scrubs (TV show)|Scrubs]]''. Fair use image for the Perry Cox article.
So people knowing somthing doesnt work then keep pretending it does is a good thing? Did not work for her, did not work for her daughter! Think she would have worked it out by now.--[[Special:Contributions/203.192.91.4|203.192.91.4]] ([[User talk:203.192.91.4|talk]]) 00:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
*[[:Image:I76-2.png]] - [[Interstate '76]] screenshot
*[[:Image:I76-3.png]] - [[Interstate '76]] screenshot
*[[:Image:I76nitrocover.jpg]] - [[Interstate '76 Nitro Riders]] cover.


{{clear}}


==Wikilife==
::::Ben, your figure is incorrect for firstborn children who has a much higher incidence of prematurity. [[User:Fcreid|Fcreid]] ([[User talk:Fcreid|talk]]) 21:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
<table border=1 cellpadding=7>
:::::Did you consider that perhaps firstborn children have a higher incidence of prematurity due to marriages which occurred when the bride missed a period? [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 05:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
<tr>
::::::Damn statisticians! :) [[User:Fcreid|Fcreid]] ([[User talk:Fcreid|talk]]) 22:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
<td WIDTH=15% valign=top>
:::::''She made a mistake''? I love holier than thou people. geesh --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] 23:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
[[2007-09-19]]
::::::Leave it out! If any reader is interested, they will do their own math. Wikipedia is not the only source for information, but it can be the most reliable.--[[User:Buster7|Buster7]] ([[User talk:Buster7|talk]]) 08:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
</td>
::::::: @Fcreid: We work with what we have. I'm sure there are actuarial tables around, but here's a simple rule of thumb. If 3 weeks early means 1 in 8, then 2 * 3 weeks is probably going to be something like 1 in 64. It's possible, but it's low. Throw in an elopment as well. At 6 weeks prem, Track would probably have been fine, but he wouldn't have left the hospital quickly. And as pointed out above, at less than 4 weeks prem, it would have been unlikely for them to realise, but at 6+ weeks, quite possible. Sadly, nothing else really adds up. But don't make too much out of it: Does this fact alone suddenly make her a bad person? No. Happens to lots of people, and plenty of them respond in worse ways than getting married and staying married. Does it make her a hypocrite? Not in my opinon. See my response to Tom below. Other people might feel differently, at least if they are trying to make her look bad.
<td WIDTH=85%>
::::::: @Tom: Yes, she made a mistake. And are you accusing me or her of being holier than thou? Either way, yes, she made a mistake, and it led to her getting pregnant and married. Probably two things she wanted to do sometime, but I suspect not quite as quickly as she did. Not that any of us know for sure, but the evidence is that she made a mistake, and I don't see it as hypocritical of anyone to say "don't do what I did". "Don't do what I do" is hypocrticial. Yes, "Don't make the mistake I made" would be better, more honest, braver, etc, but I'm not sure how many of the rest of us would be tough enough to carry that line through what she has to go through.
Banned from [[Wikipedia]] for 24hrs by [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] for [[WP:3RR]] violation.
::::::: @Buster7: I'm not suggesting that we say anything more than what we know. We know they got married, 7 1/2 months ahead of the birth of their first child. And that's all we can say, and that's what we should say. It's not OR. To say anything more than that would be OR, so we don't have to say more than that. But I can't see any reason to say less than that either, and I've been trying, and I can't see any reason to leave the matter out entirely. About the only reason I can see to leave it out is censorship. Nobody forced her to bring her kids on stage; she herself has made them part of the narative, and so - I'm open to suggestions here - but I can't find any decent excuse for us not to tell the whole storys
</td>
::::::: Regards, [[User talk:BenAveling|Ben Aveling]] 11:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
</tr>
::::::::Yes, i am saying you are being holier than thou because you keep on insisting she made a mistake without any proof of such. Unless you know on what dates she was having sex, then you are being judgemental. Do you know when she first had sex with Todd? Yes or no question, no blathering. --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] 13:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC) ps, you wrote ''but the evidence is that she made a mistake'' do you have 5 x 8 color glossies of her having sex that are time stamped? What is this "evidence" that allows you to be so judgemental? --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] 13:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Posting the dates serves only one purpose, and that is to insinuate (in the absence of any absolute proof) that she was pregnant at marriage, and some of the ones pushing for it have made it clear that that's precisely why they want it. She recently gave birth to a preemie, so it's possible the first one was also a preemie. Likely? Maybe not. But posting the dates is inappropriate. Now, IF she owns up to it, or IF some solid proof emerges, that would be different. But 7 1/2 months is insufficient "proof", it's only inference and doesn't belong. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> 11:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Tom, it's possible that Track was prem, but it's not plausible. 7 1/2 months. Quickie wedding. And every opportunity in the world to just say that he was prem. As for the holier than thou, no, I'm no holier than any one else on this one. By Palin's mistake, I mean becoming pregnant. I don't know what information she had at age 24, but as a potential VP/P her own views and experience on sex education matter. Sex before marriage is an individual choice for each person and couple to make on their own. In my opinion, it should be an informed choice. Whether it is an informed choice isn't up to me or you, or even the VP/P alone. But they have a lot more input into it than most. This is verifiable, it's important, it's relevant. Regards, [[User talk:BenAveling|Ben Aveling]] 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Oh, her "mistake" was becoming pregnant? Again, that is your opinion and judgement.--[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] 14:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)ps, again, you keep talking about sex before marriage. Do you have ANY evidence of this? Color glossies with time stamp work the best. --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] 14:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


<tr>
:Concur, Bugs. Ben, I'm certainly not questioning your motivation, but rather the encyclopedic value of this fact unless it's presented in an awkward and "clinical" fashion. In other words, if you listed every child's birth date (and, possibly, the gestation period for each), that would seem encyclopedic (albeit quite invasive). In contrast, a comment like "they eloped... and Trig was born 8 months later" is clearly an insinuation. Yes, facts are stubborn. In addition to those discussed above, we are also ignoring the fact that Palin was 24-years old when she married (and not 17!) That simple fact, and others we do not know such as whether she was living with her parents, would lead to even stranger conclusions. Again, I see no value for the detail in the article except for salacious and possible incorrect conclusion. [[User:Fcreid|Fcreid]] ([[User talk:Fcreid|talk]]) 12:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
<td WIDTH=15% valign=top>
[[2007-10-03]]
</td><td WIDTH=85%>
{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[Image:Barnstar_of_Reversion2.png|100px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I'm awarding you this RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your great contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on Wikipedia. [[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 19:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
|}
</td>
</tr>


<tr>
:I concur that insinuations without precise facts should be excluded. However I feel trying to turn this into an abstinance only issue is totally missing the point of that campaign. Abstinance only is presented as the best way to control the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Personally I feel that people should not have sex unless married. However, For the arguments against abstinance only to have any meaning here you would have to demonstrate either that one of these people had had sex with another person creating a potential spread of zexually transmitted diseases, or that the father of an unborn child had abandoned the mother instead of going through with standing as the father. Lastly your attacks on abstinance education ignore the psychological costs of free roaming sex and ignore the fact that condoms and not impermiable. It also ignores the fact that any genital contact will spread the HPV.[[User:Johnpacklambert|Johnpacklambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 00:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
<td WIDTH=15% valign=top>
[[2008-02-05]]
</td>
<td WIDTH=85%>
{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}}; width:55em;"
|rowspan="2" valign="top" | [[Image:Barnstar-atom3.png|100px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''The E=mc² Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Thanks for answering my math question about equivalent fractions, and my math question about Top ten lists!


[[User:Ye Olde Luke|Ye Olde Luke]] 05:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Regarding claims about "premature birth": By definition previously cited, it applies to before 37 weeks. Thus the child was ~3 weeks premature. Which is quite common for first time mothers of any age. I trust this obviates the statistical misinformation which might otherwise be attached to the discussion. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 14:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
|}
</td>
</tr>


<tr>
===Not at 99% certain. Not even at 100% certain.===
<td WIDTH=15% valign=top>
::Seems like we had this debate several weeks ago, and you indicate the important point yet again - that you can't necessarily draw conclusions from 7 1/2 months. If it were 4 or 5 months, there would be no question. But this is just ambiguous enough that it's a POV push to use it. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> 12:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
[[2008-04-30]]
</td><td WIDTH=85%>Became a trusted user and [[Flickr]] reviewer on the [[Wikimedia Commons]].
</td>
</tr>


<tr>
::: Why would you include it at 4 or 5 months, but not at 7 1/2 months? Regards, [[User talk:BenAveling|Ben Aveling]] 13:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
<td WIDTH=15% valign=top>
::::I wouldn't, necessarily. All I'm saying is that 4 or 5 months would be sufficient to demonstrate that the child was conceived out of wedlock. 7 1/2 months isn't, but the POV-pushers want to suggest to the reader that it is. But it isn't. 4 or 5 months would be. That doesn't mean it belongs in the article. But at least it would be solid proof. 7 1/2 months isn't. Did I say that already? [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> 13:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
[[2008-05-26]]
:::::And maybe I'm not being clear enough on the larger point. Posting the dates amounts to analysis or drawing (or trying to get the reader to draw) conclusions. That is a violation of the wikipedia philosophy. Now, if you can find a reliable source (and the ''Enquirer'' emphatically does ''not'' count) that discusses this issue, then you ''might'' have something, or at least something worth talking about here. But it is not wikipedia's place to draw that inference unilaterally. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> 13:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
</td><td WIDTH=85%>Became an [[:commons:Commons:Administrators|administrator]] on the [[Wikimedia Commons]]. ([[:commons:Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/mattbuck|RfA]])
::::::One of the editors said the dates were available in connection with the Hannity & Colmes TV show. So the question is, did they debate the matter? What conclusions did they reach, if any? Because now you're looking at verifiable citations, instead of wikipedians trying to decide what significance 7 1/2 months has, if any. What did they have to say about it? [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> 13:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
</td>
:::::::Dunno. I don't watch the news. It clouds my judgment. :) [[User:Fcreid|Fcreid]] ([[User talk:Fcreid|talk]]) 14:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
</tr>
::::::::I hear ya. But don't confuse H&C with "the news". :) [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> 14:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


<tr>
Bugs, you were saying that you don't want it included if it was 99% likely, now you don't even want it included if it were 100% certain. Mind if I ask why not? Which specific WP policy are concerned about? Regards, [[User talk:BenAveling|Ben Aveling]] 20:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
<td WIDTH=15% valign=top>
:Ben, I think it's simply a matter of decorum, particularly given that there is a fair possibility that it's an erroneous assumption on anyone's part. I just don't see how it could be included here in an encyclopedic manner without insinuation. More importantly, and as this relates to the talk topic you chose about abstinence, is it really your contention that Palin didn't understand where babies come from at 24? [[User:Fcreid|Fcreid]] ([[User talk:Fcreid|talk]]) 22:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
[[2008-07-09]]
::By the way, I just read the article, and it indicates she supports pro-abstinence sex education but also the discussion of contraception (in deference to the blinding reality that kids screw around!) I may be showing my age, but what's missing from that curriculum, e.g. are there alternatives missing from that program that you feel should be included? Furthermore, I an much more incredulous that a woman of her obvious attraction "abstained" for 24 years, or I truly want to shake Todd's hand for being the most patient man I'll ever meet! Whatever the case, it's none of our business. [[User:Fcreid|Fcreid]] ([[User talk:Fcreid|talk]]) 23:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
</td><td WIDTH=85%>Mentioned in the Feedback section of ''[[New Scientist]]'' magazine - ''Meanwhile, Matt Buck directs us to two Wikipedia pages on the subject. One, accessed via [[List of unusual units of measurement]], attempts to give you a handle on such "units" as double-decker buses and football fields, while the other, available via [[List of humorous units of measurement]], details units like the helen. This is the amount of beauty required to launch a thousand ships - so a millihelen is the beauty required to launch one ship.''
:::Yes, Palin has apparently voiced support for sex ed which includes discussion of contraception (interestingly, this [http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-sexed6-2008sep06,0,3119305.story puts her at odds with both John McCain and the official Republican Party platform], which support abstinence-only education). If you want a policy basis for leaving out the date of birth, [[WP:BLP]] suggests that we use only the year (if that) for non-public individuals, which would include all of Palin's children. If you want a common-sense basis... come on, people. There's a multilayered economic disaster unfolding, a few wars, a resurgent Russia, climate change, dependence on foreign oil, a critical number of people without health insurance. It's 2008. Who cares whether her first child was born less than exactly 9 months after her wedding day? Can't we all go back to fighting about the Bridge to Nowhere, at least? '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 18:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
</td>
::::Well stated! That was much easier just to ignore! :) [[User:Fcreid|Fcreid]] ([[User talk:Fcreid|talk]]) 19:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
</tr>


<tr>
We're not creating the speculation. It already exists. We're just choosing whether or not we self-censor information that is relevant to it. I'm not aware any policy citing decorum as a reason not to include information. As per [[WP:Biographies_of_living_persons#Well-known_public_figures|BLP]] this alegation is "notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources". Regards, [[User talk:BenAveling|Ben Aveling]] 07:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
<td WIDTH=15% valign=top>
[[2008-07-16]]
</td><td WIDTH=85%>My photo, [[:Image:FR-BlaenauStn.JPG]] is promoted to [[commons:COM:QI|Quality Image]] status.
</td>
</tr>


<tr>
::::This isn't 1910, Ben. If their oldest child was conceived prior to Nuptuals, he is no different than millions of 21st Century Americans. Plus, let's have some regard for his , how should I say it, "legitimacy". IMHO--His parents sexual activities (and when they took place)(and what resulted from them) are private.--[[User:Buster7|Buster7]] ([[User talk:Buster7|talk]]) 08:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
<td WIDTH=15% valign=top>
[[2008-08-19]]
</td><td WIDTH=85%>
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[Image:Barnstar of Humour3.png|100px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Barnstar of Good Humor'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | What was that? "[[Talk:Bikini#Outrage|...and, of course, the washing machine]]"? Ahahahahaha... <font face="Kristen ITC" color="deeppink">[[User:Aditya Kabir|Aditya]]</font><sup>([[User talk:Aditya Kabir|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Aditya Kabir|contribs]])</sup> 12:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
|}
</td>
</tr>


</table>
:::::Wikipedia doesn't censor itself because a public figure might be embarrassed. Regards, [[User talk:BenAveling|Ben Aveling]] 21:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::However:<blockquote>[[wp:blp|'''Biographies of living persons (BLPs)''']] must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.</blockquote>Have you no shame?--[[User:Paul.h|Paul]] ([[User talk:Paul.h|talk]]) 21:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Have I read that bit? I wrote it: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=126124004&oldid=126080271]. You're right that we need to be balanced. Would this fact, and it is a fact, be appropriate for an article about a random person? No, of course not. Not even for a random politician. But this isn't a random politician, this is a vice-presidential candidate who is running on a values platform. That makes her own adherence to those values relevant. Regards, [[User talk:BenAveling|Ben Aveling]] 21:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Point me to that platform again, Ben? Oh, and by your tone, you did find evidence she engaged in premarital intercourse? Do you have anything to present for peer review? 23:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Fcreid|Fcreid]] ([[User talk:Fcreid|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Fcreid|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::::::[[Political positions of Sarah Palin]] more or less covers her platform. To summarise: She has said she is pro-contraception and that she opposes sex education. She wants abstinence taught instead of contraception. She also wants contraception taught. She has knocked back bills that restrict abortions while claiming that she supported the bills. She has said that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. She has described Abortion as an option. If some of these positions seems contradictory, they are statements she has made over a period of time and sometimes under pressure. She may have misspoken and people's positions do change over time, but until she clarifies herself, this is what we have. In short, she's consistently in favour of abstinence and if she has a consistent position on sex education, I can't work out what it is, but whatever it is, she's 100% behind it. To touch on your second point, it is not certain that she engaged in pre-marital sex, but it is the only plausible explanation, and she's never denied it. If you like, it is certain that it is highly probable that she did, and it is certain that it is highly unlikely that she didn't. Regards, [[User talk:BenAveling|Ben Aveling]] 12:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
(Over here) It boils down to a simple proposal, Ben: You're asking us to embarrass Palin, her husband and her son in the article to make a completely inconsequential and tangential point on your narrow interpretation of her moral platform (in which others, myself included, do not join you in your interpretation). Worse yet, there is a distinct possibility you're wrong (and statistically you've overstated the odds supporting your supposition). Finally, as it relates to the *specific* moral position relevant to premarital sex--Sex Education--we both acknowledge her approach of promoting abstinence, while also discussing contraception, is utterly sound and sensible. You're certainly welcome to bring the point up for consensus, but I can't lend my support to something this picayune yet so much lacking decorum on our community's behalf. [[User:Fcreid|Fcreid]] ([[User talk:Fcreid|talk]]) 10:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

:If Palin is embarrassed by the fact, she can issue a clarification or a denial. But we're not going to say either that he was conceived prematurely, or that he was born prematurely. That discussion is happening elsewhere, and if ever we get an answer, we'll run with it. In the meantime, there is one fact that is well verifiable that we are leaving out, as you say, because you don't want to risk embarrassing her - not that it's clear she would be embarrassed. Fcreid, this is an encyclopaedia. Not embarrassing people is something we take into account, but it is not our overriding principle. Don't take this the wrong way, but you'd benefit from working on a few other pages as well as this one. Regards, [[User talk:BenAveling|Ben Aveling]] 01:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

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

:There is clear evidence that it is far and away the most likely scenario. Better than 99% likely. Closer to 100%. And if it's no big deal, lets just mention it and move on. Regards, [[User talk:BenAveling|Ben Aveling]] 12:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
::Better yet. Let's not mention surmise and conjecture. Move on. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 11:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

::Wasn't planing to. I just want to include a known fact. Regards, [[User talk:BenAveling|Ben Aveling]] 01:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ben..prior you mentioned about embarrassing a public figure, My point was that inclusion would embarrass the young man not his parents.--[[User:Buster7|Buster7]] ([[User talk:Buster7|talk]]) 01:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:Yes, it could be embarrassing, whatever Zsero says above. And we do give some more latitude for semi-public figures and for private individuals. But not to the extent that we'd leave out something like this. Regards, [[User talk:BenAveling|Ben Aveling]] 05:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

::How bout let's just say: A lot of us disagree with you. You seem (at least to me) to be the only one supporting your opinion; thus, you're outnumbered. The majority wins. Get over it. [[Special:Contributions/75.180.224.161|75.180.224.161]] ([[User talk:75.180.224.161|talk]]) 18:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:::The majority can be wrong. No offense, but more than a few people here haven't been anywhere else in Wikipedia. It's not their fault if they don't understand how Wikipedia works. It's not just about the numbers, it's about the facts. And the facts make it quite clear that on this occasion, she didn't live up to what she now preaches for others. Regards, [[User talk:BenAveling|Ben Aveling]] 19:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Yes Wikipedia is not a democracy. In this case it means that if you try to inject your personal opinion "she didn't live up to what she now preaches for others" or try to edit a BLP based off of that, you may be stopped even if you had more people agreeing with you. Even the majority can't trump some "hard rules" such as BLP and keeping personal opinion out. Exactly right. [[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] ([[User talk:Hobartimus|talk]]) 19:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Hobartimus, you keep bringing up BLP, and each time someone has to explain to you that our BLP policy in no way prohibits adding verifiable notable views from reliable sources into this article. The only issues in this particular discussion are NOR and V. And yes, thse ''are'' very serious issues. But please, let's stayon track and be clear about what the policy issues are. Here they are V and NOR, we do not even have to get into BLP. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 19:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, Ben, your being against the rest of the grain on this issue earns you the distinct privilege of being a "Maverick". Unfortunately, as you have learned, mavericks never accomplish anything within the realm of democracy. Precisely because the maverick, in order to be one, must be opposed to the majority. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/77.58.144.199|77.58.144.199]] ([[User talk:77.58.144.199|talk]]) 08:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== ALL Explanation of Why Bridges to Nowhere Were Criticized Has Once Again Been Deleted. ==

Here we go again. For the umpteenth time, a single editor has deleted a a large portion of the bridge article with NO discussion on the talk page. Here's the process on this section, which I've been involved in for weeks:

:Palin supporter puts in strongly pro-bridge material
:Palin opponent puts in anti-bridge for balance.
:Fierce argument, reversion, and edit wars ensue, with the argument that "consensus" does not support showing both sides of a controversy in BLP, so only the pro-bridge stuff should be there and not any criticism of the bridge. It is insisted that nowhere in the article is it ever explained WHY they're called "bridges to nowhere"
:After strong argument and long discussions, it is finally agreed that all sides of a controversy be represented. It will be explained why they're called bridges to nowhere along with ample (and twice as long) citations of why these bridges are good ideas This makes the article longer, of course.
:Hobartimus without any discussion on the talk page wipes out any mention of why the bridges are bad ideas or called "to nowhere."

Rinse and repeat. It's happening again.

Hobartimus has made a substantial deletion. All of the sections below were removed from the article with no discussion:

:<i>The Gravina Island Bridge proposal became nicknamed the "Bridge to Nowhere" because of the island's population of 50.

Ref originally here was orphaned when full ref name was deleted, possibly by another editor The ref name cited was "APbridge"[[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 23:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

More rarely, the term "bridges to nowhere" has been used to refer to both bridge proposals.<ref name="Tumble">{{cite news| last = Hulse| first = Carl| title = Two 'Bridges to Nowhere' Tumble Down in Congress | work= [[The New York Times]]| date = November 17, 2005| url =http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/17/politics/17spend.html}}</ref>

:The goal of the Gravina project, according to the [[Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities]], was to "provide better service [than the existing ferry] to the airport" which serves 350,000 passengers per year,<ref>{{cite web |title= Ketchikan airport and ferry statistics for December 2006 |url=http://www.borough.ketchikan.ak.us/airport/documents/2006DECEMBER.pdf |format= PDF}}</ref> and "allow for development of large tracts of land on the island."<ref>{{cite web |title = Ketchikan Gravina Island Access Project |url=http://dot.alaska.gov/stwdplng/projectinfo/ser/Gravina/index1.shtml |publisher= Alaska DOT |accessdate=2008-08-31}}</ref> The Knik Arm Bridge, officially named "Don Young's Way" after Alaska Congressman [[Don Young]] in the original legislation, is a $600 million project to open up development and provide an alternate link from Anchorage to Wasilla;<ref name="community1">{{cite web|url=http://community.adn.com/node/131399 |title=adn.com &#124; Alaska Politics Blog : Palin and the Knik Arm bridge |publisher=Community.adn.com |author=Posted by Alaska_Politics |date= |accessdate=2008-09-29}}</ref> the bridge is being evaluated by officials as a possible threat to nearby [[beluga whales]]. <ref name="community1"/></i>

The deletion makes the article entirely one-sided. Now there's no indication <b>anywhere</b> in the article of why the bridges were criticized, why they were symbols of pork barrel spending, or why they were even called "to nowhere", or that Knik Arm provides a link to Palin's hometown of Wasilla. But there's still mention of the airport and Knik Arm inlet, as if the bridges were completely non-controversial building project. Could someone please undo the Hobartimus deletion without discussion? I firmly believe BOTH sides of the controversy should be represented, as they have been on this page for more than a month now.

P.S. I have no problem with deleting

:"The goal of the Gravina project, according to the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, was to "provide better service [than the existing ferry] to the airport" which serves 350,000 passengers per year,[3] and "allow for development of large tracts of land on the island."[4]

which is repetitive since both the airport and development are already mentioned in the article. Because I don't delete pro-bridge information, even when it's repetitive, I had left in this redundancy. But we agreed long ago that it is improper to include only pro-bridge comments while deleting all the anti-bridge comments.

I would also ask that in the future, folks don't delete two paragraphs in one fell swoop without at least noting what you've done and why on the talk page. This has been done a large number of times by the same editor over the last month and it's getting very frustrating. Is it really that painful to leave in BOTH sides of the controversy? To explain to wikipedians what the controversy was? I don't think so. In fact, I think it's precisely what wikipedia should do.[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 14:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:I completely agree with GreekParadise on the substance of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=242704188&oldid=242700270 this particular edit] and on the procedure by which Hobartimus made it. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]]<small>&nbsp;[[User_talk:JamesMLane|t]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/JamesMLane|c]]</small> 15:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::IMO GreekParadise has repeatedly made a convincing case for inclusion of his edit. As it is key to understanding the common nomenclature, it warrants inclusion in this overview. Therefore I don't think Hobartimus's contention that readers can go to the detailed article sufficiently justifies the deletion. I ask Hobartimus to restore it in the interests of balance, truth and courtesy. — [[User:Writegeist|Writegeist]] ([[User talk:Writegeist|talk]]) 15:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Hobartimus need not restore it, as I have already done so. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]]<small>&nbsp;[[User_talk:JamesMLane|t]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/JamesMLane|c]]</small> 16:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

===And more of the same from Hobartimus re the email hack===

Coverage of the hacking of Palin's email account has been previously discussed at [[Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 26#Suspect Nabbed in Palin E-mail Hack]] and [[Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 27#Serious WP:BLP issue with hacking section]]. Hobartimus eagerly reported the tangential reference to the son of a Democratic politician from Tennessee, but there was no reason to include that information in the Palin bio. Therefore, in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&oldid=240855882 this version] of the article, edited by Hobartimus himself, the hacking was covered as follows:
<blockquote>In September 2008, a [[Anonymous (group)#Accessing Sarah Palin's Yahoo! account|hacker accessed a Yahoo! email account Palin uses]], hoping to "derail her campaign,"<ref name="derail">{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/19/hacker-wanted-to-derail-palin/|title=Hacker wanted to 'derail' Palin|work=The Washingon Times|date=2008-09-19| author=Rowland, Kara|accessdate=2008-09-23}}</ref> and precipitating an investigation by the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] and [[United States Secret Service|Secret Service]].<ref name=AP_Jordan_20080922>{{cite news | author = Jordan, Lara Jakes | title = FBI searches apartment in Palin hacking case | url = http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080922/ap_on_el_pr/palin_hacked | publisher = [[Associated Press]] | date = September 22, 2008 | accessdate = 2008-09-22}}</ref> </blockquote>

I think the matter rested there for a week. Now, without further discussion, Hobartimus has by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=242705956&oldid=242704188 this edit] inserted the name of the Tennessee poltician's son, as a wikilink, and has piped the link to lead to the article about the politician.

I have the same two issues here: substance and procedure.

First, as to substance, the issue is whether the reader of the Palin bio is enlightened about her life by learning details of the FBI investigation of a fairly minor incident. The FBI searched a particular apartment. The FBI probably also had some software expert interface with some Yahoo! software expert, and tried to back-trace the published information about Palin's emails, and so forth. Recounting such specifics doesn't tell anything about Palin. The only reason to include this is POV-pushing: the FBI searched David Kernell's apartment, David Kernell is the son of Mike Kernell, Mike Kernell is supporting Obama, therefore Obama is evil. I don't think this "information" would belong in the Palin bio even if David Kernell were arrested, charged, indicted, tried, and convicted, none of which have actually happened. (Even including it in the [[Mike Kernell]] bio is dubious on BLP grounds, but for the Palin bio its irrelevance is the more obvious objection.) Second, as to procedure, it is very disruptive for Hobartimus to unilaterally add material that was thoroughly discussed, when there was apparent consensus on a particular version, when there is no indication of any new information that has surfaced (the reference cited by Hobartimus was published on September 22), and when there was no further discussion on the talk page. Hobartimus, this is simply not how Wikipedia works, particularly on articles of such a controversial nature. You've been here long enough that you should understand this. I am reverting. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]]<small>&nbsp;[[User_talk:JamesMLane|t]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/JamesMLane|c]]</small>
:I think your comment above speaks for itself, contains some pretty extreme agenda. I hardly need to make a case here in light of the above but to accuse an organization on the level of the [[Associated Press]] and several thousand other news outlets who reported on this particular news of trying to argue that "David Kernell is the son of Mike Kernell, Mike Kernell is supporting Obama, therefore Obama is evil." is really extraordinary. You do realize that this small piece information that you removed to prevent any imagined conclusion that "Obama is evil" was reported on by thousands of journalist all over the world right? I shouldn't even point to other parts of your comment such as "FBI investigation of a fairly minor incident", surely the FBI gets involved in minor incidents and they leave the investigation of federal crimes to the local police to sort out. Their involvement is a clear sign that the incident was minor, right? I mean I just don't know what to say after reading such comments. [[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] ([[User talk:Hobartimus|talk]]) 17:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::We should not be including Kernell's name in this article (whether it's appropriate for the subarticle is a separate issue). This has been dead in the water for a few weeks now. That could mean that the FBI is just about to arrest him, or it could mean that the evidence has pointed elsewhere. [[WP:BLP]] suggests we should err on the side of being conservative (NPI), since the person in question is a private individual who has been charged with no crime. He could be guilty, or he could just as easily be the next [[Steven Hatfill]] or [[Richard Jewell]]. Let's let it play out before we jump in to spread this around. Furhter, this issue has been discussed extensively and I think, as JamesMLane mentioned, consensus has favored the shorter version. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 17:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I don't know if you looked at what was reverted but both versions were a single sentence, so I think they can both be fairly described as short. I'll look at the articles I have to say I have no idea who these people that you mention are. [[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] ([[User talk:Hobartimus|talk]]) 17:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Hobartimus, you ignore my point about relevance ''to the Palin bio''. If Barack Obama were caught on camera murdering someone, it would be widely reported and it would be widely taken as proof that he was evil, but it still wouldn't belong in this article. I am, of course, not making any such accusation against AP as the one you falsely impute to me. The POV-pushing that I identified is the insertion of Kernell's name into Palin's Wikipedia bio. AP hasn't done that. And, yes, unfortunately for the much-put-upon FBI agents, they do sometimes have to spend time investigating fairly minor incidents. This email hack isn't Watergate, or even Troopergate. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]]<small>&nbsp;[[User_talk:JamesMLane|t]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/JamesMLane|c]]</small> 17:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::::The AP reported the whole case ''in connection with Palin'' in a story about the ''Palin hack'', the same nice line of reasoning that you shared with us also applies to the AP "the FBI searched David Kernell's apartment, David Kernell is the son of Mike Kernell, Mike Kernell is supporting Obama, therefore Obama is evil." the AP reported all of it. I repeat all of it. Let me say that again the AP reported the FBI search, the AP not only reported but it's main description was that David was Mike's son, they mentioned that Mike is a democratic politician the only, the only thing they left out is your "Obama is evil" conclusion. They reported all of it. It is them who you really accuse, as editors we simply follow what reliable sources say. [[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] ([[User talk:Hobartimus|talk]]) 17:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::To clarify, JamesMLane I don't mind that you disagree on whether to include or not even with your user page statement. I only struggle with some parts of your original comment and a little with your section title by making it personal. [[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] ([[User talk:Hobartimus|talk]]) 18:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::The email hacking incident is similar to the passport access incident of multiple canditates. It should be noted that the passport incident is not included in any of the other candidates bio articles due to lack of relevance. '''IP75''' [[Special:Contributions/75.25.28.167|75.25.28.167]] ([[User talk:75.25.28.167|talk]]) 18:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::Hobartimus, I wrote the section title without your name, then thought some more and included your name, then thought some more about whether to return to my original version and decided not to. The point is that I didn't act lightly. I believe in [[WP:AGF]] but editors who display a pattern cannot trade on that assumption indefinitely. I do wish to make it personal to the extent of calling to your attention that you, personally, should display a greater readiness to discuss controversial edits on the talk page before making them. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]]<small>&nbsp;[[User_talk:JamesMLane|t]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/JamesMLane|c]]</small> 19:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::If I will ever choose to edit an article in a subject in which I have an enormous openly declared bias against the subject I will certainly be very careful and display great care and readiness to discuss everything potentially controversial and toward my actions to not let the desire to defame malign and attack the subject influence my actions as an editor. Let's hope this will never be the case. [[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] ([[User talk:Hobartimus|talk]]) 19:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::::I applaud your resolution that, on any article where you have a bias, you will "display great care and readiness to discuss everything potentially controversial". That is, in fact, the correct procedure even if you ''don't'' have a bias either way concerning the article subject. This is one reason that I deprecated the importance of an editor's bias. Biased and unbiased editors alike are held to the same standard.

::::::::Sometimes, even in a controversial area, an informative edit summary will suffice, especially for a comparatively unimportant change. That's not the case with regard to your most recent edits, however. When you're going against a prior consensus, and especially when you're not relying on any new information to do so, then you really have to present a ''proposed'' edit on the talk page instead of just unilaterally making a significant change. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]]<small>&nbsp;[[User_talk:JamesMLane|t]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/JamesMLane|c]]</small> 03:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Unfortunately Hobartimus restricted the pledge to subjects where his bias is "openly declared"; any undeclared bias he apparently considers irrelevant, regardless of how obvious it may be. I hope he will reconsider that philosophy. —[[User:KCinDC|KCinDC]] ([[User talk:KCinDC|talk]]) 03:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::It's not that it's relevant or irrelevant just that we have an opportunity here to observe someone in action with "an enormous openly declared bias" proudly presented on their user page against the subject of this very article. It seems they are not limited from influencing the article in any way, they are reverting other editors, declare if they think there was consensus, make outrageous arguments against facts that were reported by thousands of journalists around the world. If I ever get into a similar situation it seems I will have to limit myself as others are apparently not limiting these actions here at all. [[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] ([[User talk:Hobartimus|talk]]) 05:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus, please stop changing the subject. The question is, is there a problem with your edit(s). I would say that in both cases you went against a settled consensus. To do so twice in a row, then engage in personal attacks on the person who points it out on the talk page, is not good Wikipedian behavior. Please stop it or go away. [[User:Homunq|Homunq]] ([[User talk:Homunq|talk]]) 22:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:Your comment above makes unsupported statements. Support your assertions with diffs or withdraw them as a personal attack, your choice. Saying "engage in personal attacks" without any supporting evidence/diffs/quotes is a personal attack on your part. I'm pointing out clearly with qoute where I think you made the personal attack, now I'm waiting for you to provide the quote or strike out your comment. [[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] ([[User talk:Hobartimus|talk]]) 23:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::Let's say someone would accept your personal opinion that you expressed with "I would say" without providing any links, even then you should be very mindful of [[Wikipedia:CCC#Consensus_can_change]]. As there is no [[WP:OWN|ownership]] of this article everyone who is autoconfirmed is just as entitled to edit as anyone else. [[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] ([[User talk:Hobartimus|talk]]) 23:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I absolutely agree that consensus can change, if the facts or the arguments change. I fail to see either of those happening before or during your edit, though.
:::What I call "personal attacks" refers to the whole discussion above, where you repeatedly respond to charges about your own edits by focusing attention on the personal views of those who question your edits. I absolutely stand by my statement, which is focused on your behavior - breaking consensus and then focusing on motives of other editors rather than how to improve the article - and not your person. In fact, I repeat it: please change your behavior or leave. [[User:Homunq|Homunq]] ([[User talk:Homunq|talk]]) 01:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::So you are not willing to provide the quote and diff to back up your statement? That would make your statement a clear personal attack on me. Please provide the quote or diff or withdraw your comment, personal attacks are not acceptable. If you do not quote, do not point out what is objectionable you nobody will be able to evaluate your claims. For example I stated clearly where you made the personal attack and what part I expect to be withdrawn. If you do not point it out I cannot defend it, explain it or withdraw it after evaluation of your claim. I expect you to point to the sentence or cease your attacks. [[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] ([[User talk:Hobartimus|talk]]) 11:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::I see that this tangent is distracting us from the real issues: your edits to the bridge and email hack sections. If you would rather discuss whether my requests are justified, please add my talk page to your watch list, as you have already made one or two threats there anyway. Here, let's return to dicussing the page itself, and those edits in particular. [[User:Homunq|Homunq]] ([[User talk:Homunq|talk]]) 14:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::There are no threats, it's a very simple and I think reasonable request on my part. Point out what you object to, with quotes and diffs or withdraw your statement. I do not think that is much to ask. I see that you still did not struck it out our provided specifics. In light of this I still consider it an unsubstantiated personal attack on me. [[WP:NPA]] is policy and for good reason personal attacks are not acceptable. If you do not provide any support, any diffs, nobody will be able to evaluate your claims. This is also the case with your other statements as well. You claim "consensus" you offer no proof, no support, no links for that statement. You claim "consensus can change, if the facts or the arguments change." again you offer no support no proof. Indeed if we actually look up [[WP:CCC]] we find "Past decisions are open to challenge and are ''not binding''" "''new people'' may bring fresh ideas ... ''people may change their minds''", intrestingly it seems very much focused on people, something you did not mention. The one thing we do NOT find in [[WP:CCC]] your statement that "consensus can change, if the facts or the arguments change", which seems to suggest that once the facts are known consensus really can't change. Did you feel that this version of WP:CCC, focused on facts better supported your argument than the actual wording of the policy? A fact is for example that a federal crime was comitted against a person on a presidential ticket in order to influence the outcome of the election and the FBI now investigates. Another fact is a federal warrant being served in the case. Another fact is that this federal warrant and subsequent FBI raid on an apartment was covered by thousands of newspapers around the world, including by the [[Associated Press]]. [[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] ([[User talk:Hobartimus|talk]]) 15:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Thank you for returning to the topic at hand. I think that JamesMLane said it best in his last two edits directly above. [[User:Homunq|Homunq]] ([[User talk:Homunq|talk]]) 18:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Do I have your permission to move the discussion from my "If you would rather discuss whether my requests are justified," to your "no support no proof. Indeed", inclusive, to my talk page? Or yours, if you prefer? [[User:Homunq|Homunq]] ([[User talk:Homunq|talk]]) 18:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Picture ==

What's with the main picture? It was fine, this one is fuzzy.

:This has been addressed in lengthy discussions and consensus was reached. Please see archives. Thanks, '''IP75''' [[Special:Contributions/75.25.28.167|75.25.28.167]] ([[User talk:75.25.28.167|talk]]) 20:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

: It is kinda fuzzy, but I'm more so questioning why her current picture has been photoshopped. For example, in Palin's current picture her eyes and skin have been brightened, lips reddened, and eye lashes thickened. Is there not a more accurate picture of her available? I'm not saying put a bad picture of her up, just one that's not touched up. [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/b/b2/20080924214543!Palin_In_Carson_City_On_13_September_2008.jpg Original] [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Palin_In_Carson_City_On_13_September_2008.jpg Photoshopped] [[User:J.H|J.H]] ([[User talk:J.H|talk]]) 02:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Could Palin have canceled the Road to Nowhere? ==

The current article quotes a McCain-Palin spokesman via CNN saying "because the contract for the road was already signed before she got into office, the governor was left no viable alternative." However, the assertion that she had no viable alternative was subsequently [http://www.propublica.org/article/palin-defends-construction-of-road-to-nowhere-925/ contradicted] by a spokesman for the Alaska Department of Transportation, via [[ProPublica]]:
<blockquote>But the governor did have a viable alternative. Gov. Frank Murkowski (R) signed the contract for the road on Dec. 1, 2006, three days before he left office. Palin could have cancelled that contract upon taking office, according to Alaska Department of Transportation spokesman Roger Wetherell. In such cases, contractors are reimbursed for any expenses incurred in association with the project.</blockquote>So if she had cancelled it (as she did a road in Juneau) the federal government would have saved almost all the money (though it wouldn't have saved Alaska anything). [[User:Crust|Crust]] ([[User talk:Crust|talk]]) 20:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:Have you studied Contract Law? 20:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Collect|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Additionally, Palin didn't officially cancel the bridge itself until September 2007, several months after construction had started on the road. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 20:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::I think it's a good point, Crust, and I will add a shortened version of it to the article.[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 16:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::..."HEY YOU KIDS!!!!! Get off that Bridge...someones gonna fall n' git hurt, darn it":>)--[[User:Buster7|Buster7]] ([[User talk:Buster7|talk]]) 18:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Mom, they're playing on the bridge down below again! :) [[User:Fcreid|Fcreid]] ([[User talk:Fcreid|talk]]) 22:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::"say it ain't so, Joe...Gosh o' golly!...Iffin I had my way I'd blast dem dern bridges ta Kingdom Come. Dat 'uud be da end a dat!"--[[User:Buster7|Buster7]] ([[User talk:Buster7|talk]]) 22:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== Reinstating section from archive: 'Political positions' section - request comments ==

* The first paragraph of the section has been expanded and now reads like a campaign commercial that is comprised of her quotes from the Time magazine interview. I feel the paragraph needs to be edited to reflect the style of rest of the section/article.

* The sentence on Iraq has been removed from the section. It used to say something like: Palin generally supports the Bush Administration’s policies on the war in Iraq. The [[Political positions of Sarah Palin]] article contains the following sentence: “Palin supports the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq, but is concerned that "dependence on foreign energy" may be obstructing efforts to "have an exit plan in place".

* Two of Palin’s positions that were discussed during the Gibson interview are not mentioned in the section. Her opposition to a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons and her opposition to embryonic stem cell research. These can be included with a brief addition to the existing text.
'''IP75''' [[Special:Contributions/75.25.28.167|75.25.28.167]] ([[User talk:75.25.28.167|talk]]) 21:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

←I'm reinstating this section for comments- I missed it the first time as this page moves so quickly. I agree with IP75 that this summary section should include her political positions on Iraq, semi-automatic assault weapons and embryonic stem cell research. These are important issues, and her positions should be included. As for the first paragraph of the section - I generally agree with IP that it could be reworded in a more balanced manner, but at the moment I feel stronger about the content issues. <strong>[[User:Tvoz|Tvoz]]</strong>/<small>[[User talk:Tvoz|talk]]</small> 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:No issue with the first two items. I haven't seen the specific transcripts referenced in the third, but I would be reluctant to conclude and advertise a specific political position from a TV interview. Seems like we could source something like those a bit better. [[User:Fcreid|Fcreid]] ([[User talk:Fcreid|talk]]) 22:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::The Los Angeles Times published an article [[http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-palinexcerpts23-2008sep13,0,2389342.story]] with interview excerpts of Palin's position on assault weapons. If you search Google News using 'Palin' and 'stem cell' there are other sources in addition to the Gibson interview transcript. Here is one from the Washington Post: [[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/12/mccain_radio_spot_trumpets_ste.html]] '''IP75''' [[Special:Contributions/75.25.28.167|75.25.28.167]] ([[User talk:75.25.28.167|talk]]) 01:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:::If you think it's sourced sufficiently to reflect her genuine position on those issues, go ahead and snag what's already there and weave those points into a proposed modification. I doubt it would be contentious, as both seems to be natural inferences of her gun control and pro-life platforms. [[User:Fcreid|Fcreid]] ([[User talk:Fcreid|talk]]) 02:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

In principle, this is the one section that I think needs the most work. Does anyone have access to press releases from her campaign office? Has she issued position papers? Transcripts of press conferences she gave as governor? We need to be careful to use reliable sources here - I think if we are claiming something is ''her'' political position, it needs to come from a source in which she is actually saying something to the effect of "this is my political position." I have two responses to the concern about sounding like a campaign commercial. First, this will sound less like a campaign commercial as it gets more ''specific''. Second, once it has specifics, we can then reasonably and for NPOV reasons quote her opponents and critics who have challenged her stated position. But before we do the second, we need to do the first. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 13:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:I will post a proposed draft soon. '''IP75''' [[Special:Contributions/75.25.28.167|75.25.28.167]] ([[User talk:75.25.28.167|talk]]) 21:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Tina Fey ==

Shouldn't mention be made of their resemblance, considering that Palin herself has remarked on it, as have many others? (there's also the almost word for word copy of part of the Couric interview on SNL last week - analyzed by the likes of MSNBC and CNN... ) [[Special:Contributions/70.51.8.75|70.51.8.75]] ([[User talk:70.51.8.75|talk]]) 13:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:I am not so sure. You all know I feel strongly that part of this article has to be devoted to current events. And the Tina Fey parody was certainly big news last week. But I wonder - it is possible that in the aftermath of the debate, people will stop talking about the Fey parody. So I advise that we wait and see. If the Couric interview/Fey parody continues to haunt Palin, if critics of Palin keep referring to it in the coming weeks, then it is clearly notable enough to belong in this article. But if the chatter dies down I don't think it is worth it. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 13:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::What about the physical resemblance? Palin herself has noted it. [[Special:Contributions/70.51.8.75|70.51.8.75]] ([[User talk:70.51.8.75|talk]]) 13:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::A good place to start is the SNL article and the Tina Fey article. here, not. [[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] ([[User talk:Hobartimus|talk]]) 14:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Every major politician has been parodied, some more effectively than others. We don't mention every single impression on the politicians' articles. The attention SNL and Tina Fey have gotten for the quality of this impression have been mentioned in great detail on their pages.--[[User:Loodog|Loodog]] ([[User talk:Loodog|talk]]) 16:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::I tend to agree. To this article, its trivia at best. But definitely noteworthy in the Fey article.[[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 18:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
=== Irrelevant to mention Tina Fey's SNL parody? ===

I don't know if it's already been brought up but if it has, please forgive me for not combing through the pile of archives to figure that out. But since [[Tina Fey]]'s impersonation of Palin has caught national attention and even caused a considerable amount of controversy, would it go against the rules to include such a fact in the article? --[[User:Crackthewhip775|Crackthewhip775]] ([[User talk:Crackthewhip775|talk]]) 20:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:Sorry about that, it's hard to keep track of the comments when the page is so long in spite of it being constantly archived. --[[User:Crackthewhip775|Crackthewhip775]] ([[User talk:Crackthewhip775|talk]]) 20:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::As someone who has been trying to protect Palin from misguided editors over the past few days, I see absolutely no problem with including such a reference in the appropriate section, so long as the description of it remains neutral. -- [[User:Drlight11|Drlight11]] ([[User talk:Drlight11|talk]]) 01:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)\
:::Of course it is irrelevant. A five minute sketch about you is not an important part of her life, which is what an encyclopedia [[WP:BLP|biography]] like this one is about. Erik the <font color="red">[[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]]</font> 2 <small><font color= "green">[[User talk:Erik the Red 2|~~]]</font><font color= "blue">[[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|~~]]</font></small> 01:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
: Unless it later proves to lose her the election I don't think it's noteworthy anymore than SNL's Clinton or Bush sketches (they aren't mentioned on their respected profiles either). [[User:J.H|J.H]] ([[User talk:J.H|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment was added at 02:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Westbrook Pegler ==

In her acceptance speech, Palin's line about small towns - "We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty and sincerity and dignity." - was a quote from fascist writer [[Westbrook Pegler]], who in his columns called for bigotry against blacks and Jews and the assassination of [[RFK]]. see http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_spine/archive/2008/09/13/palin-and-pegler.aspx

The association between Palin and Pegler should be mentioned in the section on the 2008 vice-presidential campaign after the paragraph on the "bridge to nowhere."--[[User:DarthTaper|DarthTaper]] ([[User talk:DarthTaper|talk]]) 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:This has already been discussed at length [[Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 30#Content of Palin's Convention Speech|here]]. Consensus was to not include.--[[User:Paul.h|Paul]] ([[User talk:Paul.h|talk]]) 20:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::Discussion should be reopened - information about the origin of her quote is not an ad hominem attack on Palin or Pegler, and the information's relevance does not depend on the meaning of the "small town values" rhetoric. The Pegler association is informative because it tells us about the pedigree of her views and those of her handlers. It is not an ad hominem attack because it is a value-neutral fact about her intellectual pedigree.--[[User:DarthTaper|DarthTaper]] ([[User talk:DarthTaper|talk]]) 20:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Yeah, right. [[User:Fcreid|Fcreid]] ([[User talk:Fcreid|talk]]) 23:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:::: I suggest that DarthTaper look up the meaning of "ad hominem", if s/he can't see how this is almost a textbook example of one. In any case, none of her views, or those of her handlers, come from Pegler; a ''bon mot'' in a speech, given without attribution, says absolutely nothing about her views or her "intellectual pedigree", no matter who originally wrote it. -- [[User:Zsero|Zsero]] ([[User talk:Zsero|talk]]) 03:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::No one is attacking any claim or argument here, so nothing is "ad hominem." I care not at all whether small towns breed honest people, for example. Palin's bromides warrant no response, fallacious or otherwise. But it speaks volumes that she would quote Pegler in a major speech. Your influences are an important part of who you are. Just look at the Wikipedia information boxes for philosophers, for example [[Kant]]. Who he influenced and who he was influenced by are as basic as his dates of birth and death.--[[User:DarthTaper|DarthTaper]] ([[User talk:DarthTaper|talk]]) 04:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::: It doesn't speak even a very thin octavo volume, with wide margins and large print and lots of white space. It says nothing at all. The line is what it is, regardless of who wrote it; to pretend that it's not a good line because of who wrote it is the very definition of ad hominem. And there is no basis whatsoever for speculation that Palin has been influenced in any way by Pegler, or even that she'd ever heard of him before this latest smear attempt began. -- [[User:Zsero|Zsero]] ([[User talk:Zsero|talk]]) 04:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::::You're right that the line is what it is regardless of who wrote it, but as I said above my argument for inclusion has nothing to do with the line itself. And yes, Palin may never have heard of Pegler, but the fact that his line was in her speech speaks to the ''milieu'' from whence she comes.--[[User:DarthTaper|DarthTaper]] ([[User talk:DarthTaper|talk]]) 16:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::: If she, or Obama, had quoted <s>(plagiarised?)</s> Marx, would you still say the same thing? In fairness, she probably didn't write that bit of her speech. Regards, [[User talk:BenAveling|Ben Aveling]] 07:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC) <small>was not plagiarism - although the author wasn't named, the words were clearly flagged as a quote. [[User talk:BenAveling|Ben Aveling]] 22:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)</small>

:::::::: I see no reason to include such an unnecessary line. If an editor feels the line does not "tie" Palin to Pegler, then it is irrelevant, and does not belong here. If the editor DOES feel that way, then to say so constitutes OR, and does not belong here. If someone includes the point, then cites an newspaper editor who made it in an article as a source, then it is not verifiable (since a few individuals operating without some analog of review are hardly a reliable source) and does not belong here. I realize that the last part in particular is up for debate, but that's the gist of the explanation why this comment would be unnecessary. -- [[User:Drlight11|Drlight11]] ([[User talk:Drlight11|talk]]) 01:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

←Yes, Ben - I agree with that and made that point [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_30#Content_of_Palin.27s_Convention_Speech here] a few days ago too. I think this should be discussed some more here. I think a short reference to Pegler is in orde. rSome places it's been raised: [http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_09/014661.php ''Washington Monthly''], [[Martin Peretz]] in [http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_spine/archive/2008/09/13/palin-and-pegler.aspx ''The New Republic''], [[Frank Rich]] in [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14rich.html?hp ''The New York Times''], [[Thomas Frank]] in [http://www.wsj.com/article/SB122100226859616967.html?mod=hpp_us_inside_today ''The Wall Street Journal''], [[Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.]] in [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/governor-palins-reading-l_b_126478.html ''Huffington Post'']. <strong>[[User:Tvoz|Tvoz]]</strong>/<small>[[User talk:Tvoz|talk]]</small> 08:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

::I'm in two minds about this. Is this guilt by association, or is this [[dog whistling]]? Given the liklihood that whoever wrote that line knew the author's politics, I'm leaning towards that later. And that makes it includable for me. One split the difference option would be to put it in [[Public reaction to Sarah Palin]]. So we talk about, not here, but as part of out discussion of the public discussion of her. Are any of her other quotes from the same guy, or similarly minded people? Regards, [[User talk:BenAveling|Ben Aveling]] 10:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::It can't even be guilt by association as there is no association here. We have the [[Obama-Ayers controversy]] a fully notable standalone article tested at Afd for full notability and it's still not mentioned in the Obama biography. I don't see how would this not even a blip in comparsion- could survive the test for inclusion in any article of Wikipedia nevermind high profile BLPs. [[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] ([[User talk:Hobartimus|talk]]) 11:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::The association between Palin and Pegler is more profound in terms of the apparent influence on her views than anything between Obama and Ayers. Obama and Ayers were two Chicagoans who happened to cross paths as they worked on education issues. Palin, whose views we know little about, quoted Pegler without attribution, showing that this is someone whom she or her handlers read. I'd say that this is more analogous to the Obama-Jeremiah Wright controversy, in which there was reasonable suspicion that Wright influenced Obama. That controversy, which Obama specifically addressed, made it into his article. A short reference to the Palin-Pegler connection is warranted.--[[User:DarthTaper|DarthTaper]] ([[User talk:DarthTaper|talk]]) 15:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::The only problem with this argument is that there is no "association between Palin and Pegler." And given that, "apparent influence on her views" and "showing that this is someone whom she or her handlers read" are great examples of [[begging the question]].--[[User:Paul.h|Paul]] ([[User talk:Paul.h|talk]]) 16:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::There is an association between Palin and Pegler - she quoted him in her speech. You can only quote things that you've read. Whoever wrote the speech read Pegler. No question begging there...--[[User:DarthTaper|DarthTaper]] ([[User talk:DarthTaper|talk]]) 17:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::The most likely source for this quote is from [http://books.google.com/books?id=iwl4C221N8AC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=We+grow+good+people+in+our+small+towns+-sarah+%2Btruman+-palin&source=web&ots=jAccecBprn&sig=zVdCNIMwVCPjn1E9xcWc2Lw-hSw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result page 31 of "Right from the Beginning" by Patrick Buchanan (1988).] The use of the quote in Palin's speech doesn't prove anything about her or her speechwriter reading Pegler, or even knowing who Pegler is. By the way, I read Buchanan's columns now and then. I suppose that makes me an anti-semite?--[[User:Paul.h|Paul]] ([[User talk:Paul.h|talk]]) 17:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Your source reinforces a bizarre connection to Truman, a Democrat who rose to the presidency because of the death of the president, that Palin herself made in her speech. You're right that her use of the quote doesn't prove that she subscribes to Pegler's views; it also doesn't prove that she thinks she's the next Truman. But it says something about her milieu and mindset regarding her place in history.--[[User:DarthTaper|DarthTaper]] ([[User talk:DarthTaper|talk]]) 18:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::November 4 (2008) seems sooo far away. What's next, Palin herself shot RFK? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Maybe, GoodDay, we'll just have to wait and see what these amazing folks discover next!!! DarthTaper, let me give you an example of our point. Within the past few years, Obama gave what I consider to be an absolutely exceptional explanation of the pro-choice position, and one that I wholeheartedly agree with - it was the one that ended with saying someone who seeks to outlaw abortion must provide an explanation that appeals to "people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all." By your logic, the fact that I consider such a statement so noteworthy is indicative that I endorse Obama just as fully, when such is decidedly untrue - I favor him, but am by no means as taken with the guy overall as I am with his classic analysis on that issue. Is it really the case that no one you disfavor has ever said something that impressed you nonetheless? All this means is she liked the quaint description of low-key town life - not that she supported the politics of the maniac who said it. -- [[User:Drlight11|Drlight11]] ([[User talk:Drlight11|talk]]) 01:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::And here I thought it was a right-wing conspiracy. . . . Heyyyyy!?!?! --[[User:Evb-wiki|Evb-wiki]] ([[User talk:Evb-wiki|talk]]) 18:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
A person who quotes "Water, water everywhere" is quoting a drug addict. One who quotes Alice in Wonderland is quoting a probable pedophile. I would suggest that it is the quote which is important, not who was quoted, absent any mention of the author? [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 18:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:Both those men are mainly quoted by people with no awareness of the authors' work, let alone their personal lives and desires (alleged desires, in the case of Dodgson). The expression "ne any drop drink to drink" has been repeated so often by people who have not read Coleridge that when it is quoted, it's almost invariably misquoted. Those men are read for the quality of their writing, not because of their politics. You cannot say the same for Pegler or Buchanan. Regards, [[User talk:BenAveling|Ben Aveling]] 20:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::Might you show me where you know that Palin is an expert on Pegler? By the way, Coleridge is widely known as a drug addict, and Dodgson as a pedophile. Much more so that most people know about Pegler, to be sure! And might Pegler have been quoted because in the case cited he was a good wordsmith? [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 23:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

::"Those men are read for the quality of their writing, not because of their politics." can you be any more off topic? What's that got to do with anything in the article? Let's say your unsupported claim is true that ''generally'' people read "Pegler or Buchanan for their politics" what is the relevance of that odd claim to the article? I propose to let this thread be archived as not reasonably directed at improving the article and move on. [[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] ([[User talk:Hobartimus|talk]]) 20:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: (ec) You raised the example, I responded to it, and now I'm off-topic? :-) Your question was, how strong is the association between Palin and Pegler. My answer is: more than zero, which was your earlier claim; more than the association normally created by quoting popular, oft quoted authors such as in your more recent example; but most importantly, the association created is less than what would be needed to warrant including it in the article - if only slightly less. There's too much distance, so far. The possibility that the quote came via Buchanan, the probability that she probably didn't write the speech herself, the fact that it's just one line. Unless and until there are more examples of her speeches being crafted from the writings of fascists, I'd prefer to let this one slide. (I'm more worried about what the quote says of her opinions of people from large towns and cities.) Regards, [[User talk:BenAveling|Ben Aveling]] 21:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::: There is still not the slightest indication that either Palin or her speech writer knew anything at all about Pegler, let alone that they were influenced by his politics. It says nothing at all about their "milieu", whatever that's supposed to mean. Theories about "dog whistles" are merely the paranoid speculation of left-wing commentators with nothing better to write about. And without that the origin of the quote is simply not at all notable, it's the ultimate in trivia, and doesn't belong in the article. Giving it even an extra word would be undue weight, and would appear to be endorsing these fantasies. The speech writer saw the line somewhere, memorised it, and on this occasion spat it out; the most obvious reason it wasn't attributed was that he couldn't remember the writer's name, and couldn't be bothered to google it. -- [[User:Zsero|Zsero]] ([[User talk:Zsero|talk]]) 21:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::: Saw the line somewhere, memorised the line word perfect, too forgetful to remember the writer's name, too lazy to google it? You're being harsher on her than I am... Regards, [[User talk:BenAveling|Ben Aveling]] 22:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::: First of all, let's get one thing clear: we know who wrote the speech. It's not a mystery, it's not speculation, we know his name. And of course nobody expects such a speech to be written by the candidate herself. Even Reagan had speechwriters, whose work he could then shred and rewrite, but I think we can safely assume that the quote, which was at the beginning of the speech, came from the speech writer. And this is what professional speech writers do &mdash; they see a good line, and squirrel it away for later use. Maybe he wrote it down in a notebook, whatever. In any case it doesn't speak of any deep connection, or even a casual one. It sounded good, it expresses a valid sentiment, so they used it. Political speeches aren't expected to be original work, so plagiarism isn't an issue with them. (Biden's real problem with Kinnock's speech wasn't that he lifted it, but that those particular details of his biography didn't match, so what Kinnock truthfully said about himself was false in Biden's mouth.) -- [[User:Zsero|Zsero]] ([[User talk:Zsero|talk]]) 23:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Eh... I think several sources have found it... ''curious'' that the quote chosen to underline the Republicans' "small-town values" code phrase just happens to come from a notoriously rabid racist and anti-Semite who was too extreme-right for the [[John Birch Society]]. But yeah, it's probably below the notability horizon for this article. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 22:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::: She does say writer, and identifies him as a contemporary of Truman's, so it's clear she's not talking about something from a politician in 1988. It's frustrating, you can see the nudge, nudge, wink, wink nature of it. But it's all sotto voce. As a stand-alone piece, it doesn't warrant inclusion. Regards, [[User talk:BenAveling|Ben Aveling]] 22:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Yes, she's quite erudite, yet somehow above she doesn't understand the phrase "Achille's heel". She's a wily one. [[Special:Contributions/75.148.1.26|75.148.1.26]] ([[User talk:75.148.1.26|talk]]) 22:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I see a lot of people here anaylyzing the news and analyzing the campaigns. Alas, Wikipedian's are not allowed to put their own analysis into articles. Unless the connection between her and Westbrook Pegler has been made by someone notable - Obama or Biden or national news media - it is a non-event. We include anything that is relevant and notable and ''verifiable''. We do not include ourown analysis; nothing that violates [[WP:NOR]] goes in. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 23:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:Tvoz posted this list of sources above - [http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_09/014661.php ''Washington Monthly''], [[Martin Peretz]] in [http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_spine/archive/2008/09/13/palin-and-pegler.aspx ''The New Republic''], [[Frank Rich]] in [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14rich.html?hp ''The New York Times''], [[Thomas Frank]] in [http://www.wsj.com/article/SB122100226859616967.html?mod=hpp_us_inside_today ''The Wall Street Journal''], [[Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.]] in [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/governor-palins-reading-l_b_126478.html ''Huffington Post''] --[[User:DarthTaper|DarthTaper]] ([[User talk:DarthTaper|talk]]) 23:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:: A band of paranoids speculating wildly about someone they hate with a passion even greater than that with which they hate Bush doesn't make something notable. At least it's not notable about Palin; it might be notable about them. Until one of them advances a shred of evidence, or proves their psychic abilities, it's all garbage. -- [[User:Zsero|Zsero]] ([[User talk:Zsero|talk]]) 23:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Just wanna congratulate ya'll, for working things out here (at talk) ''before'' adding/deleting anything from the article (same goes for the Biden page). [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 00:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I have not looked at these links so I have no idea if what they say is pro-Palin or anti-Palin. That is because it does not matter. The New York Times, the Wall Street journal, and the New Republic are all notable and reliable sources, and whatever they say should be summarized in the article as long as it is about Palin or something she said or did. Zsero, Wikipedia's opinions are not relevant. NPOV is designed explicitly to ensure that views you or I consider "garbage" go into the article. If you reject NPOV, you are rejecting Wikipedia. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 01:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
: Slrubenstein, this is not about anything Palin said or did, but about her secret thoughts, or rather those of her speech writer. And unless Frank Rich and Marty Peretz are psychic, they are not reliable sources as to that, no matter who published their paranoid fantasies. Their ''opinions'' about her motives are not notable, when they have no basis whatsoever outside their own heads. -- [[User:Zsero|Zsero]] ([[User talk:Zsero|talk]]) 03:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::Dunninger as a reference? Sounds good here. Not. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 01:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Bias ==

I have taken a 2 week break from the article in hopes that someone would try to bance the article. I still find it too far slanted as Pro-Palin--[[User:Lambchop2008|Lambchop2008]] ([[User talk:Lambchop2008|talk]]) 22:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:Where to start... Your assertion that she neglected the welfare of an unborn child by flying home from Texas (or is Trig really even her child?) Her religious beliefs could be interpreted to support that she called dinosaurs Jesus Ponies? How about ritualistic spiritual behavior with an African Witch Doctor? [[User:Fcreid|Fcreid]] ([[User talk:Fcreid|talk]]) 23:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::Lambchop, you came here two weeks ago spouting about comparing "baby bumps" on Palin and her daughter and demanding the article reflect Trig as her grandson and not her son. You now have the audacity to waltz in here two weeks later, without any contribution whatsoever, and place a demand for review of neutrality? Crawl back into whatever hole you just left, will you? There is no "good faith" to be assumed here. [[User:Fcreid|Fcreid]] ([[User talk:Fcreid|talk]]) 00:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Again, generalized concerns about the bias of the article are not useful. If you could pick particular things to be changed, we could discuss those.--[[User:Loodog|Loodog]] ([[User talk:Loodog|talk]]) 00:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

::::Agree with Loodog, disagree with Fcreid. Specific complaints are useful, random abuse is not. Fcreid, we know you feel strongly about Sarah Palin, but try to keep some perspective. Regards, [[User talk:BenAveling|Ben Aveling]] 00:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::As far as I can tell, Fcreid does not feel strongly about Sarah Palin, but does feel strongly about bias and libel. My style is usually to avoid direct confrontation, but in Lambchop's case he/she has only tried to insert the most absurd and libelous material here and made no positive contributions to this article. An editor's actions either adds to their goodwill and presumption of good faith, or it subtracts from it. It's fine for Lampchop to use the talk page to make suggestions for improving the article, but given his/her history, tagging the article with a <nowiki>{{bias}}</nowiki> tag is simply harassment of other editors.--[[User:Paul.h|Paul]] ([[User talk:Paul.h|talk]]) 15:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks, Paul. You're correct on all counts. At least I strive for that level of objectivity. It's necessary to stop degrading trash before it presents itself as legitimate discussion, though. Moreover, I'm sure any feelings I have towards Palin would be unreciprocated! :) [[User:Fcreid|Fcreid]] ([[User talk:Fcreid|talk]]) 21:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::My ''feelings'' have nothing to do with anything, Ben, but I oppose turning this article into some trashy tabloid. Lambchop used up all of its "Good Faith" tokens within hours of its first appearance here. It has nothing of value to contribute. [[Special:Contributions/75.148.1.26|75.148.1.26]] ([[User talk:75.148.1.26|talk]]) 15:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::: Nonetheless, words like 'spouting', 'audacity' and 'crawl back into whatever hole you left' are unhelpful. Regards, [[User talk:BenAveling|Ben Aveling]] 19:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::: Placing a bias tag on the article without stating any specifics is useless. Please remove tag ASAP. '''IP75''' [[Special:Contributions/75.25.28.167|75.25.28.167]] ([[User talk:75.25.28.167|talk]]) 00:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== Criticism of Obama section ==

I recently started a section on Palin's criticisms of Obama under the campaign section [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=prev&oldid=243096404 here]. Specifically I included info from the New York Times that Palin accused Obama of ''palling around with terrorists.'' Predictably, my edit was immediately reverted by another editor, Eric the Red, who claimed it violated [[WP:UNDUE]]. I reverted his edit because I do not believe it does. Palin's criticisms of Obama have real weight and relevance to her campaign, far more than her ties to churches or her positions on bridges while she was still Mayor of Wasilla and the section on her campaign is virtually silent regarding any substantial policy issues. There is a section devoted to her poltical positions on the page but I don't think this would fit there as well. In any event, I think it belongs in the article. It relates directly to the style and the substance of her vice presidential campaign.--[[User:Cdogsimmons|Cdogsimmons]] ([[User talk:Cdogsimmons|talk]]) 03:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:I would also note that according to the NYT article, the increase in the criticism of Obama marks a shift in the McCain campaigns tactics.--[[User:Cdogsimmons|Cdogsimmons]] ([[User talk:Cdogsimmons|talk]]) 03:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:Here's the [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7653132.stm BBC's version of the story with a nice video].--[[User:Cdogsimmons|Cdogsimmons]] ([[User talk:Cdogsimmons|talk]]) 04:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:The NYT article is [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/us/politics/05palin.html here].--[[User:Cdogsimmons|Cdogsimmons]] ([[User talk:Cdogsimmons|talk]]) 04:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::1. Having a whole section about criticism of Obama is dubious whether it should ever be included.<br>
::2. Having this recent criticism of Obama's involvement with Ayers as the only sentence in this section makes it definitely not worth inclusion at the moment. Both campaigns criticize each other every day, single criticisms are not noteworthy. This section is not noteworthy enough to be included at the present in my opinion. [[User:LonelyMarble|LonelyMarble]] ([[User talk:LonelyMarble|talk]]) 04:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Cdog- A dedicated criticism section of Obama does not belong in the main bio of Sarah Palin. No other candidate has a 'criticism section' of another candidate in their main bio. '''IP75''' [[Special:Contributions/75.25.28.167|75.25.28.167]] ([[User talk:75.25.28.167|talk]]) 04:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Maybe that's because none of the other candidates are accusing each other of "palling around with terrorists". LonelyMarble, I'm afraid I don't really understand your first point. Why shouldn't there be a section on how Palin criticizes her opponent? It's what she's saying. It's the point she's making to distinguish the two sides. That seems important to me. As far as your second point, just because there isn't a lot of info in the section is not a good reason to erase the info that is currently there. It's a reason to merge it into another section, but not to erase it. When people erase info on this article that's well sourced and relevant to the topic, it looks like one of two things to me: (1) sloppy editing, or (2) like you are trying to prove a political point. Both are unacceptable.--[[User:Cdogsimmons|Cdogsimmons]] ([[User talk:Cdogsimmons|talk]]) 04:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::If you don't like the term criticism, why not "Soundbites" or "Campaign message". I'm just concerned that the campaign section is woefully inadequate in describing what techniques Palin is using and the messages she is conveying.--[[User:Cdogsimmons|Cdogsimmons]] ([[User talk:Cdogsimmons|talk]]) 04:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::My original thinking was that if it is decided to include info about that criticism, it should probably just be in the "2008 Vice-presidential campaign" section. I'm still not sure it's noteworthy enough to include though. If you can get others to agree it's important enough to include then I'm okay with it being merged into that section. I'd have to agree having an own section about anything like criticism or campaign message will end up being undue weight because everything in that section could probably be trimmed down and just put in the main 2008 Vice-presidential campaign section. [[User:LonelyMarble|LonelyMarble]] ([[User talk:LonelyMarble|talk]]) 04:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::They are all accusing each other of something 24/7. It's called politics and it belongs in a campaign article '''IP75''' [[Special:Contributions/75.25.28.167|75.25.28.167]] ([[User talk:75.25.28.167|talk]]) 04:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::As opposed to the campaign section?--[[User:Cdogsimmons|Cdogsimmons]] ([[User talk:Cdogsimmons|talk]]) 04:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Next, we will include Obama's camp saying that what she said are '"desperate and false attacks" intended to change the subject from the economy.' The fact is, Cdogsimmons, it's over, McCain has lost, and you can't help him on Wikipedia. Stop trying. [[User:Fee Fi Foe Fum|Fee Fi Foe Fum]] ([[User talk:Fee Fi Foe Fum|talk]]) 04:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Fee Fi Foe Fum doesn't have a clue what he's talking about and should keep his allegations to himself. The info was well sourced, relevant and informative. I know that some people don't think the NYT is as fair and balanced as other news sources, but NPOV? Really. I'm not going to edit war with you. I just think this info is interesting. Palin accusing Obama of associating with terrorists is the nastiest thing I've heard said so far this campaign (it almost sounds tantamount to aiding a terrorist which is a serious crime in the United States) and it is reflective of a stated policy shift by the McCain campaign to up the attacks. I think it passes the [[WP:UNDUE]] test if included in the campaign section, though I admit it may not deserve it's own sub-section, so why not keep the info in?--[[User:Cdogsimmons|Cdogsimmons]] ([[User talk:Cdogsimmons|talk]]) 05:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:I think mostly this needs more time to see if it is worthy to be included or not. Maybe wait a couple days and see how much impact this story has? As of right now it doesn't seem to be important enough to include yet, that may change in a few days though. Political jabs like this happen every day, it's hard to tell what is memorable and what is not. [[User:LonelyMarble|LonelyMarble]] ([[User talk:LonelyMarble|talk]]) 05:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
[[WP:RECENT]], [[WP:UNDUE]]. It belongs at [[John McCain presidential campaign, 2008]], if anywhere. --[[User:Evb-wiki|Evb-wiki]] ([[User talk:Evb-wiki|talk]]) 05:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::Questioning other editors' motives or political affiliations is unhelpful. I agree with Onlymarble that we simply do not know whether today's talking point is very relevant to her campaign, much less her life story. Probably not. Whether she becomes Vice President or not, it seems unlikely a year from now that anyone will define Palin by her being the mouthpiece of a particular campaign attack. Further, to describe this in an NPOV way we would have to mention what some of the reliable sources conclude, that this is part of the McCain campaign's announced efforts to go negative because they are losing momentum, and that her claim is misleading and misrepresents her sources. We don't need to do that here in a biography.[[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 05:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::The same NYT article mentions that Todd Palin has refused to testify before the Alaskan State Legislature investigating his wifes abuse of power. Should we include that in the article? The Ayers connection is not new or newsworthy. It is an obvious ploy to confuse the voting public and we should certainly not be involved in helping to perpetrate fraud on our readers. Not every utterance that Gov Palin will be making for the next few weeks is worthy of inclusion. BTW, FFFF did not make any allegations. And no one mentioned having any problem with the source. The problem is with the Palin criticism re:Ayers (whom she doesnt mention by name BTW)--[[User:Buster7|Buster7]] ([[User talk:Buster7|talk]]) 05:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: The subpoena issue is in the article on the trooper investigation. It certainly doesn't belong on this article. Maybe on Todd's, but probably not. He got a subpoena, took legal advice, and followed it - it will only be notable if the subpoena is upheld and enforced. -- [[User:Zsero|Zsero]] ([[User talk:Zsero|talk]]) 05:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
: "Nasty"? It's just the undisputed truth. He ''does'' have a close personal connection with terrorists Ayers and Dohrn, and their terrorist past was clearly not enough to make him shun them. How is it "nasty" to say so? Still, it's not a notable thing about Palin that she attacked him for it. Of course she did - she's the VP candidate in an election against him, so attacking him is her job, and this is an obvious flaw that he has. It's notable on his article, not hers. -- [[User:Zsero|Zsero]] ([[User talk:Zsero|talk]]) 05:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::Forty years ago I was on a Mens bowling team with a guy that later became Child molester. Should My picture be circulated to my neighbors? Obama had nothing more than a cursory relationship with a person that May have been remotely involved in bombings in the "60's. And his relationship was many, many years later. Palin makes it sound like Obama helped to make the bombs. Typical Political Obfuscation. --[[User:Buster7|Buster7]] ([[User talk:Buster7|talk]]) 06:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::: 1. There's a difference between "later" and "before". Obama knew who Ayers and Dohrn were when he became close to them. And his relationship was ''not'' in any way "cursory", it was very close. Why does it matter how many years later it was? Did they become better people in the interim? More fit for civilised company? If McCain was friends with a rapist we'd never hear the end of it, but somehow being friends with anti-American terrorists is OK? -- [[User:Zsero|Zsero]] ([[User talk:Zsero|talk]]) 06:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Rrrrright, we're off-topic here. It's absurd to write a criticism of Obama section into an article about Palin. I don't think any significant portion of her life is defined by criticizing Obama. Politicians criticize each other in a heated race, that's it. When she does criticize Obama, it's on the McCain platform, not as a consequence of her experience in Alaska or otherwise. The VP candidate is more or less obligated to perpetuate his/her principal's message.--[[User:Loodog|Loodog]] ([[User talk:Loodog|talk]]) 06:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::In no way was their relationship close. No more than my relationship with Zsero is close. They worked toward some of the same Neighborhood objectives in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago (Ayers was an educator at the University of Chicago which is located in...Hyde Park). Like Palin you attempt to confuse the facts with your own imagination. The bomber and Obama are un-related. Even tho Palin hinted that they are, it really has nothing to do with her BLP and can not be included. It is just campaign, swift boat type, rhetoric. Not worth any more time.--[[User:Buster7|Buster7]] ([[User talk:Buster7|talk]]) 07:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::: Come on, you know better than that. Or if you don't you shouldn't comment. Ayers and Obama go way back to before he even went to law school. And then there's the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which Ayers founded and put Obama in as chairman, and where they worked closely together spending over $100M to radicalise school children. Ayers and Dohrn even launched Obama's political career at their ''house''. This is about as close as allies get. And it didn't bother Obama one bit that Ayers and Dohrn are unrepentant terrorists who hate America. You're right that it's swift-boat type rhetoric; it tells the truth, exactly as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth did about Kerry. But the fact that Palin is telling the truth about Obama doesn't belong in the article, because it's not a notable fact about her. -- [[User:Zsero|Zsero]] ([[User talk:Zsero|talk]]) 07:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Reliable sources extensively covered Palin's comment that Obama is "palling around with terrorists" [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h2TC1ztefVzOiXeCNcmY7lIelBNwD93K34700 AP] [http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gUST_Cd-teed3bNVc_UK6ppGx6iw AFP] [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122315505846605217.html?mod=googlenews_wsj WSJ] [http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/palin-obama-is-palling-around-with-terrorists/ NYT] and several hundred others. Now a single statement hardly makes a "section" so that's a little premature first the discussion should focus on the extensively covered "palling around with terrorists" comment. [[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] ([[User talk:Hobartimus|talk]]) 09:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Another reliable source claims its 'no big deal" [http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003870402]...--[[User:Buster7|Buster7]] ([[User talk:Buster7|talk]]) 13:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
'''WARNING''' Ok, I tried to archive this section and roll it up, and that was promptly undone by someone who isn't done arguing about the ''candidates'' - I will say this one more time: This page is for discussing '''improving the article''', not for discussing the subject, or having political arguments which are more suited to a forum. Just as examples:
* Fee Fi Foe Fum: ''it's over, McCain has lost'' - take it to a forum. Do NOT place that kind of post here
* Cdogsimmons: ''Fee Fi Foe Fum doesn't have a clue what he's talking about'' - personal attack
* Zsero: multiple posts about ''Obama'' , not ''Palin'' - take it to a forum. Do NOT argue about Obama on Palin's talk page or indeed on Wikipedia at all.
Failure to follow the above advice may lead to being encouraged to take a break from this article, from political topics, or from Wikipedia all-together. For those who wish to be dense, I'm talking about possible article, subject, and site blocks and bans. So step away from the keyboard long enough to focus, and next post, make it something which directly addresses ''this article'' without insulting any of your fellow editors. You may wish to read [[WP:Writing for the enemy]] while you take your break, or [[WP:TIGER]] or [[WP:MASTADON]]. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 14:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:If you look at my previous comment that Fee Fi Foe Fum doesn't know what he's talking about, it was in the context of dispelling his claim that I was in some way affiliated with the McCain campaign, which is untrue and which I take personally. My response should not be interpretted as a personal attack but a strong clarification. KillerChihuahua's edit above only selectively quotes the exchange and I do not believe accurately represents the facts. Thank you.--[[User:Cdogsimmons|Cdogsimmons]] ([[User talk:Cdogsimmons|talk]]) 03:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:(ec)There is too much discussion here of what ''editors'' think are valid criticisms of Obama or not. What we should be discussing is, what criticisms, by Palin and of Obama or Biden, have been notable enough to gain considerable public discussion by the news media or Obama or Biden. If it is notable and from reliable sources, it goes in. If it is not notable enough to be in a couple of major newspapers over a couple of days, then it should not go in. Whether an editor thinks mcCain will win or loose, or thinks the criticism is valid or not valid, is simply irrelevant. KC is of course right. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 14:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

::As I tried to point out above, this is [[WP:RECENT|recentism]] and [[WP:UNDUE|carries undue wieght]]. It belongs at [[John McCain presidential campaign, 2008]], if anywhere. [[WP:NOT#NEWS|Wikipedia is not a newspaper.]]--[[User:Evb-wiki|Evb-wiki]] ([[User talk:Evb-wiki|talk]]) 15:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::This article is about a woman who is notable largely because of current events, so relevant current events are ... relevant. Moreover, statements Palin makes belong in the article on Palin, not McCain. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 15:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I respectfully disagree. This isn't Palin on Obama; it's pure presidential caimpagn rhetoric. --[[User:Evb-wiki|Evb-wiki]] ([[User talk:Evb-wiki|talk]]) 15:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::You have raised two issues: recentism, and whether material belongs in this article or the article on McCain. As for the latter issue, it is not for us to decide whether something Plin says expresses her own views or something spoon-fed her by the McCain operatives. All we know is that palin said it. If she said it, and if wht she said is notble in the context of current events, it belongs in this article, period. If there is a notable controversy in the public sphere - persistent accusations from Obama or Biden, for example, or continued argument in the national news media, that Palin was not really expressing her own viw but McCain, we should summarize that view, provide references to reliable sources, and add it to the article. But if palin expresses a view, what is important is that it was Palin, the object of this article, who said it.

:::As for recentism, well, that is an essay expressing the personal view of another editor. it is not Wikipedia policy. But that aid, even the recentism essay you invoke says the following:
::::The second sense of recentism—the creation of a glut of new articles on a recent event—is not entirely a negative. Inter-article relative emphasis may be skewed and a particular topic inflated (2006 Lebanon War is longer than George Washington, for example), but these new additions also have definite benefits explained below.

::::Experience has shown that collaborative editing on wikipedia has resulted in the ability of Wikipedians to compile a (long tail) set of comprehensive and well-balanced articles on the many varied current events of the mid-to-late 2000s. This ability of Wikipedia to record and synthesize the events of the day may be valuable to those in the future who seek to understand the history of this time period. In other words: "if we don't make sense of it today, someone else will struggle to make sense of it tomorrow."

::::It is widely regarded as one of Wikipedia's strengths that it is able to collate and sift through vast amounts of reporting on current events, producing encyclopedia-quality articles in real time about ongoing events or developing stories: natural disasters, political campaigns and elections, wars, product releases, assassinations. It would greatly weaken the encyclopedia project if article development about ongoing events were discouraged in a campaign against so-called "recentism".
:::This last sentence seems to speak directly to your comment. In short, if it is notable and verifiable, it should go in. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 15:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Now that Gov Palin has found her voice, and improved her confidence, she may begin to produce daily soundbites for the press and the voters to quibble over. Should we, for the sake of future readers, begin to include everything she says? Maybe we should create a daily calendar-type section with her thought for the day? We need to stay calm and non-partisan. Palin's comment about Obama is current but the Ayers/Obama relationship (as a current story) is not. Slr, you present a strong support for inclusion of what she might say tommorrow but what she said yesterday is already fading into the distance.--[[User:Buster7|Buster7]] ([[User talk:Buster7|talk]]) 15:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

For G*d's sake folks, this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper! Are editors suggesting that every time Sarah Palin makes a political speech that its contents should be reported here? And if that isn't the argument, and folks are arguing for including material which is "notable" to the life of Sarah Palin, how can we possibly know if a statement made in speech 12 hours ago is significant? A little perspective is needed, and perspective takes time. By inserting every statement that gets folks' blood boiling, editors are turning this article into a political blog. My take is adding a section on Palin's criticism of Obama at this time is absurd, and it clearly violates the [[WP:BLP]] strictures against [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]].--[[User:Paul.h|Paul]] ([[User talk:Paul.h|talk]]) 15:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
: ''Are editors suggesting that every time Sarah Palin makes a political speech that its contents should be reported here'' Given the fact that Palin was relatively unknown just a few weeks ago, the answer to your questions is yes. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 16:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Such actions would conflict with [[WP:Not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information]].--[[User:Paul.h|Paul]] ([[User talk:Paul.h|talk]]) 16:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::It seems as tho we are setting ourselves up to have daily, long-winded, contentious discussions about whatever Gov Palin says. We would probably best serve Wikipedia and our visitors to come to some general agreement as to what is in and what is not (regarding what Palin says from hereon). I defer to veteran editors to provide some guidance. I think we are on the verge of creating a "hornets nest". --[[User:Buster7|Buster7]] ([[User talk:Buster7|talk]]) 16:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Paul, I would like to take your comments in good faith but I just do not understand how I can interpret your bringing up "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Of course Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information! Why on earth would you think anyone here is suggesting otherwise? First of all we, made a cllective act of discrimination in choosing out of all the human beings on earth to have an article on Sarah Palin - and we made this choice for specific reasons, one of which that she is running for Vice President of th US. We should also discriminate among information to go into this article: first, we should discriminate between those things Palin says, those things others say about her, and those things that people say about oysters and gravity. I propose that only stuff Palin says or that people say about her goes into this article, not oysters and gravity, how is that for discrimination. In fact, I propose we be more discriminating: since she is only notable as a politican, I think we should exclude stuff she has said, or stuff people have said about her, that have no connection to her political career. Moreover, since she is ''most'' notable because she is currently running for vice-president, we should discriminat further and give more weight to things she says as part of her campaign to be elected vice-president and to defeat the Obama-Biden ticket. I know other people are running for president but let's be honest, Obama and Biden are the only real competition. I suggest we discriminate between things she says about Obama or Bidan, and things she might say about, well, for example, Bob Avakian, I think what she says about Obama and Biden meet the threshold of notability but we should discriminate against comments about any other candidates like Avakian. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 17:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Paul writes that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Sorry Paul, of you go to [[WP:NOT]] you will see that the word "newspaper" does not appear. It is true that we are not a newspaper, but we are the only encyclopedia in the world that is updated ''constantly.'' This is one of the most important things that distinguishes us from other encyclopedias like Brittanica, even once they have gone on-line they are up-dated only every several years. The point is not that we are not a newspaper, the point is that technology has enabled us to overcome the most serious constraint on all prior encyclopedias, the fact that ''physical requirements'' prevented them from having articles on current topics. Now, Paul, since NOT says nothing about newspapers, let's see what Wikipedia policy ''really'' is, shall we? The main page, for as long as I can remember, has had an "in the news" section prominently on display, with links to many articles, so it is evident to me on its face tht Wikipedia has articles on current events. And that policy, what Wikipedia is not? The first thing it says, practically, is:
:Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia
:Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page. However, there is an important distinction between what technically can be done, and what reasonably should be done, which is covered in the Content section below.
:This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must still abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars.
The five pillars emphasize NPOV, NOR, V, free content and, oh yeah, this one:
:Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles.
I see '''nothing''' in policy that suggests we should not include public statements Palin has said in her position as vice-presidential candidate about her political agenda or about her opponents. Paul, you are welcome to your opinion but if you want to prevent someone from adding content to this article, you had better demonstrate that it violates policy. Anything relevant to the campaign and verifiable should go in. Jossi is right. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 17:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:It violates [[WP:UNDUE]]. Statements that Palin makes criticizing Obama are those of the McCain-Palin campaign. She was not a vocal Obama critic before she was tapped as VP, which makes this an artifact of her presence on the ticket. As such, any criticism by Palin of Obama or the Obama-Biden ticket is more appropriately placed in [[John McCain presidential campaign, 2008]]. Palin is not defined by her criticism of Obama; the McCain presidential campaign is.--[[User:Loodog|Loodog]] ([[User talk:Loodog|talk]]) 17:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

::One candidate for election criticizing another? '''Unheard of!!!''' '''[[User:Grsz11|<font color="black">Grsz</font>]][[User talk:Grsz11|<b><font color="red"><sup>X</sup></font></b>]]''' 17:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Loodog writes "She was not a vocal Obama critic before she was tapped as VP." True. Before she became a candidate for vice-president, she was not campaigning for vice president. is this your point? Are you saying we should remove all reference to her running for vice president, because before she ran for vice president she was not a vice presidetial candidate, Loodog? [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 17:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:No, but thanks for refuting an argument I didn't make.--[[User:Loodog|Loodog]] ([[User talk:Loodog|talk]]) 17:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we include her vice-presidential candidacy, then material that is relavent to her candidacy by definition is relevant to this article. If she says something about Obama or Biden, it should go in this article. It ''definitely'' does not belong in an article on john McCain. If you ever find an actual policy that supports your view please share it with us but there is ''nothing'' in the undue weight provision that suggests that material directly relevant to precisely what makes her most notable is somehow inappropriate for this article - nothing. Palin's vice-presidential candidacy is ''highly'' notable, so things she says as a vice-presidential candidate belong in this article. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 18:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:Sure. [[WP:STRUCTURE]]: "'Segregation' of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself.".--[[User:Loodog|Loodog]] ([[User talk:Loodog|talk]]) 18:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:Loodog states that the Palin statement violates [[WP:UNDUE]]. That really is a judgment call, because the only relevant thing WP:UNDUE says with regard to facts in an article is, ''An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.'' That can be interpreted so broadly as to be almost meaningless. It's a judgment call whether or not to include a particular bit of information in an article. Unless you've got some overwhelming evidence you can point to, either way, it's better not to bring up WP:UNDUE because it just clouds the issue. Make the judgment call by consensus and be done with it. This seems to be one of the most prominent (probably the most prominent) attacks Palin has made as a VP candidate so far. It can easily be eclipsed in upcoming weeks by other, more prominent attacks. (As we know, attacks are a traditional thing for VP candidates to do.) One thing to think about is whether this page will need yet another discussion thread to remove this bit of information if editors want to make room for some statement that becomes even more prominent. Seems like too much work, to me, but if editors are up for it, go for it. -- [[User:Noroton|Noroton]] ([[User talk:Noroton|talk]]) 18:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::What would the proposed section even say? Palin has criticized Obama for "palling with terrorists" as well as raise attacks as to the consistency of his running mate. Perhaps if specific sentences were proposed we're have more to debate on than doing it in the abstract.--[[User:Loodog|Loodog]] ([[User talk:Loodog|talk]]) 18:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
WP:structure? Loodog, this section does not prohibit the inclusion of ''anything'', it just warns about a possible concern, for which there are solutions. Loodog now seems to be appealing to sophistry. Keep looking for some rule to prove your point, loodog, but this is not rational. We do not start with conclusions and look for rules to support them. We start with policies which themselves are flexible and look for ways to write ''good articles.'' Your reasoning does not hold up. Any statement by Palin is by definition going to represent Palin's POV. Are you seriously suggesting that we have an article on Palin without any account of her views? That is just absurd reasoning and unless you are so dogmatically committed to your position that you simply refuse to change your mind - that you have already decided that no argument will change your mind - you would acknowledge this. Having an article on Sarah Palin is not a POV fork, it is a content fork. Once we have decided that the article contents is "stuff relevant to Palin" ''Palin's views become relevant''. It is as simple as that. Keep coming up with different a postoriori justifcations for your position, but the fact is, you are actually opposed to Wikipedia policy in this particular matter. Palin's political views, including views about her opponents, are relevant to the article on Palin. The way to avoid a POV fork is simple: if she expresses a view about Obama or Biden, and Oboma or Biden have responded, or some other notable person (a notable politician or notable policy expert or notable reporter) has provided a different view, NPOV requires we add that to this article. No POV fork at all. WP:STRUCTURE does '''not''' prohibit adding views (e.g. Palin's views). it only makes clear that if there are alternate or opposing views they should go in the same section. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 18:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::This has gone past [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:AGF]]. I'm not going to continue.--[[User:Loodog|Loodog]] ([[User talk:Loodog|talk]]) 18:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

===Arbitrary break===
I guess I was right, no reasoning or reference to Wikipedia policy will change your mind, so there really is no point discussing this. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 19:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:Stay civil Slrubenstein. Loodog is right that this is the wrong article for a criticism of Obama section. That doesn't mean we shouldn't report that Palin has launched an attack on Obama, indeed, I believe we should. Just keep in mind that we need to keep the conversation on her, not on him. Regards, [[User talk:BenAveling|Ben Aveling]] 10:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::How about this, as a compromise: any criticism she has made of Obama that simultaneously expresses her own position on a particular view should go in this article? That seems reasonable? [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 14:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
It's been a couple of days and it still seems to be in the news. See [http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/palin-back-in-florida/ this]. Obama took the effort to respond to it. See [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/us/politics/06campaign.html?ref=politics here]. I tried to just add the information to the campaign section before without its own subsection but the information was again removed. Let's try to form a consensus here. Should the day to day details of the campaign dealing with Sarah Palin (like the controversial things she says in speeches) be reflected on this page? Or should that info go into the more general campaign article at [[United States presidential election, 2008]]? I notice that that page does not really cover day to day talking points from the candidates either. Where else could this info go? Maybe in [[Political positions of Sarah Palin]] or [[Public image and reception of Sarah Palin]]?--[[User:Cdogsimmons|Cdogsimmons]] ([[User talk:Cdogsimmons|talk]]) 17:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:Day to day stuff in a BLP? Nope. It is a <b>campaign topic,</b> and only belongs in articles directly and completely concerned with such stuff. If the details will be of no interest in 10 years in a BLP, keep it out. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Collect|contribs]]) 17:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Cdogsimmons, go ahead and add it to the article, I think you have demonstrated its notability (we can ignore collect's fabrications of non-existent policies just to serve his petty political views). Any material that is relevant and verifiable, and from a reliable source, can go in; if it has been in the news for a few days, and covered by national news outlets, it definitely has to go into the article, whether it is pro-Palin or anti-Palin. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 18:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:Very well. I will insert the information again. I do not think it violates any policy on BLP because it is NPOV, Verifiable, and is not original research. I also think that issues surrounding Sarah Palin's campaign, especially her own statements made during a speech, are clearly issues of public concern.--[[User:Cdogsimmons|Cdogsimmons]] ([[User talk:Cdogsimmons|talk]]) 23:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== From the BLP Noticeboard on "Don Young's Way" ==

See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Clarification_about_BLP_rule]

This was the only comment made thus far by an editor not involved in this article:

:Here goes: there aren't different rules for evaluating due weight in BLP articles and non-BLP articles. The burden is normally on the editor that wishes to include information to demonstrate that it is both verifiable and appropriate. Once that's accomplished, you should generate consensus (not necessarily unanimity) among editors on the article about the method of inclusion. One editor never really achieves veto power. As to the issue of the bridge name, I can't see a valid objection to the inclusion of the fact, especially if including the fact is key to allowing people to get effective results from search engines. Given the circumstances as to how it became known as "Don Young's Way", I can see weight and BLP considerations in terms of how the fact is introduced. As long as it is neutral (i.e, write the first mention of "Knik Arm Bridge" as Knik Arm Bridge (a.k.a. "Don Young's Way"), with no other commentary in the sentence) I have a hard time seeing a reasonable objection.—Kww(talk) 03:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The important things here, as I see them are:
:-- no different rules for evaluating due weight in BLP and non-BLP
:-- burden on editor to show verifiability and appropriateness (both of which we have easily shown with "Don Young's Way")
:-- no editor has veto power
:-- can't see valid objection to inclusion of fact, especially as key to getting it from search engines

Based on this, I will re-add the short parenthetical on Don Young's Way, which all agree is verified fact. If you are opposed to this addition, please state precisely why. Based on the comment by KWW and my own understanding of WP:BLP, BLP is not an appropriate objection to any verifiable, non-private fact, but other objections may be.[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 04:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:Small point: when you start by asking people to see [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Clarification_about_BLP_rule|this]], I think that you actually want them to see [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Sarah_Palin|this]]. (Perhaps the section has been renamed since you last looked at it.) -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 07:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::You're right. Thanks for fixing the link![[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 17:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

::I would add to the above abstract of important points the following: once it has been established that the claim is verifiable and relevant, "consensus" refers to ''how'' it should be written into the article, not ''whether or not'' it should be written into the article. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 14:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I couldn't agree more.[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 17:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Folks, I would be glad to accept the comment you quoted above as gospel, as you seem to be doing. The burden is normally on the editor that wishes to include information to demonstrate that it is both verifiable '''''and appropriate'''''. The burden is normally on the editor that wishes to include information to demonstrate that it is appropriate, not on other editors to convince you that it's inappropriate.

The main problem I'm having is with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin#.22Bridge_to_Nowhere.22_and_Knik_Arm_Bridge the section about the bridges.] This article is supposed to be using [[WP:Summary style]], and therefore we should merely be summarizing what's in the sub-article ([[Governorship of Sarah Palin]]). However, this section about the bridges has become huge in the main article, and I don't think it's appropriate. If you would follow the "gospel" that you've quoted, we would be able to address this situation, because the burden is '''''not''''' on those who believe a smaller section would be appropriate.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 00:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this as a BLP issue, and I don't see how it's relevant to include a ceremonial name. Many bridges, roads, and interchanges have these names that are assigned by the legislature or department of transportation, sometimes (as here) even before being built, and they are almost never used unless the media consistently uses them (which is not true in this case; search Google News for "Knik Arm Bridge" vs. "Don Young's Way"). The standard I've always seen has been to use the common name everywhere, and to mention the ceremonial name at most once in the article about the facility. Examples of this are [[Four Level Interchange]] and [[Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel]]. --[[User talk:NE2|NE2]] 00:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:But in this case, because the Associated Press is in so many newspapers, the media has recently used "Don Young's Way" 86 times (Google News with duplicates added) and "Knik Arm Bridge" only 48 times (same standard). Plus the use of "Don Young's Way" is one of the reasons it was called a "bridge to nowhere" and was a symbol of earmark and pork barrel spending, which is not the case with the two bridges you mention. I personally heard of Don Young's Way years ago, long before Knik Arm Bridge, and that is how it's primarily known outside of Alaska. The parenthetical is quite short.[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 01:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::Actually the AP article does use both names, just not the exact wording: "The Knik Arm was one of two bridge proposals..." --[[User talk:NE2|NE2]] 02:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:::True, but that just shows you that "Knik Arm Bridge" is not the name of the bridge per se.[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 04:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the bridges section is "huge," compared to other sections. On my computer it's 22 lines and could be less if you removed some paragraph breaks (which is fine with me). It's about the same size as troopergate and her first term as mayor and smaller than vice president or political positions. Given that the bridges are probably the single thing she is most known for, given that the "bridge to nowhere" is the only policy of hers in Alaska that both she and McCain talk about in every speech, and given that it's her most controversial item, I don't think that's too much space. I think the "road to nowhere" is far more important, for example, than her measure to curtail the hours at Wasilla's bars which could be a detail in the subsection.

Ferrylodge has said "If it stays in the article, it ought to be converted from anti-Palin propaganda into something resembling neutrality." I'm all for that, staying in the article and being NPOV. Currently, it has one neutral sentence, one pro-Palin sentence and one anti-Palin sentence. The second and third sentences on the road were suggested by Collect (pro-Palin) and Crust (anti-Palin), not me. Do you want to delete them and leave the neutral one? What do you propose to change it to, Ferrylodge? Why don't you suggest an addition to the second pro-Palin sentence on development or whatever you like? I don't want to remove the topic entirely but I'm all for balance and summary.

And if you want to shorten the entire bridge article, here are my suggestions for cutting it by 1/3, shortening it from 22 lines to 15 lines and 3 paragraphs without any loss of valuable content (references would have to be put back in of course):

:<i>Two proposed bridges supported by Palin in her 2006 Gubernatorial campaign gained national attention in 2005 and 2006 as symbols of pork-barrel spending:[94] the Gravina Island Bridge and the Knik Arm Bridge. The Gravina proposal became nicknamed the "Bridge to Nowhere" because of bridgeless Gravina Island's small population of 50; more rarely, the term "Bridges to Nowhere" has referred to both proposals. But both bridges have been touted as necessary for development. Gravina Island contains the Ketchikan International Airport serving 350,000 passengers annually who arrive there by ferry. The Knik Arm Bridge a.k.a "Don Young's Way" after Alaska's Congressman, would provide a $600 million alternate link from Anchorage to Wasilla and places beyond but is being evaluated as a threat to beluga whales.

:In 2005, a $442-million Congressional earmark for these bridges was passed in an omnibus spending bill but then discovered and criticized. Congress stripped the earmark from the bill before final passage and instead gave the $442 million to Alaska as transportation money with no strings attached.[95] In 2006, Palin ran for governor with a "build-the-bridge" plank in her platform,[94] saying she would "not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project ... into something that's so negative."[102] She criticized the use of the word "nowhere" as insulting to local residents[94][103] and urged speedy work on building the bridges "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."[104]

:In September 2007, Palin said that Congress had "little interest in spending any more money" on the Gravina Bridge due to what she called "inaccurate portrayals of the projects" and canceled the project, directing Alaskan officials to research an alternative.[105] Palin opted not to return the $442 million in federal transportation funds.[106] Instead, Palin spent $25 million on a Gravina Island highway to the place where the bridge would have gone.[108] This was her only "viable alternative", according to the McCain Campaign, as the road contract had been signed before she entered office. But the Alaska Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration said that the contract could have been cancelled at minimal cost, with the money could returned to the Federal Government. See Gravina Island Bridge#Road to Nowhere. Palin continues as of September 2008 to support the Knik Arm Bridge project, although in June 2008, she ordered it undergo a funding and feasibility review.</i>[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 01:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Why do you insist on saying that she could have cancelled the road upon taking office? The question is whether she could have cancelled the road when she cancelled the bridge, which was nine months AFTER taking office. And why is it not sufficient to cover the road in the sub-article? The cost of the road is miniscule compared to the bridges, and so is the news coverage. And one could read this entire section about the bridges and the road without perceiving any reason that Palin had for building the road, other than she didn't want to return the money. You know that's not correct, don't you? She said it would open territory for development, which is why roads are often built in the United States. Also, do you still insist that you have a right to insert material into this article without consensus?[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&diff=243318904&oldid=243317114][[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 02:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The Alaska Department of Transportation -- not me -- says she could have cancelled the road contract. Most of the rest I've already answered above. I said I don't mind making the road section briefer but I don't want to delete it entirely. I also said I don't mind your adding it would open territory for development. As you recall, the substance of the first sentence was put in three weeks or so ago with consensus, and the second and third sentences were suggested by Collect and Crust, respectfully, recently. I think once Collect's pro-Palin sentence was added (without consensus), then it only made sense that Crust's anti-Palin sentence had to be added too. You can't insist that only pro-Palin stuff doesn't need consensus while anti-Palin stuff does. Besides, if you read the CNN article which Collect cites, 95% of it is highly critical of Palin and Collect picked out the one sentence that supports her.

Now, if your goal is summary style and not deletion of content, please tell me what you think of my proposal to reduce the bridge section by 1/3 without loss of content. Is there any important content you feel I've deleted in my proposal (which I've now put in italics so it can be found easily)? I'm trying to work with you here, and I would think a 1/3 reduction might be something you're looking for.[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 02:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:::The source for the statement by the Alaska Department of Transportation is [http://www.propublica.org/article/palin-defends-construction-of-road-to-nowhere-925/ Propublica] which is not a reliable source. According to an editorial from Investor's Business Daily: "With left-wing foundation cash yoked to investigative reporting, the potential for mischief in the coming election year should not be underestimated. This project may be well-intended, but the sources of its funding and its premise about the state of the media raise questions. Let it be known by its product."[http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=277600193568268]

:::Moreover, even if it were a reliable source, you are specifically selecting information that you must know presents a distorted picture. Of course Palin could have cancelled the road immediately upon taking office. And Murkowski could have cancelled it. And Congress could have never funded it. So what? It's all irrelevant. The relevant point is whether she could have cancelled the road without cost when she cancelled the bridge, in September 2007.

:::I will suggest a different version shortly.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 03:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::::I see what you're saying about Propublica (though it calls itself independent and non-partisan and cites a source by name Roger Wetherell, head of Alaska Department of Transportation, who could ask for retraction if they got it wrong). But I have no problem saying it's an unfair source. (It was Crust's source, not mine. See above.) Instead, I could supply examples directly from Alaska DOT where they've canceled contracts. And Palin cancelled a Juneau road. At any rate, you seem to agree she could have cancelled it. (Sp? canceled? cancelled? I'm too lazy to look it up.) Anyway, your real question--a fair one--is "whether she could have cancelled the road without cost when she cancelled the bridge, in September 2007" Let me see if I can help answer that.

::::This is from a source you do trust, the Associated Press (cited in Palin article and the original source for road): "Meanwhile, work is under way on a three-mile road on Gravina Island, originally meant to connect the airport and the new bridge. State officials said last year they were going ahead with the $25 million road because the money would otherwise have to be returned to the federal government. [Palin spokesperson] Leighow said the road project was already under way last year when Palin stopped the bridge, and she noted that it would provide benefits of opening up new territory for development - one of the original arguments made for the bridge spending."

::::So the AP says that a Palin spokesperson says it was underway when she stopped the bridge (score one for Palin) but it also says the work is still "under way" as of the date of the article August 31, 2008. So the road began more than a year ago but continues to be built today, meaning that cancellation would have saved some funds.

::::(I wrote this and got an edit conflict. I have yet to read your proposal but I'm doing it now. I put this above your proposal since it responds to your last comment and I haven't read your proposal yet.)[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 03:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::::: I don't see how one implies the other. Perhaps the cancellation fee on the contract would have eaten up most or all of the money that continued to be spent on the road, so there was no point in ''not'' continuing to build it. -- [[User:Zsero|Zsero]] ([[User talk:Zsero|talk]]) 04:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Perhaps, Zsero, although it seems very unlikely. She cancelled a $18.6 million contract to build a Juneau road and that only cost Alaska $65,500. Given that the road continues to be constructed one year after cancelling the bridge, it seems unlikely Alaska was "almost finished" when she cancelled.[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 04:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

===Revised draft by Ferrylodge===

(undent)Here's how I'd edit the section that's presently in the article (insertions in bold, deletions struck through):

<i>Two proposed bridges '''were''' supported by Palin in her 2006 Gubernatorial campaign '''after Congress had already provided hundreds of millions of dollars in transportation funds.''' These bridge proposals had gained national attention earlier in 2005 and 2006 as symbols of pork-barrel <s>spending:[111] the</s> '''spending.[111] Ultimately, Palin cancelled one of the bridges, commonly known as the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere".'''

'''The''' Gravina Island Bridge '''was''' proposed to connect <s>the 8,000 residents of</s> Ketchikan to <s>the Ketchikan International Airport on the bridgeless</s> '''sparsely populated''' Gravina Island '''where an international airport serves 200,000 passengers per year.'''[112] <s>and the</s> '''The''' Knik Arm Bridge <s>, officially named "Don Young's Way" after Alaska Congressman Don Young,</s> '''was''' proposed to <s>cross Cook Inlet, north of Anchorage, Alaska</s> '''provide an alternate link between Anchorage and Wasilla'''.[113][114] The Gravina Island Bridge proposal became nicknamed the "Bridge to Nowhere" because of the island's population of 50.[112] More rarely, the term "bridges to nowhere" has been used to refer to both bridge proposals.[115]
<s>The goal of the Gravina project, according to the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, was to "provide better service [than the existing ferry] to the airport" which serves 350,000 passengers per year,[116] and "allow for development of large tracts of land on the island."[117] The Knik Arm Bridge is a $600 million project to open up development and provide an alternate link from Anchorage to Wasilla;[118] the bridge is being evaluated by officials as a possible threat to nearby beluga whales.[118]</s>

In 2005, a $442-million Congressional earmark for bridge construction was included in '''a''' <s>an early version of a 2006 omnibus</s> spending bill, but was strongly criticized. Congress stripped the earmark from the bill before final passage in November 2005 and instead gave the $442 million to Alaska as transportation money with no strings attached.[112]

In 2006, Palin ran for governor with a "build-the-bridge" plank in her platform<s>,[111] saying she would "not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project ... into something that's so negative."[119] She criticized the use of the word "nowhere" as insulting to local residents[111][120] and urged speedy work on building the bridges "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."[121]</s> '''However, in''' <s>In</s> September 2007, Palin <s>said</s> '''cancelled the Gravina Island Bridge saying''' that Congress had "little interest in spending any more money" <s>on the Gravina Bridge</s> due to what she called "inaccurate portrayals of the projects".[122] <s>Palin</s> '''She''' opted not to return the $442 million in federal transportation funds.[123] In June 2008, Palin ordered a funding and feasibility review concerning the Knik Arm Bridge, '''and the bridge is also being reviewed for impacts on beluga whales,''' <s>because of concerns about its financial impact,[124]</s> though she continued to support the project as of September 2008.[113] Palin also directed Alaskan officials to look for an alternative way to connect Gravina Island with the mainland.[122] Palin spent $25 million in federal funds on a Gravina Island road to the bridge site, rather than return the funds to the Federal government, saying through her spokesperson that it would open territory for development.[125] <s>A McCain-Palin spokesperson said that "because the contract for the road was already signed before she got into office, the governor was left no viable alternative."[126] The Alaska Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration state that the contract could have been cancelled at minimal cost and that the federal money could have been returned to Congress for other uses, if the road had been cancelled when Palin took office in December 2006, but the bridge to the island was not cancelled until September 2007.[127]</s></i>[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 03:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:I like many of your proposed changes but dislike others. In general, I like a summary style but disagree when you remove important content, particularly direct quotes from Palin. I'll take it piece by piece.[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 03:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::In the first paragraph, you're primarily adding language which detracts from the goal of summarizing. Your first addition "after Congress had already provided hundreds of millions of dollars to help finance them" isn't quite accurate. It is explained precisely below that Congress first provided for the bridges as earmarks then changed it to "no strings attached" transportation funds. That's not really millions of dollars to finance them. So why add this sentence? Second sentence added is also repetitive when we're trying to cut down.[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 03:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::: The airport serves 200K passengers/year, not 350K. The ferry carries 350K passengers/year. I assume the bulk of those extra 150K ferry trips are airport workers, and other people visiting the airport without actually flying anywhere. -- [[User:Zsero|Zsero]] ([[User talk:Zsero|talk]]) 04:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::::I fixed the number of passengers in my draft. Thx. I also clarified in the first paragraph about the transportation funds. I am not aware that she advocated squeezing Congress for money during her 2006 campaign to pay for the bridges. The first paragraph ought not to imply the contrary, right?[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 04:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::I don't see the implication. Section says that Congress made its decision earlier.[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 04:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::If a person reads only the first paragraph (which many people will do), the first paragraph gives the impression that she campaigned to squeeze Congress for money to fund this pork. This is very easy to correct in the first paragraph, and I have done so.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 04:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Not the way I wrote it. See below. There's no implication as it makes clear it happened earlier. And your proposed change is inaccurate for the reasons I cited. Are you OK with my first paragraph (except for DYW, which I know you hate)?[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 04:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::::I think your first paragraph has the exact same problem as the first paragraph now in the article. It labels these projects as pork, and says Palin campaigned for them in 2006. The implication is that she campaigned for pork, which is false AFAIK. The money had already come from the feds.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 04:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::I mostly like the second paragraph changes, except, as you know, I don't want to delete the Don Young's Way name. Your second paragraph changes allow you to delete most of the third paragraph's first sentence. But I think three other parts of the third paragraph should be left in so as not to delete content (development, $600 million, whales). What do you think of the way I combined it above?[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 04:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Regarding the "Don Young's Way" matter, please see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASarah_Palin&diff=243312293&oldid=243312045 this comment above] by [[User talk:NE2|NE2]]. Also, please take a look at NE2's user page. He seems to be a real expert on this subject. If we're going to write a neutral article, we ought to treat the naming issue the way we would for any other bridge or highway. I think you've already acknowledged that you're not merely trying to help those very few people who only know the bridge as "Don Young's Way" and instead are using this name to cast the project in a bad light, and this is POV. As NE2 explains, the standard is to use the common name everywhere, and to mention the ceremonial name at most once in the article about the bridge.

::::The folks at the BLP noticeboard agree with me on the issue, as well as a number of wiki-editors. It's done for both reasons. And I AGREE to only use the name once. So we're OK here.[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 04:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::I really urge you to try harder to accurately characterize what other editors say. As far as I can tell, only one commenter at the BLP Noticeboard agreed with you about inserting "Don Young's Way" into this article.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=243340025#Sarah_Palin] And I do '''''not''''' agree. As NE2 explained, it should not be used even once in this article. You acknowledge that you're basically doing it partly to slime Palin, and that is not a valid reason. We don't try to slant neutral facts in order to solime people. See [[WP:NPOV]]. Please read carefully what NE2 wrote.05:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:::And why should we mention that the Knik Arm Bridge is a $600 million project if we don't mention how many dollars the Gravina project would require? The key thing is to mention how much the feds gave, and I did not delete that. Also, it would be redundant to say that the Gravina project would open territory for development, when that's already covered in the last sentence ("saying through her spokesperson that it would open territory for development"). I've put the beluga whales back, in a better spot.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 04:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::::I suppose you could take out $600 million, although I hate to delete content and want to see what other think. I like your beluga whales spot and used it mine below to delete an entire sentence. I put development up top for both bridges, since Knik Arm is also for development. If you want to delete it below, that's fine with me, but I thought you wanted it there.[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 04:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::Content is ''always'' deleted in order to summarize a sub-article.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 04:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::Not in the least. Oftentimes you can summarize, condense, and tighten redundant material without losing a bit of content, as I have done by condensing 22 lines to 15. I agree to tighten. I do not agree to loss of content. I think you need consensus before you remove important content. I think you need to propose each deletion of content to a wide group of wikieditors and let them decide. As jossi said on the BLP Noticeboard, "editors should not remove material without consensus."[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 02:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Again, you're selectively quoting in order to distort what another editor has said. As you know, Jossi said that after saying that editors should not '''''insert''''' material without consensus. If no material is inserted without consensus, then I agree 100% that no material should be removed without consensus. That is not the case here.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 02:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::Your fourth paragraph contains the same deletion I made. I'm fine with it. In the fifth paragraph, I strongly disagree with removing the Palin quotations. They don't take up much room and they are the most primary source possible. But I'm fine with your cancelling the second and third sentences on the road. You (inadvertently?) neglected the Knik Arm continued support and June review.[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 04:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I did '''not''' remove the Knik Arm continued support and June review. I'll be back to you shortly about the Palin quotes.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 04:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Okay, regarding the Palin quotes, please see [[WP:PSTS]]. Primary sources are disfavored at Wikipedia: "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable '''''secondary sources''''' and, to a lesser extent, on '''''tertiary sources'''''. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about '''''primary sources''''' must be referenced to a '''''secondary source''''', rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with '''''care''''', because it is easy to misuse them" (emphasis mine). Also see [[WP:QUOTE]] which says: "Quotations should be put in context and given any necessary explanation. As an editor, it is your responsibility to read the source of the quotation thoroughly, in order to prevent misrepresentation. Third, while quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Too many quotes take away from the encyclopedic feel of Wikipedia." This is why I think we should cut down on quotes, especially quotes from a primary source.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 04:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::::I have carefully read all four sources and am quite confident we did not misrepresent or take any quotation out of context. If you believe a quotation is taken out of context, by all means, let me know. All of these are direct quotations from Palin from secondary sources. In fact, the only thing that's a primary source is her cancellation of the project (which you left in).[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 05:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::I find it exceptionally difficult to communicate with you. You said above that these Palin quotes "are the most primary source possible." And they are, notwithstanding your most recent comment. Quotes from the subject of a BLP are primary source material, wherever they were copied from. We need to cut down on direct quotes, especially direct quotes from primary sources. If you want to put quotes in the footnotes or in the sub-article, then maybe that would be okay, but this main BLP can do without them for the reasons I described. We're supposed to be writing a short an enclopedic biography here, not hunting for the juiciest snippets uttered by the subject.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 05:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait, I see you put June review up earlier. At any rate, why don't we combine yours and mine like this?

:<i>Two proposed bridges supported by Palin in her 2006 Gubernatorial campaign had gained national attention earlier in 2005 and 2006 as symbols of pork-barrel spending:[94] the Gravina Island Bridge and the Knik Arm Bridge. The Gravina Island Bridge was proposed to connect Ketchikan to the sparsely populated, bridgeless Gravina Island where an international airport serves 200,000 passengers per year. The Knik Arm Bridge (a.k.a "Don Young's Way" after Alaska's Congressman) was proposed to provide an alternate link between Anchorage and Wasilla. Both bridges have been touted as necessary for development. The Gravina Island Bridge proposal became nicknamed the "Bridge to Nowhere" because of the island's population of 50. More rarely, the term "Bridges to Nowhere" has referred to both proposals.

:In 2005, a $442-million Congressional earmark for these bridges was included in an omnibus spending bill but was strongly criticized. Congress stripped the earmark from the bill before final passage and instead gave the $442 million to Alaska as transportation money with no strings attached.[95] In 2006, Palin ran for governor with a "build-the-bridge" plank in her platform,[94] saying she would "not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project ... into something that's so negative."[102] She criticized the use of the word "nowhere" as insulting to local residents[94][103] and urged speedy work on building the bridges "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."[104]

:However, in September 2007, Palin cancelled the Gravina Island Bridge and directed Alaskan officials to research an alternative, saying that Congress had "little interest in spending any more money" due to what she called "inaccurate portrayals of the projects." She opted not to return the $442 million in federal transportation funds. Palin spent $25 million on a Gravina Island highway to the place where the bridge would have gone, rather than return the funds to the Federal government; her spokesperson said it would open territory for development. Palin continues as of September 2008 to support the $600 million Knik Arm Bridge project, although in June 2008, she ordered it undergo a review for funding, feasibility, and its impacts on beluga whales.</i> [[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 04:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:::It's very difficult to see what material is old and what is new here. That's why I used strikethrough and bold above, to show what would be different from the version presently in the article.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 04:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::::By moving stuff around, I saved space, which I thought was the primary goal of this. I absolutely agree to summary style, but I do NOT generally agree with deleting content. I haven't deleted any content from your version. Read yours and read mine and you'll see that all I've done is consolidate space. You may not like some of the content that I've left in from the original, but I did not delete anything that you left in. Besides, I really don't think you and I alone can decide to delete content that's been in the article for weeeks. I don't mind deleting the Collect and Crust additions because they're a day or two old, but for the rest, we really need to hear from others first. Besides, if your goal is to shorten the article, we're succeeding admirably. If your goal is to delete content, not just to shorten the article, that's a different kettle of fish, one I wish you'd let go. As Slrubenstein so finely put it at the top of this long section: "I would add to the above abstract of important points the following: once it has been established that the claim is verifiable and relevant, "consensus" refers to ''how'' it should be written into the article, not ''whether or not'' it should be written into the article."

:::::::That statement by Slrubinstein is very very wrong.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&diff=243318904&oldid=243317114] If editors believe that inserting some material would violate [[WP:Summary style]] or [[WP:Undue weight]] or some other policy, then the material should not be put into the article without consensus. Failure to adhere to this very simple principle can turn Wikipedia into a very unpleasant experience for everyone, as you are demonstrating again and again and again.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 05:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I do not know what you are talking about. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 18:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::Slrubinstein, suppose a claim is verifiable and relevant. You stated above that it does not then require consensus to put it into the article, and that consensus is only required to determine ''how'' it is put in. I disagree. The material requires consensus about whether it should be written into the article, even if it is verifiable and relevant. For example, verifiable and relevant material may still violate [[WP:Summary style]] or [[WP:Undue weight]]. I didn't mean to be rude, and I know you've made a lot of good contributions, but GreekParadise seems to be relying on this statement of yours to support his attitude that stuff can be jammed into this article without consensus. Maybe he (and I) have not correctly understood what you were trying to say.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 19:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I do not think we really disagree. I am sure I have stated somewhere that as this article gets to be too big, sections of it should be turned into new articles, and this article should as you correctly say use summary style to summarize what is in the other article. However, I think it would make a mess to create several small articles. Readers will google Sarah Palin and come to this article and ''as long as it does not get too long'' anything directly relevant to Sarah Palin, her political career, and her current political campaign, should be inn here; we should only create smaller articles when this gets too big. And I repeat: at that point I completely agree with your point about summary style. By the way, the link you provide is still confusing or misleading. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 19:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(And with that, I've got to go to bed so I can wake up in the morning for work. But we can see what others think and continue this tomorrow.)[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 04:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::Well, I'm glad that you haven't deleted any content from my proposed version above, and that you did not delete anything that I left in. Since we agree about that material, I'll implement it for now, and then we can discuss remaining issues. To the extent that there is not consensus to include content here in this summary article, I have no objection to including it in the sub-article [[Governorship of Sarah Palin]].[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 05:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Why did you delete all the content unilaterally when I expressly said I was opposed to it? If you want to delete massive amounts of content that's been there for weeks, I specifically said you need consensus. I will re-add it back. I suggest that you post on the talk page specifically all the things you want to delete one by one and why. I DISAGREE that accurate quotes from Palin about the bridge are irrelevant to an article about Palin and the bridge. I told you so. And as a number of editors told you on the noticeboard, they are not appropriate in the sub-article. You sought help on the BLP and when they said things you didn't like, you acted unilaterally. YOU KNOW AT NO TIME DID I EVER AGREE TO DELETE CONTENT. I merely agreed to summary style, i.e. deleting redundant material. I will revert, so we can start over again. If you want to delete content, you're going to have to argue each one by one on this talk page.[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 02:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:At the heart of our differences is your belief that one editor has veto power to keep any and all information out of this article. You brought the issue to the BLP noticeboard and they expressly rejected your philosophy. Deletions require consensus too. Just because I agree on some content does NOT mean I agree that you can unilaterally delete all you don't agree with. If you want to delete something, I suggest you bring it to everyone's attention as I have just done with your request to delete all of Palin's quotes in support of the bridge but none in opposition. If you have other issues, bring them up. I acted with you in good faith on the assumption that you meant what you said, that you just thought the article was too long. I changed 22 lines to 15 lines without losing a bit of content. But since your real agenda apparently is to delete content -- and only one side of content -- then I suggest you're going to need a much wider agreement and you won't get it from me. If you want arbitration, let's do it. But I strongly believe that Palin's quotations on the bridge are relevant to the bridge section of her biography. Summary form is OK, but they must be there. Indeed, I would delete everything else before I deleted that. It's the heart of the article.[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 02:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:::That is not true. One editor should never have veto power to keep any and all information out of this article. Please stop making stuff up and attributing it to me. All I have said is that there ought to be consensus to insert disputed material into the article. That's it. I dispute that the material you want to insert is consistent with [[WP:Summary style]], [[WP:NPOV]], and [[WP:Undue weight]]. So now all you have to do is get a consensus to insert it, and I'll be fine with that.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 02:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::::But that's what you did. You unilaterally took stuff out of the article, making deletions that no one agreed to, including direct Palin quotations that have been in the article for weeks. "Consensus to include disputed material" is just a nice way to say "single-editor veto" if you alone can disrupt "consensus." Who, besides you, agreed to remove Palin's quotations in support of the bridge but leave in her quotations against it?[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 02:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Section order ==

I find it troubling that a [[WP:BIO|biography article]] places relevant personal informnation to the very last part of the article. The *Personal life* section belongs at the top after (or combined with) early life and education information. Her career can follow logically from that. Why is even *Political positions* given a more prominent placement. --[[User:Evb-wiki|Evb-wiki]] ([[User talk:Evb-wiki|talk]]) 00:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
: I think what you say has merit. I have moved that section up as suggested. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 00:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:: Mmmm... not sure it works well there, though. What others think? [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 01:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
[[Barack Obama#Family and personal life]] is near the bottom. [[Joe Biden]] and [[John McCain]] don't even have related sections. '''[[User:Grsz11|<font color="black">Grsz</font>]][[User talk:Grsz11|<b><font color="red"><sup>X</sup></font></b>]]''' 01:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::Both [[George W. Bush]] and [[George H.W. Bush]] have a marriage and/or family section up top. --[[User:Evb-wiki|Evb-wiki]] ([[User talk:Evb-wiki|talk]]) 01:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I think the personal life section was okay lower down. She's not famous for her personal life, so it makes sense to help readers find out what they're most interested about. I don't think it's a big deal, but I like it better down the page.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 01:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:Except that every other section has a main article where the details get placed. This is, after all, the biographical part of the Sarah Palin collection. --[[User:Evb-wiki|Evb-wiki]] ([[User talk:Evb-wiki|talk]]) 01:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::In theory.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 01:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] says: "In theory." That's for sure. See: [[Talk:Sarah Palin#AP article on her personal life]].--[[User:Paul.h|Paul]] ([[User talk:Paul.h|talk]]) 01:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I liked where it was before. Its kinda like moving the couch in the living room. It just doesn't look right in its new spot. Familiarity, I guess.--[[User:Buster7|Buster7]] ([[User talk:Buster7|talk]]) 02:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::I usually work on stub to B class articles, and I know we're shooting for better than that. But in the short-ish bios I usually see, it often works to group things in this kind of order: 1) parentage/childhood/education (which includes ethnicity, nationality, siblings), 2) early career, 3) notable career, 4) any other notable things, 5) stats, lists, awards, achievements, books written, etc., and 6) personal life (which includes spouse, children, hobbies, current residence, etc). That seems to flow well, although it does reflect a certain value judgment about what is worth mentioning in what order, personal life being a bit of a wrap-up, like the dessert after a big meal.[[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 04:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) I'm still kind of leaning toward putting it back lower in the article. Above I explained that she's not famous for her personal life, and having that section where it is now delays the reader on his way to what is really of interest. But there are other reasons too. Before this section was moved there, the article was chronological up to what is now the seventh section (2008 campaign). Having the personal life stuff near the top throws off the chronology. Additionally, stuff near the top of an article always gets more attention, and I have qualms about putting things like her daughter's pregnancy and the name of her boyfriend so high up in the article. This is very personal material, and I would feel much better if it were not emphasized so much by placing it near the top of the article. Another reason why I'm leaning toward a revert is because the image seems to be sandwiching text with the infobox, which is not compliant with the MOS.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 15:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:I do see your point(s). I agree that the chronology is a bit muddled. I can live with your placement. (At least it's ahead of *Political positions*. ha.) --[[User:Evb-wiki|Evb-wiki]] ([[User talk:Evb-wiki|talk]]) 15:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Error in notes ==

The references to articles for cites 200 and 201 have their authors swapped, and both link to the same article.

Currently:

# ^ a b Suddath, Claire (2006-08-06). "Same-sex unions, drugs get little play", Anchorage Daily News. Retrieved on 2008-09-01.
# ^ a b c Hopkins, Kyle. "Conservative Believer", Time. Retrieved on 2008-09-16.

Should be:

# ^ a b Hopkins, Kyle (2006-08-06). "Same-sex unions, drugs get little play", Anchorage Daily News. Retrieved on 2008-09-01.
# ^ a b c Suddath, Claire. "Conservative Believer", Time. Retrieved on 2008-09-16.

A correct link for the Anchorage Daily News article is:
http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/governor06/story/8049298p-7942233c.html

[[User:Odsock|Odsock]] ([[User talk:Odsock|talk]]) 02:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

{{done}} Thanks. -- [[User:Zsero|Zsero]] ([[User talk:Zsero|talk]]) 04:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Adam Brickley ==

No mention? [[User:Seoul Guy|<font size="0" color="white" style="background:green">&nbsp;Esper&nbsp;</font>]][[User_Talk:Seoul Guy|<font size="-2"><sup>&nbsp;rant&nbsp;</sup></font>]] 03:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::Nope. Mr. Brickley started a blog promoting Palin for VP. That would belong in a sub-article, more than it would belong here.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 04:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)



== Add education to the stat-box ==

I'd like to see Palin's Educational history added to her stat box.

Just stick it in between Residence and Profession. A quick line listing her degree, YOG, and ''Alma matter''. It seems like a basic fact to know about her or any political leader. Worth listing there.

[[User:DigitalPants|DigitalPants]] ([[User talk:DigitalPants|talk]]) 05:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Beluga whale ==

Ferrylodge...when you moved LLLL's mention of the effect the bridge had on Beluga whales, you removed the word, deleterious. I don't see why. It is desciptive of why the report was requested. Please revert your deletion.--[[User:Buster7|Buster7]] ([[User talk:Buster7|talk]]) 10:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::Done.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 15:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Thank You.--[[User:Buster7|Buster7]] ([[User talk:Buster7|talk]]) 20:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Wikipedia policies that apply to this article ==

Wikipedia is growing all the time, and many new people are getting involved in this article--that's great! But it means that some people do not understand our policies, and it is clear from the past few days' discussion that we need to sort some things out.

Core policies at Wikipeida apply to ''all'' articles equally. In other words, we do not distinguish between different types of articles because some policies apply to some and some policies do not apply to some. It goes without saying that only material that is relevant should go into an article. Beyond that, our core policies are [[WP:NPOV]] which states that all <s>notable</s> significant views about a topic must be represented neutrally; [[WP:V]] which states that all <s>notable</s> significant views must also be verifiable. This does not mean that they have to be true or right or good. In fact, Wikipedia editors are encouraged to add views thought to be false, wrong, or bad - as long as they are <s>notable</s> significant and verifiable; meaning there is evidence available to anyone that people actually hold this view. Closely related to [[WP:V]] is [[WP:RS]], which states that views should come from reliable sources. Reliable does not mean true or right or good, it means well established. ''The New York Post,'' ''The Daily News'', ''The Village Voice'', ''The Wall Street Journal''--all represent a wide range of views and it is likely that everyone has contempt for at least one of these newspapers. But, they are all considered reliable sources for the news. Finally, [[WP:NOR]], no original research. Even if we read through lots of news reports and develop a sophisticated analysis of the news based on solid research, we cannot put it into an article. The bottom line is, editors simply do not put our own views into articles. That really covers the main policies that should guide us in writing this article.

Some people have thrown around the phrase BLP, which stands for "Biography of Living Persons." BLP does not refer to a ''type'' of article - like I said, from the perspective of Wikipedia policies, there aren't any different types of articles, all articles are subject to the same policies. BLP does ''not'' say that some articles are biographies; it says that sometimes we add to an article ''biographical content'' and it provides some important points about how to do that. [[WP:BLP]] basically reiterates what I just said: we need to comply with the same policies we comply with in articles on gravity and Australia and golf. What the BLP policy says is that when we add ''biographical information'' to an article we need to be especially careful to use reliable sources, ''most assuredly'' if the material is contentious. It doesn't say we ''cannot'' add contentious material, only that, if we do, we need to bend over backwards to make sure the source is reliable. Moreover, we should be careful not to write in a titillating or sensationalistic style. Likewise, when we add criticisms (which NPOV practically demands we will) we have to be sure they come from reliable sources.

Finally, some people may refer to [[WP:BIO]]. Again, this is not a policy about "biographical articles" - like I said, we do not make such distinctions at Wikipedia. Moreover, [[WP:BIO]] links to a ''guideline,'' not a policy - it has no binding force. But it is a useful guideline. What is it about? It has to do with one of the policies I mentioned above (that views need to be significant). It raises a related point: articles have to be on notable topics. [[WP:BIO]] talks about what kinds of people are notable enough to merit inclusion in articles. One thing it makes clear is that politicians, probably of the rank of mayor and certainly of higher position, are notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. So Sarah Palin definitely meets our notability criteria because of her political position.

That's really it about policy. Palin is notable because she is a politician, and any <s>notable</s> significant view from a verifiable source about her political career or campaign, or about her political views as expressed in her career or in the campaign, or any criticisms of her political career or campaign or views, can go in this article as long as they come from verifiable, reliable sources. If we add any biographical information, especially if it is contentious - and yes, [[WP:BLP]] allows us to add contentious biographical information - we DO have to ensure it comes from highly reliable sources. That's about it everyone, as far as policies go! [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 19:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:I pretty much agree with all that, but it seems incomplete. There are other important policies and guidelines. For example, there's [[WP:Consensus]], and [[WP:Summary style]], and [[WP:Undue weight]] to name a few. Just because some inserted material satisfies [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:V]], [[WP:RS]], and [[WP:NOR]] does not mean that an editor can insist (repeatedly) on inserting it into an article. And whether the material satisfies those policies should be determined not just by an individual editor but by consensus.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 19:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, I certainly accept that other policies may apply. And I know you are acting in good faith with good intentions. But with all due respect, I think your message muddies the waters. First of all, "undue weight" is a ''subsection'' of NPOV. By my linking NPOV, I ''simultaneously'' included undue weight. The difference is, I made it clear that NPOV is the umbrella policy and "undue weight" is just a component of that policy and has to be interpreted in the context of the policy as a whole. You took it out of context which could mislead some people. Also, "Summary style" is not a policy. I was talking primarily about policies. Summary style is a guideline and it may be useful to editors but it does not have the force of a policy. Finally, I agree with you about consensus, but the consensus policy addresses a different issue than I was raising. My point was about what can go into articles. Consensus says nothing about what can or cannot go into articles. The consensus policy is about interpersonal behavior and process. The consensus policy is not about content; NPOV, V, and NOR are about content. It is NPOV, V, and NOR that determine what is acceptable and unacceptable content. The consensus policy lays out a ''process'' for resolving conflicts over content. But it does not establish ''principles'' for resolving the conflict. The principles remain NPOV, V and NOR. When editors get into a conflict, we should consult [[WP:CONSENSUS]] for ideas about how we can better work together. But '''before''' consensus-based editing, the first step to working together is agreeing to abide by the ''content'' policies, NPOV, NOR, and V. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 19:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "whether the material satisfies those policies should be determined not just by an individual editor but by consensus," but consensus does not mean unanimity (according to the policy), it is a ''process'' of collaboration. And to participate in this process everyone has to agree that "if content is a <s>notable</s> significant and verifiable view from a reliable source it will go in even if I do not like it," if they cannot say this, and mean it, they are not participating in a consensus process. And some people above have argued that content should not go in ''even if it is notable, verifiable, and from a reliable source.'' Those people are ''not'' participating in a consensus-building process. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 19:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Thanks, SL. very nicely explained for all who seem to be missing these salient points. [[User:Jim62sch|<font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim</font><font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62</font><font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Jim62sch|dissera!]]</sup> 20:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::Good points regarding undue weight being a subset of NPOV, and regarding the difference between policies and guidelines. However, I still argue that ''content should not go in even if it is notable, verifiable, and from a reliable source, if it violates [[WP:Summary style]]''. The content should go in a sub-article such as [[Governorship of Sarah Palin]] if putting it in this article would make the corresponding section of this article too long.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 19:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I agree, but continue to note that summary style is a guideline and ''cannot'' trump core policies like NPOV, V and NOR. Also, if we are going to be guided by Summary Style, let's follow what it says: first, the guideline applies only when an article gets too long. Second, splitting the article into smaller articles has to be done in a reasonable fashion. The material that most readers will most want to see stays in the main article; less notable material goes into smaller articles, and spin-offs have to be content forks and never POV forks, no coatracking. As long as the discussion about summary style foregrounds these principles I am fine with that. But I continue to insist, a style guideline ''never'' trumps a content policy. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 20:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Sounds good to me. And, of course, the present article would be way too long if all the material in the sub-articles were included in this one.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 20:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::::(ec) Thanks Slrubinstein, well presented. @Ferryloge: ''if it violates WP:Summary style''.[[WP:SUMMARY]] is a useful guide on how to approach spinning off articles, and does not dictate any particular way to do this. So, it is up to active editors to work together in summarizing a spin-off article, so that the summary is comprehensive and could stand on its own. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 20:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:I'm not clear on exactly what you mean by "notable" here. The [[Wikipedia:Notability|notability guidelines]] are about whether a topic merits an article on Wikipedia, not about the content of an article. Your "notable, verifiable, and from a reliable source" seems to exclude the issue of NPOV, which is what most of the extended arguments here and in other political articles are about. —[[User:KCinDC|KCinDC]] ([[User talk:KCinDC|talk]]) 20:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::To whom are you speaking? [[User:Jim62sch|<font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim</font><font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62</font><font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Jim62sch|dissera!]]</sup> 20:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV was the first policy I brought up, so that should suffice to make clear that I mean that the NPOV policy applies to this article, I didn't think anything I had written suggested anything but this. The NPOV policy ''used to'' feature the word "notable" but following present practice I have changed it to "significant." It is true that I brought up notability about people as topics for an article, but that is only because at least one editor in the past day or two has brought this matter up. That editor seemed to think the policy meant that anything not of a purely personal biographical nature was by definition "not notable" because of the policy. My intention was to make clear ''precisely'' what you say: that the policy that editor was invoking was referring to "whether a topic merits an article on Wikipedia, not about the content of an article." That was my point ''precisely'' and I am pleased for you to repeat it. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 20:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:I realize you talked about NPOV, but I'm troubled by this part: "And some people above have argued that content should not go in ''even if it is notable, verifiable, and from a reliable source''. Those people are not participating in a consensus-building process." That seems to be saying that those are the only factors that people should consider when looking at content, and it doesn't mention NPOV, but it does mention notability, which you've just agreed isn't a criterion for content (also, being from a reliable source is part of verifiability, so that bit seems redundant). I think that requires some clarification. —[[User:KCinDC|KCinDC]] ([[User talk:KCinDC|talk]]) 20:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I just made some corrections, do they satisfy you? "significant" and "view" are direct references to NPOV and I hope I have been clear that the whole policy is important. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 20:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Excellent, Slrubenstein. A well needed compalation of the codes of conduct necessary to maintain order and civility. As you state, early in your lead, many new editors are coming on board. Moderately experienced editors (like myself) are participating at levels they didn't expect 4 weeks ago. Let me say that the ebb and flow of discussion about core Wikipedia policies is a tremendous learning opportunity. The Editing Community shines when we find a balance between differing (dare I say it!) points of view.
::::::<soapbox>A wonderful thing happens when I lose the "I" of my edit and give in to the "WE" of being a Wikipedia editor. I sacrifice ownership of "my idea, my edit, my contribution" and join a working community focussed on excellence and quality.</soapbox>.
:::::Both you and Ferrylodge and many other veteran editors are providing leadership and training. Many times I have wanted to step away from this article and return to random editing. But the knowledge and experience that is going on here is invaluable...and it draws me back. Thanks to you all!--[[User:Buster7|Buster7]] ([[User talk:Buster7|talk]]) 20:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::I second that. I only wish we'd had this discussion a month ago! [[User:Fcreid|Fcreid]] ([[User talk:Fcreid|talk]]) 21:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks, Slrubinstein. "Significant" is good. You still have the sentences I quoted above, though. I understand that changing "notable" to "significant" there doesn't work because I don't think anyone's arguing that "content should not go in even if it is significant, verifiable, and from a reliable source". The argument is usually precisely about what's significant, in NPOV terms. But maybe you were referring to something else. If you're going to be including what amounts to an accusation against some other participants, I think it needs to be clearer what you're objecting to. —[[User:KCinDC|KCinDC]] ([[User talk:KCinDC|talk]]) 21:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:Well written Slrubinstein, but I'd like to add one important point. All of the wiki process, and all of the policy, operates on discussion, compromise, and the discovery of consensus between editors. Policy is important to be sure, but more important is Wikipedians talking with each other, not at each other, about policy and content. I think we've all seen enough of that in the "real world."--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] ([[User talk:Tznkai|talk]]) 13:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::Two other things to remember: one should [[WP:IAR|ignore all rules]] when necessary to improve the article or Wikipedia, and (more importantly) none of us [[WP:OWN|own]] this article, Gov. Palin, or Wikipedia. Good day to all. --[[User:Evb-wiki|Evb-wiki]] ([[User talk:Evb-wiki|talk]]) 14:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Protection Request ==

IMHO, this article, along with the articles [[Joe Biden]], [[Barack Obama]] & [[John McCain]] (plus McCain & Obama's presidential campaign articles), should be ''fully protected'' until after the US prez election. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:Why?--[[User:Cdogsimmons|Cdogsimmons]] ([[User talk:Cdogsimmons|talk]]) 00:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::I think ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, FOX, CNN and CNBC should go off the air from now until the election.

::Folks, Wikipedia has been around since 2001. There is nothing going on now that hasn't come up before, and we have policies for everything that counts. To show up here and ask that we violate or disregard wikipedia is an explicit act of bad faith. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 00:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Let's say something big happens in the campaign or in the lives of one of the individuals. Then we would have to wait for an admin to edit the article, meanwhile not having the info for the people who want the information. Erik the <font color="red">[[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]]</font> 2 <small><font color= "green">[[User talk:Erik the Red 2|~~]]</font><font color= "blue">[[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|~~]]</font></small> 01:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::::This article is '''protected''' by the editors that watch over it on a daily basis...'''24/7...'''--[[User:Buster7|Buster7]] ([[User talk:Buster7|talk]]) 01:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::[[The Breakfast Club|B-O-O-H-O-O]]. '''[[User:Grsz11|<font color="black">Grsz</font>]][[User talk:Grsz11|<b><font color="red"><sup>X</sup></font></b>]]''' 02:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::I agree with Slrubenstein that this has gone on before -- such as, for example, in the last presidential election, as reported in [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/10/arts/10wiki.html?ex=1257742800&en=cc30e2e9087b7775&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland this story] in the ''New York Times''. And let me be the first to predict that it will go in during the 2012 campaign. And that we will deal with it. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]]<small>&nbsp;[[User_talk:JamesMLane|t]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/JamesMLane|c]]</small> 08:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

===Semi-Protection?===
..'til after the US prez election? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 14:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:It has been semi-protected since 9 September 2008, and will almost certainly stay so until after the election at least. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 16:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, cool. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Rape kits again ==

I'm having some difficulty with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=243544182&oldid=243539030 this edit], which inserted the bolded words:

<blockquote>Fannon stirred controversy by requiring rape victims to '''''pay or''''' have their insurance companies pay for rape kits.[http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt]</blockquote>

The source doesn't seem to say that Fannon did anything other than charge the insurance companies. Fannon stated: "In the past we've charged the cost of exams to the victim's insurance company when possible. I just don't want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer....Ultimately it is the criminal who should bear the burden of the added costs."

Also, this stuff about rape kits was inserted into the article today. Should it remain? There was previous discussion about it [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_29#Rape_Kit_Controversy.3F here].[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 00:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:The source states ''"to bill victims or victims insurance companies"'' so its accurate. I have not read the previous discussion. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 01:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:Ok, the "previous discussion" cited Slate, but it wasn't Slate, precisely - it was a '''blog''' on Slate. However, I checked FactCheck.org (a far more reliable source) and found [http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_sarah_palin_make_rape_victims_pay.html this], which states that women had to pay, but that it is unclear whether Palin supported that. Read the FactCheck bit yourself, please - IMO it appears the entire rape kit mess should stay out of an article on Palin, except for the current bit which does state "Palin hired Charlie Fannon to replace Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon stirred controversy by requiring rape victims to pay or have their insurance companies pay for rape kits" - all of which is accurate per the sources. I'm open to other views tho. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 01:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::No record of <b>any</b> victim paying has been found for any records still held by Wasilla (fiscal 2000 on, which started on July 1, 1999). Cite given earlier. No records prior to June 30, 1999 appear to be available for this. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 01:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::What about Insurance companies? Did they pay? If no-one (individual or corp.) paid for the kits, why are we making an issue out of something that did not happen? also, more curious than anything else...Are there alot of rapes in Wasilla?--[[User:Buster7|Buster7]] ([[User talk:Buster7|talk]]) 01:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Re. KC's quote from [http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt the Frontiersman article], a fuller quote is: ''"The new law makes it illegal for any law enforcement agency to bill victims or victims insurance companies...."'' That doesn't seem to support the notion that Fannon did both of those things, and he only seems to have admitted doing the latter.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 01:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::My error, thanks - I was scanning the link which had been used, and frankly didn't pay close enough attention. The FactCheck source - again, far more reliable than the others - clearly states "he had billed women and their insurance companies for these tests". I find no source regarding what Fannin admitted or not, the current phrasing does not address that, so do we care? Are we planning to expand this to cover that? I'm not sure that's a direction we should go, as I've said before, I think the two sentences we currently have are enough weight. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 01:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::I agree we don't need much on this in the main Palin article, since there's no evidence she was directly involved. It's covered more thoroughly in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayoralty_of_Sarah_Palin#Police_matters the sub-article]. Anyway, I did look at [http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_sarah_palin_make_rape_victims_pay.html the Factcheck.org bit], and they are relying exclusively on [http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt the article from the Frontiersman], and specifically this quote: "In the past we've charged the cost of exams to the victim's insurance company when possible. I just don't want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer....Ultimately it is the criminal who should bear the burden of the added costs." Fannon only seems to be admitting that he charged women if their insurance could pay. I don't see him admitting that he charged other women.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 01:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Factcheck cites the Frontiersman, [http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/21/palin.rape.exams/index.html CNN] and [http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-10-rape-exams_N.htm USA Today], see end of article. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 01:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::For the fact in question, Factcheck.org is relying exclusively on the Frontiersman article. They only cite USA Today for Palin's disavowal, and they only cite CNN for remarks by a former Alaska state representative about whether Palin was involved.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 01:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
(Outdent) All three are listed as Sources, and all three state clearly that women or their insurance companies were billed. Only the Frontiersman article was ''quoted'', which is not the same thing as cited. All three are linked from inline text within the article as well as under "Sources" at end. So we have three sources (CNN, Frontiersman, and USA Today) all saying the same thing, so the two sentences currently in our article are accurate. If someone wants to add a source or two to the statement, fine - but there is no disputing view. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 01:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::'if possible' could mean, possibly, that he charged them if it weren't possible to collect from the insurance? Now that he is paying, he wants the criminals to pay. I would have a little more sympathy for his position if he had been motivated to come up with that inspired idea instead of making it the victim's responsibility to pay until he was stopped. Also he says, "-any- more burden put on the taxpayer" Less conclusive than 'if possible', imo, I can't believe you can even read it as the town paying when the insurance didnt. Why do you think there was a state-wide outcry and a law enacted to stop what they were doing? And you better believe there is an alternate position [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 01:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) KC, I'm not going to make a federal case out of it, but it's still not clear to me that women without insurance were billed. I don't think the Frontiersman article says they were billed. Also, this is really borderline stuff to include in a main BLP like this, since Palin is not really linked. But if others think it should stay in then I won't quibble about it. I would suggest including Palin's brief disavowal, except that I don't want to give any more space and attention to this weakly sourced matter than it deserves.

Anarchangel, why do I think there was a state-wide outcry and a law enacted to stop what they were doing? Please see sub-article. Municipalities like Juneau were definitely charging the victims, whether they had insurance or not. Other localities were doing likewise, according to legislative records. But neither the legislative records nor the town records show that Wasilla was billing uninsured women for this. It's all in the sub-article.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 02:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::Okay, now this is getting out of hand. I see that Anarchangel has expanded the material in the main article, and I strongly object. I knew this would happen. PLEASE see the sub-article. The notion that Wasilla was the only town doing this is totally bogus. PLEASE don't quote Knowles like he is completely objective. Palin defeated him for Governor, after all.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 02:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I don't think we should include anything about the who pays for the rape kit controversy. It just leaves the door open for scurolous guesswork and ackward contrivances. And, really, it has almost nothing to do with Gov Palin and should not be part of her BLP.--[[User:Buster7|Buster7]] ([[User talk:Buster7|talk]]) 02:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::::Sub-article? you mean 'mayoralty of sarah palin'? the article with "sources differ as to whether this was done by some rural police agencies[20] or only by Wasilla's[21]." ? And you see no relevance in the vote by the entire state? And how does the governor of the state become disqualified as a source? He hadn't lost to Palin when he introduced the legislation, and he is an expert on it. And you insist on removing the other 2 sources and installing only Frontiersman again? You also seem to be under a misapprehension regarding consensus: it is a preferable, not a mandatory state. It can be used as a justification of a present edit, not an injunction against a new edit. Your reversion was heavy handed and ill considered. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 03:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::You more than tripled the text in this article on this subject, contrary to the consensus above that this needs to be kept to a minimum on account of the lack of any direct link to Palin. Additionally, the info you inserted was false: Wasilla was not "the only town in Alaska" doing whatever it is they were doing. You would understand that if you would look at the subarticle. Sources differ on the question, and the most authoritative sources clearly show that towns like the state capital were charging victims. The info you put in the article was clearly false, and against consensus. And now that I've got you all riled up, I'm sure you'll just go and expand it again. I'm tired of trying to be diplomatic. BTW, if anyone was charging victims for rape kits it was reprehensible. But this article is not a coatrack to hang this all on Palin.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 03:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::::I'm ok with the current version (if it hasn't changed already). I just thought some mention should be made of it, as opposed to none.[[User:Jimmuldrow|Jimmuldrow]] ([[User talk:Jimmuldrow|talk]]) 03:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The rape kit stuff does not belong here at all. There is no evidence that any victim was charged, or that it had anything at all to do with Palin. The later state action had nothing to do with Wasilla, and Knowles's claims to the contrary are exposed as a convenient misrecollection. I will resist any attempt to mention it here. -- [[User:Zsero|Zsero]] ([[User talk:Zsero|talk]]) 05:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Team Player.......--[[User:Buster7|Buster7]] ([[User talk:Buster7|talk]]) 06:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:Pray tell -- what does "Team Player" mean with reference to improving the article on Sarah Palin? I am puzzled by that comment. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 12:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Team Player RE:''I will resist any attempt to mention it here''. Ownership of an idea, a comment, an edit, a thread, an article, etc. gets in the way of the Team aspect of Wikiediting. "We should resist............." would work better. Sorry I wasn't clear. What did you think I meant?--[[User:Buster7|Buster7]] ([[User talk:Buster7|talk]]) 12:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::Nothing about the "rape kit controversy" should be in this article, because it is a BLP-violating smear with serious problems.

::This is a case where the media feeding frenzy over Palin makes hash out of Wikipedia's policies of verifiability and reliable sources and makes the BLP policy of extra caution when including controversial material even more important than usual.

::First, though it seems Wasilla along with many other towns in Alaska clearly had the policy of billing rape victim insurance companies for the testing, there is no reliable source showing that this policy started with Fannon which is the supposed connection to Palin.

::Second, though there is no proof that Palin knew anything about the policy, there is [http://frontiersman.com/articles/2008/09/30/breaking_news/doc48e1e1294d418713321438.txt her explicit denunciation of the policy] where she says: ''"The entire notion of making a victim of a crime pay for anything is crazy. I do not believe, nor have I ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test. As governor, I worked in a variety of ways to tackle the problem of sexual assault and rape, including making domestic violence a priority of my administration."''

::Third, there is no proof that anyone or their insurance company was ever charged. The Wasilla finance department can find no instances; the sole "reliable source" is USA Today, but their statement "An aide to a Democratic state legislator tells USA Today that women in Wasilla did pay out of pocket for their rape kits” isn't good enough as there is no corroborating evidence, and the primary source is potentially biased.

::Given the potential sensationalism of this charge, and the completely non-existent and flimsy nature of the facts backing it up, it should be removed from the article as an unsupported defamatory charge at odds with BLP policy. If [[User:Jimmuldrow|Jimmuldrow]] doesn't remove this from the article (and I hope he does), I will remove it.--[[User:Paul.h|Paul]] ([[User talk:Paul.h|talk]]) 15:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Given the potential for edit warring on this issue, I suggest you rather discuss on the talk page and attempt to convince others, rather than state outright you plan to edit while consensus is very much undetermined. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 16:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

=== Rape kits, section break ===
Here is my thinking on the rape kits:
# We have no sources which state that Palin knew about this
# Palin's appointee Fannon was the party who implemented this
# Women and/or their insurance agencies were billed
# Some editors here are focusing on details which are irrelevant and/or complete speculation - "no proof any women ever had to pay" which is beside the point.
# The media has been mentioning this
Conclusion: We can either leave it out of this article, as Palin was not directly involved, or keep it in, in which case we need to be clear that the Palin connection is that it was her appointee, not she herself, who did this. I'll support either position, whichever consensus settles on, but mention that as virtually everyone has heard something about this, we might want to ensure we address this in this article, altho *briefly* and *clearly*. Thoughts? [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 16:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::# We have no sources which state that Palin knew about this ''Agreed''
::# Palin's appointee Fannon was the party who implemented this ''Not necessarily; The Frontiersman article does not say Fannon instigated this policy.''
::# Women and/or their insurance agencies were billed ''There is no proof for the first statement. The second is true for some municipalities in Alaska, but there is no proof this is true for Wasilla (which one source reports as having only a single reported case of rape during Palin's tenure).''
::# Some editors here are focusing on details which are irrelevant and/or complete speculation - "no proof any women ever had to pay" which is beside the point. ''Again, not necessarily. If Palin didn't know about this, and no one was ever charged, it's all very theoretical, and what is it doing in an encyclopedia biography??''
::# The media has been mentioning this ''There is a difference between the media and an encyclopedia. The media picked this up from a blog run by a Democratic strategist lawyer during their Palin frenzy period. That is why the "reliable source" standard is oatmeal mush in this case.''
::This is very thin gruel to be hanging such a charge on.--[[User:Paul.h|Paul]] ([[User talk:Paul.h|talk]]) 20:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:(after ec)Paul, much of your argument comes down to saying that the reporters now swarming over Wasilla weren't there ten years ago. The people in Wasilla didn't foresee that aspects of their municipal administration would one day be scrutinized in ''USA Today''. As a result, there are definitely places where the information available isn't conclusive. In those instance, I agree that we need to be careful to present only what's known (which may in some instances mean that there's a bit of evidence pointing one way and a bit of evidence pointing the other way, neither of them dispositive).

:Overall, though, you must remember that this article is not a campaign piece, pro or con. The standard for inclusion isn't whether an airtight case has been made that Palin did something good or bad. We cover lots of criticisms of politicians where the critics are lodging a charge and the politician's supporters are making responses like "This is irrelevant because ere's no definitive proof that he knew about that." We don't suppress such issues; our obligation is to present both sides fairly. For example, I believe that any discussion of paying for rape kits should include the quotation from Palin that you give, in which she denounces the idea. It should also, however, include her spokesperson's refusal to say when Palin learned of the Wasilla policy.

:Per the foregoing, I agree with most of what KillerChihuahua wrote. I disagree, however, with point 4. The "no proof any women ever had to pay" point isn't completely tangential. We may consider it "speculation", but it's one argument that's made, so it merits inclusion. It should be identified as one side's argument, though; in other words, it should be reported but not adopted. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]]<small>&nbsp;[[User_talk:JamesMLane|t]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/JamesMLane|c]]</small> 16:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::Where has that argument been made, besides forums, blogs, this talk page, and similar venues? I haven't seen it in a RS - but it is entirely possible I missed it. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 18:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::The records of the City of Wasilla would appear to be reliable. Do you have a problem with them as they do not support anyone being charged <b>for any period for which the records exist?</b> I would not call them a "blog" to be sure. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 18:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I was on the fence about this, but now think it should not go in this article. The main source on this, and the only contemporaneous news report that I'm aware of, is the Frontiersman article.[http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt] It seems very significant that the Frontiersman article does not mention Palin at all---not once.

Additionally, the rape kit business is covered in the sub-article [[Mayoralty of Sarah Palin]], so it's not as though we'd be banishing this stuff from Wikipedia. It's a minor detail ''about Palin'', and so appropriately does not need to be summarized here.

As KC mentioned, if we descibe what Fannon said or did, then we also would have to be clear that the Palin connection is that it was her appointee, not she herself, who did this --- and that she has condemned making victims pay. So this would take up even more space.

KC's best point for inclusion is that a lot of people have heard something about this. That's usually a pretty good reason for inclusion, but not always. Many people also know that SNL used the word "MILF" in reference to her, but no one's suggesting we need to include and explain that in this article.

Also, the present language that Fannon stirred controversy about this doesn't seem accurate, given that Wasilla was not mentioned during the state legislative process (see sub-article).

Finally, if we do decide to insert this, I hope we can more closely track Fannon's quote from the Frontiersman article. While some Alaska municipalities (e.g. Juneau) were clearly charging uninsured women for this, Fannon did not say that Wasilla was doing so. Maybe Wasilla was, and maybe Wasilla wasn't, according to that Fannon quote (and shame on them if they were).[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 16:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:The Wasilla angle seems to be primarily that they fought (and by "they" I mean Fannon) the law which disallowed charging the victim for six months, which is in the CNN article at least. This also seems to add to the Palin angle as well - there is zero evidence she knew about it, but speculation (and there are quotes) is that she'd have had to be fairly dense, or deliberately obtuse, to have missed this, as it caused a stink at the time. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 18:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent)KC, if you knew with 100% certainty that no place in Alaska ever charged uninsured women for this, would you still feel it's sufficiently notable for inclusion in this Wikipedia article?

The reason I ask is because I did take another look at the [http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/21/palin.rape.exams/index.html CNN article] that you've pointed to. The most cited person in the CNN article is Rep. Eric Croft, a Democrat. The Alaska legislature amazingly provides Croft's contemporaneous comments online, regarding the bill in question.[http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_minutes.asp?chamb=B&date1=010181&date2=120180&session=21&Root=HB270] Here is what occurred in the legislature back in 2000:

<blockquote>REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that he had heard of victims being
asked to pay for the forensic exam with his/her health insurance.
[http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_single_minute.asp?ch=H&beg_line=0317&end_line=0714&session=21&comm=STA&date=20000309&time=0820]....While it is the ordinary police practice to pay for these evidence-gathering exams, some victims now report
that they have been asked to pay for the cost of the forensic exam through their medical insurance....He noted that the majority of police agencies do the right thing in this regard. However, some agencies do try to transfer this concern to the individual's insurance. That type action can result from tight budget times.[http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_single_minute.asp?ch=H&beg_line=0204&end_line=0332&session=21&comm=FIN&date=20000410&time=1415]</blockquote>

So, I emphatically disagree that this Wikipedia article should suggest in any way that uninsured women were being charged. And given that only insurance companies were being charged, without Palin evidently knowing anything about it, I hope we can remove this stuff from the present article, and leave it for the sub-article. Some media outlets have sensationalized it by making it seem like maybe uninsured women were being charged, but Democratic Representative Croft indicated at the time that the problem only involved insured women.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 19:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:Although women in Alaska were charged, even if I knew with 100% certainty none had ever been charged, it will still merit inclusion. If there had been a local ordinance or practice that people whose homes had been burglarized were to be charged up to $1,000 for fingerprinting kits, and the state had passed a law to prevent them from doing that, and local authorities had fought for six months to be able to continue to do so, rather than paying for such kits out of normal funds, and the mayor of the town seemed oblivious, then ran for VP - why yes, it would be noteworthy even if not one victim of a burglary had ever been charged. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 22:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::And what if there had been a local ordinance or practice that people whose homes had been burglarized were to be charged up to $1,000 for fingerprinting kits, only if their insurance would cover it?[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 22:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe include this material in an article on Fannon, or one of the Palin sub articles. --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] 16:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not expressly clear, even in the sub-article citation purporting to give evidence of it, that there were instances of kit charge in places other than wasilla. Victims were from many places, but they could have all been raped in Wasilla. When I consider the vulnerability required for such an act to take place, I think immediately of hitchhiking, and travellers from out of town generally with fewer resources to rely on for aid. However, as there is as much doubt or more that all the victims came from Wasilla as there is that some didn't, and for brevity's sake, I am leaving the issue of Wasilla's purported uniqueness out of the edit.<br>
That it was Palin's subordinate's policy is a measure of her ability to lead and oversee the policy of her subordinates. It is more important than whether "She kept a jar with the names of Wasilla residents on her desk, and once a week she pulled a name from it and picked up the phone" Try and keep some perspective. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 19:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

: There's no evidence that Fannon had anything to do with it either. All we know is that when the state wanted to ban the practise Fannon opposed that. For all we know, that was the first time he'd heard of it, and thought it wasn't a bad idea, and it shouldn't be banned. The only positive statement we have of his as to who should pay is that it should be the criminal, if he is caught. Other than that, all we know is that he didn't want a state law tying the cities' hands. What we ''do'' know, without any doubt, is that there was no controversy over Wasilla doing this, because its name didn't come up once at the hearings. Knowles's claim to the contrary is exposed as false, and doesn't belong anywhere except perhaps in a section on his biography about his credibility. -- [[User:Zsero|Zsero]] ([[User talk:Zsero|talk]]) 21:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::Your claim that "For all we know, that was the first time he'd heard of it, and thought it wasn't a bad idea, and it shouldn't be banned." is proven unlikely by his statement on <ref name="Front">{{cite web| last = Goode| first = Jo| title = Knowles signs sexual assault bill| publisher = The Frontiersman| date = 2000-05-22| url = http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt| accessdate = 2008-10-06}}</ref> and <ref>[http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/52266.html "Alaska Mythbusters" forum] McClatchy DC</ref> that "In the past we've charged the cost of exams to the victim's insurance company when possible. I just don't want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer". Is this the answer of an incompetent pretending that he wasn't oblivious to the billing policy of his Police Dept by using "we"? Or was he aware of it, and speaking as the person in charge, whose police dept. charged?<br>
::You appear to be under a complete misapprehension, that Knowles claimed the hearings mentioned Wasilla directly. I believe you are confusing that with his claim that Wasilla was the only police dept. to charge. The evidence to the contrary of his claim on [[Mayoralty of Sarah Palin]] is only inference, not proof as described above, or to save searching, on diffs [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASarah_Palin&diff=243713255&oldid=243710471]] and
[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASarah_Palin&diff=243580098&oldid=243579125]]. Furthermore, should such a mistake have been made, it does not affect his considerable ability, as governor of the state at the time of the kit charges, and one leading the legislation against them, to critique the practice. Finally, please verify your claims, without verification, I have taken them too seriously already. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 23:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::: I don't know what he meant by "in the past" or by "we"; maybe he was speaking of cities in general, or maybe he never bothered to check what the actual policy was, but instead gave his reaction to the proposed legislation requiring cities to pay for the kits. Or maybe, yes, Wasilla really did bill insurance companies, and he was aware of it. That still leaves no evidence that the practise had anything to do with him, let alone with Palin. What remains a complete fabrication is that the state law was prompted by outrage at Wasilla; if that were the case, it would have been mentioned at the hearings. ''That'' is the purpose for which Knowles is quoted, and it's clearly not true. If Wasilla did in fact have such a policy it provoked no outrage at all, and the state legislation was not a consequence of anything to do with it. -- [[User:Zsero|Zsero]] ([[User talk:Zsero|talk]]) 23:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

===Reversion===
KC, I really must take issue with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=243747066&oldid=243746273 this revert] of yours. You wrote in the edit summary: "Strong arguments exist for keeping; and most editors seem to lean this way."

Since this is basically new material in the article (inserted yesterday by Jimmuldrow), that means it should be included only with consensus. It doesn't seem right for one editor to put it in and then demand consensus to remove. See [[WP:BRD]]. You seem to instead be employing [[WP:BRRR]].

In any event, most editors do not lean the way you say. According to the views expressed at this talk page, you, Anarchangel, Jimmuldrow, and JamesMLane support inclusion. That's four editors for inclusion. On the other hand, the following editors do not believe this merits inclusion in this summary article: Collect, Ferrylodge, Buster7, Zsero, Paul, and Tom. That's six editors. Six seems more than four, to me.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 22:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:Not a vote, as you well know. What is your reason for not including? [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 22:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect has given no reason that I've seen for removal. Zsero seems to be arguing that unless Fannin admitted something (unclear), it should be removed. Etc. This makes no sense. Seriously, if you have a rationale, people, state it. Don't toss straw men out. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 22:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:The material is not relevant to the article on Palin. Thanks for making me state it once more. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 22:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::As you know, I have explained my rationale above, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASarah_Palin&diff=243687242&oldid=243684242 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASarah_Palin&diff=243718011&oldid=243713255 here], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASarah_Palin&diff=243750860&oldid=243749837 here]. You seem to be following [[WP:BRRR]] to a tee. Well done, KC, it's just like old times.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 22:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:::The first is a very long post with no clear postion, the second rambles on about Croft and whether I think the issue is worth including even if no one paid, etc. etc. Please attempt to do what you have not yet done, which is to state clearly and concisely your rationale for exclusion. Also learn to count. I've made one edit to this article today, which is my very first to this section - and my first since the only other day I edited here, Oct 1 - certainly NOT BRRR. I guess it ''is'' like old times - you miscounted then, too. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 22:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Well, maybe we can avoid descending into the pit here. Obviously, you are not the only one who has revert-warred this material back into the article today, but let's let bygones be bygones. You obviously feel strongly about this, and that does count for something I suppose (even if you're trampling on wikipolicies to express your strong feelings). [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&oldid=243754613#First_term The way it is now in the article may be something I could live with.] You've mischaracterized my comments above (e.g. my statement that "I was on the fence about this, but now think it should not go in this article" is not an unclear position), but so be it.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 22:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Oh, its a clear position - it just has no clear rationale attached. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 22:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Well, I hope my reasons are clear. It does not pass [[WP:V]], [[WP:RS]], or [[WP:UNDUE]], besides the fact that it a transparent tissue of lies woven into a fabric of insinuation having nothing to do with Palin.--[[User:Paul.h|Paul]] ([[User talk:Paul.h|talk]]) 23:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Definitely passes V and RS, CNN and USA Today? Puh-leeze, you must be joking. Undue you have an argument with, altho clearly I do not agree. I think it merits mention, but not a novel. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 23:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::::I also oppose inclusion of this. Its intent is obvious on its face (to paint Palin as some bogeyman who sides with rapists), yet it has absolutely no merit in that implication. Even if all the "what ifs" were true about Fannon, and even if women or insurers *were* charged for the kits, there is absolutely no reliable source that says Palin did know or *should* have even known anything about this policy (to any extent more than, say, how often a policeman must test-fire a weapon, detailed booking procedures, etc.) This is pure partisan nonsense and has nothing to do with Palin. [[User:Fcreid|Fcreid]] ([[User talk:Fcreid|talk]]) 22:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::::I'm not going to repeat all of the clear rationales that I already provided. :-)[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 22:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::It quite appears we are in the substantial majority on this. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 22:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::I oppose inclusion per the comment of Fcreid above as well as the rationale provided by Ferrylodge. Also support that material that was once deleted ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=243746273&oldid=243743716]) is not undeleted or restored, until consensus is reached for inclusion, per the rules regarding the [[Wikipedia:Blp#Restoring_deleted_content|undeletion or restoration of disputed material]] in biographies.[[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] ([[User talk:Hobartimus|talk]]) 23:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Three thoughts...1) someone above said there was a single rape in Wasilla during Palin's term in office. Who paid for that single rape kit?....2)-alot of mention of Insurance Companies being billed but not a single mention of the bill being PAID by the Insurance Co. What do Wasilla's books show?....3)PreMarital Sex..yes/no....Rape kits..who pays....elope to marry, elope only, marry only. Would these be issues if it was Sam Palin running for VP? Are we focussed on these female issues because the candidate is a Woman? Just asking.--[[User:Buster7|Buster7]] ([[User talk:Buster7|talk]]) 23:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::http://www.disastercenter.com/alaska/crime/35.htm shows an average of perhaps one rape per annum in Wasilla ("attempted rapes" not counted, but they wouldn't relate to this issue anyway). I hope this factual information helps. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 23:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Collect, Thanks for the info, but it shows '''MORE than one rape''' per annum from 2000 to 2005. There were 10 rapes during this period. --[[User:Buster7|Buster7]] ([[User talk:Buster7|talk]]) 05:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Yuo may find [http://www.cityofwasilla.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=544 this link] interesting. It gives the response of the current mayor of Wasilla.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 23:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Folks, what do you think of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&oldid=243754613#First_term the way it is now] in the article? Please remember that we want to minimize drama and maximize happy campers.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 23:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:Any mention is more than this merits, but given that Palin was directly asked about the policy and made an associated statement, I would say it summarizes that well. [[User:Fcreid|Fcreid]] ([[User talk:Fcreid|talk]]) 23:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::I liked the older (much) version with two sentences -will find a link later if you dunno which I'm talking about - but approve the Palin sentence which has been added. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 23:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I have no problem with including Palin's statement from the ''Frontiersman'' interview, but you'll note that she doesn't actually answer the question she was asked. The concluding language of the question was:
:::<blockquote>During your tenure as Mayor, what was the police department and city’s standard operating procedure in recovering costs of rape kits? Were any sexual assault victims ever charged for this testing while you were mayor?</blockquote>
:::Her entire answer is:
:::<blockquote>The entire notion of making a victim of a crime pay for anything is crazy. I do not believe, nor have I ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test. As governor, I worked in a variety of ways to tackle the problem of sexual assault and rape, including making domestic violence a priority of my administration.</blockquote>
:::Thus, she articulates a general policy view, completely ducks the question about what happened while she was Mayor, and tacks on a reference to her actions as Governor, thus bravely standing up to the pro-sexual-assault lobby.

:::Now, in the limited space of the bio article I don't think we can include the above analysis, although it would be enlightening to the reader. Nevertheless, our current text leaves the impression that Fannon was simply a loose cannon who was popping off about something, and then gives Palin's position, leaving a clear impression that Palin had overruled Fannon. That goes well beyond the evidence. If we're including Palin's self-serving statement about her general position, then we should also include the ''USA Today'' report that Palin's spokeswoman wouldn't go as far as the implication of our current text. This declining to comment as of September 10 isn't superseded by the ''Frontiersman'' interview because Palin still didn't comment. I'll add the ''USA Today'' information to balance the Palin quotation that is included. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]]<small>&nbsp;[[User_talk:JamesMLane|t]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/JamesMLane|c]]</small> 05:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have just a few minutes and then I'll be off at least until after the debate, possibly longer, so I'll answer just one person for now. '''Fcreid''': Well, duh, of course its supposed to make Palin look bad. Just like her "palling around with a terrorist" was supposed to make Obama look bad, and that is in this article, and almost cerainly in Obama's as well (I don't have time to check right now.) Its how campaigning sometimes works. You say nice things about your candidate(s) and bad things about the opposing candidat(s). I fail to see how your outrage at the obvious is helping us here. The issue has received a good bit of press, very high profile press too, and this is why it should be included. It should be '''brief''' and '''clear''', specifically making it clear that Palin's only connection is that she appointed Fnnin. Otherwise people will hear "Paln + rape kit + blah blah" and check here and find nothing. Please clarify '''why''' you feel this should be excluded, and try to find something more weighty than "oh, its not flattering, they're trying to smear Palin" because I assure you if we lave that kind of thing out half the political articles we have will be trimmed a good deal. I will post more later, thanks for your patience. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 23:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:My response is simple. This isn't a campaign article. It's her biography. I have no objection to throwing whatever muck you wish into the campaign articles, but I object to its inclusion here as irrelevant (whatever WP policy best serves that, perhaps notability). [[User:Fcreid|Fcreid]] ([[User talk:Fcreid|talk]]) 23:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::Oh, and I do object to including her shots across Obama's bow being in here also, but at least those are things that are attributable to her. This isn't a collection basket for anything good or bad said about her, no matter how unfounded, untrue or irrelevant. [[User:Fcreid|Fcreid]] ([[User talk:Fcreid|talk]]) 23:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::: I object to any mention of the issue, since it has nothing to do with her. All we know is that the ''only'' reaction of hers that we know about is her rejecting the concept. Did Wasilla have such a policy while she was mayor? None of us know that. We therefore can't know what she may have thought of such a policy at the time. The whole thing is a blood libel, exactly like the Trig-is-her-grandson libel and a dozen other such libels that have been doing the rounds since her nomination. It deserves no mention whatsoever.
::: Oh, and did you hear the latest? She's Jewish! Because her grandparents' name was Sheeran, and some Nazi site found records of a family name Sheingen living in Lithuania, and decided that these must be the same people who changed their name! I suppose we should mention that too! -- [[User:Zsero|Zsero]] ([[User talk:Zsero|talk]]) 23:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::: I agree that the "palling around with a terrorist" shouldn't be in this article, because it's not remarkable that a VP candidate would attack the opposing presidential candidate with one of his most obvious vulnerabilities. That's her job. This is not new; Steve Diamond and Stanley Kurtz have been documenting for months how close Obama and Ayers were, and it would be strange for a VP candidate ''not'' to use this. -- [[User:Zsero|Zsero]] ([[User talk:Zsero|talk]]) 00:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
::::One reason her comment miht be significant is that it is one of a few comments that indicate that, contrary to an earlier pledge, the McCain campaign is going negative. It is also significant because she herself has palled around with terrorists. But the only really important proof that it is significant is that it has garnered considerable news coverage. We should summarize it because it has become a significant part of the campaign.

::::The claim that this is what veep candidates are supposed to do may be true. the claim that this is a reason ''not'' to include it is inane. We may as well say, "Since it is McCain's job to run for presidenct, the article on him should make no mention of his campaign," or "since it was Einstein's job to be a physicist, the article on him should not mention any physics." Really. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 00:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

::::: First of all, what pledge not to go negative? When did McCain make such a pledge, and what has it got to do with Palin? Second, '''huh?''' Palin has palled around with terrorists? When, exactly? What on earth are you talking about? -- [[User:Zsero|Zsero]] ([[User talk:Zsero|talk]]) 07:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::I agree with Slrubenstein's general point, but including one particular shot at Obama doesn't convey to the reader that Palin is fulfilling the traditional "attack dog" role. It's both too much and too little information. What about removing that specific blast and replacing it with a general observation from a reliable source that Palin has been giving more emphasis to attacking Obama? [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]]<small>&nbsp;[[User_talk:JamesMLane|t]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/JamesMLane|c]]</small> 05:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::'''Addendum''': After writing the above, I decided to spend the extra time to find the hypothetical "general observation from a reliable source". I've written a proposed replacement passage, presented below in [[#Ayers, Obama, & NY Times]]. Let's have further discussion there, instead of in this thread about rape kits. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]]<small>&nbsp;[[User_talk:JamesMLane|t]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/JamesMLane|c]]</small> 06:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

== Bridge Again: Does Palin's Position on the Bridge Matter? I say Yes. ==

An editor has requested deletion of all of Palin's quotations in support of the bridge. This editor admits the quotations are accurate and not taken out of context, but he wants to nonetheless remove them and put them in the subarticle. However, he wants to leave in all of Palin's quotations in opposition to the bridge. I say leave the quotations alone. I believe Palin's direct and brief quotations in support of the Bridge to Nowhere belongs in a Bridge to Nowhere section in her biography, just as her brief quotations cancelling the bridge do as well. Do I have support?[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 02:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::Oh come on. Consider the following Palin quote: Congress had "little interest in spending any more money" due to "inaccurate portrayals of the projects". She's blasting Congress for not funding the bridges. That is hardly a quotation in "oppositon" to the bridge. But I would be glad to remove it from the article if you would like.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 02:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I want both sides represented. I don't want to remove either side. Soon, if we remove one side and then the other, there's no article left. All of Palin's quotations are accurate, in context, and in summary form, and belong in the article. [[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 02:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:How better do we explain Palin's opinion on the bridge than through quotations? What a lousy argument. '''[[User:Grsz11|<font color="black">Grsz</font>]][[User talk:Grsz11|<b><font color="red"><sup>X</sup></font></b>]]''' 02:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Grsz, what do you think of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin#Revised_draft_by_Ferrylodge the edits I made]? The section seemed to be way too long, and so I tried to write a better summary of the bridge material in the sub-article [[Governorship of Sarah Palin]].[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 02:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::::If you think it's too long, Ferrylodge, you know I was working with you to cut length without cutting content, to cut fat without removing bone. I cut it from 22 lines to 15 lines without removing any content except repetition. Can we please work together to put this in summary style WITHOUT removing content? Once we do that, if you still think it's too long, you can ask for consensus to remove content. But to remove Palin's position on the bridges is to remove the very heart and most important part of this section.[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 02:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I don't agree that Palin's position about the bridges has been removed:

<blockquote>Two proposed bridges were supported by Palin in her 2006 Gubernatorial campaign....Ultimately, Palin cancelled one of the bridges....Palin said in Ketchikan that the Gravina Island Bridge was essential for prosperity, but later cancelled the bridge....Palin ran for governor with a "build-the-bridge" plank in her platform.[97] However, in September 2007, Palin cancelled the Gravina Island Bridge .... she continued to support the Knik Arm project.</blockquote>

What position is missing here?[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 02:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::I have consistently told you I don't agree to remove her quotations. [[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 02:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I'm done for the night. I gather that you will not answer my very simple question above: "What position is missing here?" And your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=243577558&oldid=243572125 most recent edit] seems to be in bad faith, in that you not only inserted some quotations, but also made dozens and dozens of other changes.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 02:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::::<del>All I did was revert to the old version that was there before you made the changes. I figured that was "more fair" than putting in my own summary version.</del> (Oops. I reverted to wrong version. I meant to go back to old consensus and I messed up and went to some other version. Thank you, Grz, for fixing this.) But I'm still willing to work with you to cut fat (repetitiveness) and not bone (content).[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 03:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::It's not just that she supported the bridge and then cancelled it. It's the nature of her support, why she supported and why she cancelled it, that matters. And who better to give her reasons than Palin herself? If you thought any of the quotes were inaccurate or out of context, that would be another matter.[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 03:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::Utterly unacceptable. The quotes quite obviously belong in both articles. The subject was deemed important enough to be in her acceptance speech; all of her opinions are relevant. And then there is the tiny little matter of it being a flip-flop and the acceptance speech being a prevarication at best, of which the quotes are evidence. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 03:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::Yes, by all means let's not paraphrase. We must have direct quotes to build our airtight case against her.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 03:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I've restored the bridge section of earlier today, but including the material that you felt is indispensable: "She said that she would 'not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project ... into something that's so negative,' and she urged speedy work on building infrastructure 'while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.'" To my mind, this stuff does not really provide any significant information and should not be part of a brief summary of the sub-article, but there you go.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 04:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:I completely agree with GreekParadise's answer to your "very simple question" about what's omitted. It's not sufficient to say that on one day she supported the bridge and on another day she opposed it. As a result of her own speeches this year, her position on the bridge has gotten more attention than anything else in her career. Therefore, instead of just saying that she changed her position, we provide a summary of her explanation for the change. The best way to do that is to quote her own public explanations of her reasoning in 2006 and 2007. If those verbatim quotations contribute to building a "case against her", it's only because some readers will see a discrepancy between what positions she took then and how she now characterizes her record. I trust you will agree that the possible utility of a particular fact for campaign purposes, whehter pro- or anti-Palin, is no reason to expunge that fact from the article. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]]<small>&nbsp;[[User_talk:JamesMLane|t]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/JamesMLane|c]]</small> 08:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Ferrylodge's changes to bridge article highlighted for discussion'''

:Ferrylodge and I have had a long discussion on the bridge section above. Unfortunately, despite his comment in the history section ("This should be universally acceptable"), he knows well that I do <b>not</b> consider some of his many changes to be non-controversial. Some of these changes I support and some I don't. I respectfully suggest it would have been better if Ferrylodge had come here on the talk page to make clear exactly what content he was deleting prior to making all the changes he just did, not just for me but for other editors as well who may or may not agree with him or with me. Again, I have no problem with consolidating and summary style, but I think we should lay out exactly what content was changed. And since Ferrylodge has not clearly laid out what he did separately from our long discussion above, I will do so now. I apologize for the length of this but FL made many changes.[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 06:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::1) FL added this line "after Congress had already provided hundreds of millions of dollars in transportation funds" in the first sentence. I consider this line redundant and therefore unnecessary and it obviously makes the article longer rather than being a summary, but I will leave it in and see what others think. If no one else minds, he has my acquiescence.

::2) FL took out the word "ominibus" on the Congressional spending bill. An editor named Duuude07 thought that was a tremendously important addition as it showed Congress was overlooking the earmark and he and I and several others agreed on this language weeks ago. Ferrylodge and I have never discussed this precise point. I will restore it.

::3) FL took out cost of Knik Arm: $600 million. I'm neutral on this. I won't add this back again but some editor may want to. I flag the change.

::4) FL removed: "A McCain-Palin spokesperson said that "because the contract for the road was already signed before she got into office, the governor was left no viable alternative."[112] The Alaska Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration state that the contract could have been cancelled at minimal cost and that the federal money could have been returned to Congress for other uses.[113]" I prefer to summarize this rather than delete it entirely, but I will not make the change back. FL has removed both sides of the controversy so there's no POV problem. I'll leave that to another editor to restore if he/she wishes.

::5) FL removed one of the four quotations: "She criticized the use of the word "nowhere" as insulting to local residents[97][106]" Perhaps this was inadvertent. But it seemed to me the clear thrust of the discussion above was <b>not</b> to remove Palin's quotations on the bridge. As FL, based on that discussion, restored the other three quotations. I will restore this one.[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 06:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I suspect FL will be OK with the five sections above. I will acquiesce in 1, 3, and 4. I'm not endorsing the changes, but neither will I fight them. I will let it go to see what others think. On 2 (small change we never discussed) and 5 (consensus above to include Palin quote on bridge; deletion may have been inadvertent), I will restore[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 06:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::6) And finally, Don Young's Way. This one FL knew I wouldn't like. This one we've been round and back several times. More than a dozen wikieditors have commented on it, on both sides. I believe more support inclusion than removal, but I recognize there are opinions on both sides. A few days ago, I asked FL for arbitration on this. He went to the BLP noticeboard and there was substantial support for including the brief parenthetical mention I wish to include.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Sarah_Palin] FL knew this wasn't "universally acceptable" to delete. I will restore it.[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 06:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In sum, I hope the only controversial thing I'm doing is restoring a brief parenthetical mention of 6 (Don Young's Way -- the oft-reported name of the Knik Arm Bridge) based on the long discussions we have already had, the many editors who support it, and the BLP noticeboard. I know FL and I strongly disagree on DYW. I propose we submit it to arbitration or mediation. I know that at least a half dozen, perhaps even a dozen wiki-editors think it should be included and it doesn't take up much space: in fact, the brief parenthetical is shorter than 1), the part FL added to the first sentence. I have many reasons for including it that I've laid out in the past but I won't do so here just yet. As I suspect we're going to have a long back and forth on DYW, I suggest we begin a whole new section on it, with FL's reasons for deletion and my arguments for including it. It might help if folks read the discussion on the BLP noticeboard where everyone at least appears to agree it's not a BLP issue. And then I think FL and I should both wait to see what others think.[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 06:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have also tightened the section and removed a paragraph break by moving the picture down, all in an effort to reduce the length of the section without deleting content. It is my profound hope and prayer that FL and others will agree to the summary article as he and I have now revised it, with only one final point of contention being whether to briefly mention Don Young's Way, the official name of the Knik Arm Bridge, in the article.[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 06:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::It would have been better if I'd come to the talk page to make clear exactly what I was doing? Oh, please. I explained everything in minute detail days ago, as you know very very well. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin#Revised_draft_by_Ferrylodge above]. And this has all been explained and talked to death already.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 06:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I'm hopeful, with the possible exception of Don Young's Way, that you and I and many others have together created a bridge section that we both can support and that will be stable into the future. I appreciate your work on this, Ferrylodge, and I think we've arrived at a good compromise. I hope others agree.[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 14:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== MASSIVE text deletion ==

This is one of those [[WP:WTF]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=243572125&oldid=243570286 moments]. [[User:QuackGuru|<span style="border:solid #408 1px;padding:1px"><span style='color:#20A;'>Q</span><span style='color:#069;'>ua</span><span style='color:#096;'>ck</span><span style='color:#690;'>Gu</span><span style='color:#940;'>ru</span></span>]] 02:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::Look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=243570286&oldid=243565136 immediately two preceding edits], during which all of that material was suddenly added. Also, see the extensive discussions above about this.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 02:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:::The bridge section has been returned (by Grz) to its prior consensus state. I had meant to do that but apparently chose the wrong version. It was my error and Grz thankfully fixed it. We have disagreements on the bridge, but that particular version I briefly and wrongly added didn't belong there. It's fixed now. I can't speak for the rape kit section.[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 03:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::::I've restored the bridge section of earlier today, but including the material that you felt is indispensable: "She said that she would 'not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project ... into something that's so negative,' and she urged speedy work on building infrastructure 'while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.'" To my mind, this stuff does not really provide any significant information and should not be part of a brief summary of the sub-article, but there you go.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 04:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== genealogy ==

Somehow I don't think Palin's detailed family tree for umpteen generations is an important reference. The simple statement that her father was descended from English and German stock does not really require a family tree, does it? It is neither a matter of dispute nor controversy, but the family tree may be inaccurate in itself, not to mention a splendid example of "reference overkill". Is it really needed? [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 12:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:This is the English language version Wikipedia, so yes, her paternal ancestry does need to be mentioned. Ottre 12:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::This is not Ancestry.com so complete genealogies going back many generations are not appropriate, except perhaps for political dynasties which show influential/rich/powerful ancestors in each generation of a family. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 13:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Amazingly enough, my opinion. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 13:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I agree with Collect and Edison. Ottre's comment is a non-sequito. There is no rule that in the English-language Wikipedia (as opposed to other language WIkipedias?) "paternal ancestry" is especially significant. If the story of how her family came to America or to Alaska is an important part of her political biography - if her campaign is making it an issue - then it should go int he article. Otherwise, not. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 13:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Ought just the reference be removed? I can find absolutely no campaign reference to it as an issue for sure. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 13:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::I don't see any harm in keeping it. It's just one sentence, and some people are interested in that sort of thing. [[User:Coemgenus|Coemgenus]] 14:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Then just the family tree reference departs this vale of tears? Ought her mother's Irish ancestry be added if the father's is noted? [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 15:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Both sides ought to be noted, briefly, and the citation retained (since it's the source for that information.) [[User:Coemgenus|Coemgenus]] 16:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::The family tree does not state, other than by inference, much about Palin's lineage, and definitely is not the type of reference found inthe other articles on candidates. If it were common to have such a reference, your point might be stronger. It isn't and isn't. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 16:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Biden's article links to that very site, and McCain's and Obama's used to, until better sources were found. [[User:Coemgenus|Coemgenus]] 16:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::Then find the better source ... seems simple. The current sentence about ancestry seems ample to me. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 16:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::I'm content to let it stand without a source, but since I'm not the one who deleted it, it's not my job to find a better one. [[User:Coemgenus|Coemgenus]] 16:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Wasilla Anchorage distance ==

A reference to the "City of Wasilla History" was used as a source for the distance. Alas, that fact is not in that cite at all. I did find a superior cite for the distance, which is now referenced. It is an entirely apolitical fact as far as I can tell. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 16:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Governor's Offical Portrait ==

I talked with the Press Secretary to the Governor's Office yesterday. They are not releasing any photos to the media, (Wikipedia included), at this time, on the grounds that it may be viewed as a campaign contribution. Sorry everybody, I tried. Maybe after the election?

I also checked at the local campaign office, and all I got was a lousy bumper sticker :-) , (and no offers for a job :-( , sorry to burst everybody's bubble). I'll check around with the locals here and see if I can come up with something better.[[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 17:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:Had to lol @ the pretzel logic excuse for not releasing photos. See <ref> [http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=186010 accessed 2008-10-7] </ref> for a 'fake news' story on Palin handlers' blacking out news releases and any info about Palin.

::With so many photos already does the article need more? [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 23:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Yes, we always need more photos! IP75 [[Special:Contributions/75.25.28.167|75.25.28.167]] ([[User talk:75.25.28.167|talk]]) 00:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

== Ayers, Obama, & NY Times ==

Since we've had a couple of reverts on this, we should really get the wording of the Palin attack on Obama in regards to his "relationship" with Bill Ayers nailed down... As far as whether or not Palin was referencing the NY Times article, when someone begins their talking point with "I was reading the NY Times today...." it's generally summarized as referring to the article... If we are going to be sourcing her specific speech on October 4, I'm not sure how we can say she was not referring to the article. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 05:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Current wording clearly states the facts without partisanship.--[[User:Buster7|Buster7]] ([[User talk:Buster7|talk]]) 05:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

:Obviously, I agree. <strong>[[User:Tvoz|Tvoz]]</strong>/<small>[[User talk:Tvoz|talk]]</small> 06:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

::I agree that the current wording is NPOV. The problem is that it picks up one particular Palin attack against Obama. The more important information, for the Palin bio, is that she's been moving to the traditional VP candidate role of "attack dog". Instead of quoting a specific attack, we should note that general point. I propose removing the current paragraph and replacing it with:
::<blockquote>Upon returning to the campaign trail after her debate preparation, Palin stepped up her attacks on the Democratic candidate for President, Senator [[Barack Obama]]. At a fundraising event, Palin explained her new aggressiveness, saying, "There does come a time when you have to take the gloves off and that time is right now."<ref>{{cite web| last = Johnston | first = Nicholas| title = Palin Takes `Gloves Off' Against Obama, Fills Attack-Dog Role| publisher = [[Yahoo! News]]| date = October 6, 2008 | url = http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20081006/pl_bloomberg/aj7yeq09er4q_1| accessdate = 2008-10-08}}</ref></blockquote>
::This cites a reliable source (Bloomberg News) for the general point, and gives Palin's explanation in her own words. This is more informative about Palin than is her specific blast about "terrorists", which isn't unique to her and merely echoes a general Republican talking point. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]]<small>&nbsp;[[User_talk:JamesMLane|t]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/JamesMLane|c]]</small> 06:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

== Aerial Hunting ==
Why no mention of it ? Let your barbarism shine on through....
[[User:Abraxas72|Abraxas72]] ([[User talk:Abraxas72|talk]]) 07:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

: It's mentioned in the article on her governorship. It's not nearly significant enough to merit mention in the main article. Your opinion that it's barbaric is your opinion, not a generally accepted fact. The majority of Alaskans disagree with you. -- [[User:Zsero|Zsero]] ([[User talk:Zsero|talk]]) 07:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


== Citations ==
Please Edit ^^above this section^^
{{reflist}} < This template is used by the page code to display editor's citations. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 23:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Please Edit ^^above this section^^

Revision as of 13:16, 13 October 2008

About Me

I am Archangel. I'm here to help you. I was born in 1994, educated at Harved.

Interests

I'm a fan of sci-fi, especially Torchwood, Doctor Who, Babalon 5gate and Star Trek fiction. I play [Runescape, watch Football, and sometimes update my website.

Useful links

Vandalism templates

Subpages

Images I have uploaded

Wikimedia Commons

Commons:User:Mattbuck/Gallery

Non-free use images

Wikilife

2007-09-19

Banned from Wikipedia for 24hrs by Spartaz for WP:3RR violation.

2007-10-03

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I'm awarding you this RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your great contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on Wikipedia. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

2008-02-05

The E=mc² Barnstar
Thanks for answering my math question about equivalent fractions, and my math question about Top ten lists!

Ye Olde Luke 05:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

2008-04-30

Became a trusted user and Flickr reviewer on the Wikimedia Commons.

2008-05-26

Became an administrator on the Wikimedia Commons. (RfA)

2008-07-09

Mentioned in the Feedback section of New Scientist magazine - Meanwhile, Matt Buck directs us to two Wikipedia pages on the subject. One, accessed via List of unusual units of measurement, attempts to give you a handle on such "units" as double-decker buses and football fields, while the other, available via List of humorous units of measurement, details units like the helen. This is the amount of beauty required to launch a thousand ships - so a millihelen is the beauty required to launch one ship.

2008-07-16

My photo, Image:FR-BlaenauStn.JPG is promoted to Quality Image status.

2008-08-19

The Barnstar of Good Humor
What was that? "...and, of course, the washing machine"? Ahahahahaha... Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Palin&oldid=244983438"