Talk:Sarah Palin

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

NPR reports on the gush of flattering edits by User:Young_Trigg

Trigg is a variant spelling of the name of her four month old son. National Public Radio report (link to audio). Hurmata (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This should be listed under controversies, once the controversies section is restored and the offending editors are dealt with. Get on it, Wikipedia, this is a developing story, and people are turning to the site for an encyclopedic bio, not a public relations piece. 72.244.207.149 (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't do "controversies" sections. I saw a lot of Young Trigg's edits gogin up, and they looked ok to me, and sourced to boot. Coemgenus 17:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a list of thousands of Wikipedia articles with Controversies sections.[1] Is there a policy against Controversies sections? They're quite useful. 72.244.207.149 (talk) 07:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no policy against controversies sections. Yes we do "do" controversies sections, if they are warranted. I would say making the New York Times makes this warranted.Wjhonson (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This page is filled with falsehoods attempting to cover-up the cover-up on Trig: it needs to be re-opened and edited. Trigg was born twenty two (22) hours after Palin alleges her water broke while on the podium in Texas. She then finished her speech (according to her, another 30 minutes) then travelled to the aiport and boarded a 9 hour flight to Alaska. Once there, she drove another 45 minutes to an hour to Wasilla. This is so wrong in so many ways. But it only gets completely nutty when you realize that she was 36 weeks into the pregnancy. Trigg was due in May, not April. A four-week-early baby and his mother must be seen immediately: when the water breaks the situation is urgent. The article seriously misinforms people by stating the baby was born "seven hours" after the speech. In fact it was at least 22 hours and after a long commercial flight with a stopover in Phoenix. When you are four weeks early and your water breaks, it is an emergency. You would never travel, and it would be illegal to do so, for at least 16 hours before being seen by a single medical professional.

Lol, it's hard to tell what you are least proficient with - pregnancies, the law, or airline policies. Go look at the reporting. "Cover-up", kek. I just had a look on the reporting on this, and the current wiki summary seems balanced and lets people draw their own conclusions (it currently says "Palin's announcement in March 2008 that she was seven months pregnant generated publicity and surprise, as did the circumstances of Trig's birth. More than a month before the baby was due, she was about to deliver the keynote address at a conference in Texas when she began leaking amniotic fluid. She delivered the speech before flying back to Alaska, giving birth seven hours after her return at the Mat-Su Valley Regional Medical Center. Palin returned to work three days later."). If anything, and I'm not terribly impressed with the VP choice (it strikes me as highly tactical to steal Hillary voters, and that's no way to run an empire), I'd say the current formulation is a little overly critical (and personal). If we want women to hold high office and be moms at the same time, how about cutting them some slack? And maybe not discuss details of to what degree and when their water broke? --Psm (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Biased writing

This article is extremely biased. It needs to be thoroughly edited by someone with real editorial experience. VP nominee Biden's article is completely different than Palin's: it contains no discussion about why he chose his children's names, the length of time between marriage and birth of a first child, etc. This type of information is irrelevant to this article and serves only as a distraction.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.72.101.91 (talk • contribs)

Biden has been talked about for the last 30 years, Palin was just a city-council woman just a couple days ago. Lakerking04 (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Lakerking04 comment is factually ridiculous as Palin is a governor of a $6.6B annual budget, 25,000 employees and 600,000 citizens, not a city council woman.

2. I agree that this article is ridiculously biased, mentioning details promoted and then later retracted by a partisan media personality (Alan Colmes) to suggest that Sarah's DS child is somehow due to amniotic seepage, (a medical impossibility) and a 5 month pregnant Bristol to refute a totally unsubstantiated slander perpetuated by Leftist propagandists because some dubious newspaper informed it's readers that Leftist propagandists were spreading another medical/biological impossibility fueled slur on a non-public person (libel).

3. Compare with how long it took the editor of the John Edwards page to permit mentioning the well documented fact that he had an affair with a staffer who he put up in a house with campaign funds. --98.221.28.244 (talk) 05:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

4. "Johnston, a high school hockey player, had previously expressed his hesitance saying "I don’t want kids" via his MySpace page.[152]" What does a 17 year old's MySpace page have to do with the Republican Vice Presidential nominee? (Of course a 17 year old doesn't want kids.) This is clearly a dig. Someone with editing powers should take this out. Oldwords (talk)

Biased Editing of So-Called Biased Article

I heard one of the so-called 'anti-bias' critics of this page being interviewed a few days ago on National Public Radio. He was a flaming Leftist! His concern about bias was just about as honest as a used car salesman closing deals.

What he really wanted to do was impose HIS OWN bias on this article...

67.40.136.109 (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Time to split out a Reaction article?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PLEASE NOTE -->> Pregnancy Talk <<--

NOTE TO NEW EDITORS: This section is not regarding the 9/1/08 fact of Bristol Palin's pregnancy, but an (earlier) unfounded internet rumor Proofreader77 (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

For those wanting to add anything about Sarah Palin being pregnant, unless you can provide reliable, verifiable sources via WP:RS, they will be deleted per WP:BLP. --kizzle (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The Times Online mentioned it but also called it "totally unfounded".[2] So unless they want to write that she's the victim of a totally unfounded rumor spread by them (which she is), they're still out of luck. A.J.A. (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:WELLKNOWN: In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

I think this means we wait for at least one more reliable source, then we go with it. Palin will either admit it or come out with a statement denying it. She'll be forced to do one or the other. If it gathers enough steam (publicity), we won't be doing any good at that point by keeping it out. Much as it disgusts me, at that point I'd have to support inclusion. -- Noroton (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)minor wording change -- Noroton (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we do go with it, but what we go with is what reliable sources are saying. If the reliable sources say the rumor is baseless, then we say it's baseless and nothing more. And maybe not even that, depending on how big a factor it actually is. A.J.A. (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with all that. -- Noroton (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Presently, the reliable sources are saying that there is an internet rumour regarding the last pregnancy - there is no mention of what that rumour entails. Placing a note that there is a rumour, per source, in the article does not bring any edification for the reader - and might persuade them to go looking for it. It would be easiest to wait for an official response if any, or a very reliable source discussing the content. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, her daughter is not a public figure. Her daughter is also a minor. Due to these two aspects we should respect her privacy, and edit with conservatism in mind. Unless this becomes a major news story we shouldn't mention it. Sleeping frog (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC) For now, I won't add anything, but the Daily Kos article compiled on the subject gives plenty of solid evidence worth looking into, and I'm sure someone in the MSM will pick up on this soon enough.--MegaKN (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Daily Kos is a paragon of neutral independent journalism. Kelly ^hi! 03:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If anyone would like to see an extensive similar history, also involving an internet rumor not yet reported in the sourceable media, look at the talk page at Troy King, about the Alabama attorney general. There's some excellent discussion there of the applicable Wiki standards - even if some of it is mine. There's also some discussion of the contrary view that widely circulated internet material should be included, as long as it's so identified. For now, this item doesn't appear to belong. FWIW, I happen to have a friend in the MSM who tells me they are looking into it, but will not run it until someone says something on the record. Stay tuned. When that happens, my vote goes for inclusion. And on a semi-related topic, I did see one blog comment saying, in essence, that (assuming the rumor proves untrue) she showed poor judgment by taking an 8 hour plane trip after her water broke. If this story causes that issue to emerge, I think that's includable, too.Audemus Defendere (talk) 05:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop removing this section

The only thing that is being accomplished by removing this section is to make people think we havent heard of it before. Then they go back and add it in. Please keep this thread so they understand WHY it is removed. --mboverload@ 21:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Kizzle also did a good job of pointing out the BLP problem from the get-go. Cool Hand Luke 21:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. -- Noroton (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

LET IT BE NOTED: Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion of (in the words of the article above) "utterly unfounded internet rumours." The details of "totally unfounded internet rumors" will not be enumerated here. Debate about why a particular fact is a "totally unfounded internet rumor" shall not be examined here. All such comments shall be deleted. (That is my understanding.) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well-said. Cool Hand Luke 21:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. But if it's being discussed in WP:RS, we CAN and will be allowed to discuss it here. rootology (C)(T) 21:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, RS is the threshold question. Speculating about how some hypothetical claim would be an abuse of public funds if true, for example, is the kind of chat that will be removed with prejudice under WP:FORUM and WP:BLP. We must follow reliable sources, but we must not report allegations they do not stand by. Cool Hand Luke 22:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

We can, however, mention that a reliable published source has found something worth mentioning. The question is is it notable. The Times Online did find this internet rumor to be notable and chose to publish about it. We can also choose to publish about it, since we have a reliable published source that mentions it. Digitalmandolin (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence --mboverload@ 22:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I wish somebody would decide on whether or not this can be mentioned on the Discussion page. Each time I do so, another Wikipedian, J, deletes it and tells me that it must be deleted from Discussion because it is in violation of BLP. His arguments seem reasonable. However this section remains, untouched. My head spins.Kitchawan (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence if you want to prove something. Here we work in verifiability. The matters wishing to be added to the article can be verified, even if they are extraordinary in light of a vice-presidential running mate pick appearing not to have been vetted. Digitalmandolin (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP concerns cover talk pages as well, but if something starts getting mentions in reliable sources then the question isn't so much about the unfounded rumors but inclusion. 141.161.133.1 (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, inclusion is a pure editorial choice if RS cover it, subject to BLP. rootology (C)(T) 22:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to discuss admittedly "unfounded rumors." Mentioning it in the article would place undue weight on it, and merely fuel the "Internet rumors." Our goal is to be an encyclopedia, not a part of the tabloid media.   user:j    (aka justen)   22:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

As soon as 1-2 RS mention this, we can discuss it here. Once that happens, people will need to stop removing talk OF it. rootology (C)(T) 22:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

At this time, I see no need to discuss this, it's not going in the article until it's no longer a rumor. If that happens, I welcome a renewed discussion, but until then I think it would be best to cease discussion and let this section stand so no one try to start a new one. John Reaves 22:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Once a couple RS cover it, the BLP shackles for discussion come off automatically. rootology (C)(T) 22:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

J, I didn't mention it in the article. I mentioned it on the talk page. Yet you still deleted that, yet are discussing it here. Yet again, my head spins.Kitchawan (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article. If it belongs in the article, discussion belongs here. But we'd need more sourcing, first. Without more sourcing, what's there to discuss? Even coverage of a rumor ("allegation") counts. -- Noroton (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. RS lets us discuss freely, subject to BLP, but removal then would be vandalism and not subject to BLP exemption for simple talk. rootology (C)(T) 22:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Presently, the reliable sources are saying that there is an internet rumour regarding the last pregnancy - there is no mention of what that rumour entails. Placing a note that there is a rumour, per source, in the article does not bring any edification for the reader - and might persuade them to go looking for it. It would be easiest to wait for an official response if any, or a very reliable source discussing the content. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(←) Noroton, when the allegations have been "well-documented by reliable published sources," we can have a discussion. That simply hasn't happened yet. Instead, what's happening here is that Wikipedia is becoming part of the "Internet rumors." Which is a sad situation in and of itself.   user:j    (aka justen)   22:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No one is going to say that because something controversial was discussed on a talk page it must be true. If someone was making up rumors for the first time here, then it could be immediately deleted. But a discussion of RS is fine. Joshdboz (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Google News is currently showing nothing relevant from a reliable source; here's the search link. I'd say this is the end of this discussion until something changes. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for getting rid of the garbage rumors about Palin's son Trig. Sarah Palin's pregnancy and giving birth to him were publicized months ago, and Wikipedia has put the correct information in.--31 August 2008, Susan Nunes

I thought there were reliable sources saying that she didn't announce her pregnancy until 7 months in, with co-workers being surprised about it. Also, I thought there were reliable sources that her water broke in Texas, then she flew back to Alaska to have the baby. Beyond that, it's speculation, but I thought these were legitimate facts. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 02:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and Dick Cheney ordered Halliburton to manufacture a fake pregnancy suit, which was delivered to Alaska by Blackwater mercenaries, and personally strapped on the Governor by Karl Rove. Anyway, see this photo. Kelly ^hi! 06:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the pic link Kelly. One wonders why the campaign is so clueless as to not have required you to respond for them. =P --mboverload@ 06:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Despite Kelly's sarcasm, Stevie is correct about the reporting concerning her decision to make a lengthy trip from Texas to Alaska after her waters burst. Based on the timeline in this story in the Anchorage Daily News, she got to her hometown hospital about 19.5 hours after she discovered she was leaking amniotic fluid. The article also reports that a California ob/gyn "said when a pregnant woman's water breaks, she should go right to the hospital because of the risk of infection." That she did not announce her pregnancy until fairly late has also been reported elsewhere, but I'm too lazy to unearth a link. JamesMLane t c 07:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Notice the unnamed CA ob/gyn says "when ... water breaks..." But it didn't. SO WHY IS THIS RIDICULOUS DETAIL INCLUDED IN THE ARTICLE, OR THE RIDICULOUS AND ACTIONABLE DISCUSSION OF AN UNFOUNDED RUMOR IN THIS ARTICLE, OR THE MENTION OF UNINVOLVED 3rd PARTIES INCLUDED, BUT THE FACT THAT PALIN VETOED A LAW THAT WOULD HAVE BLOCKED BENEFITS FOR SAME SEX COUPLES "A SMALL DETAIL" THAT CAN BE EXCLUDED BECAUSE IT SMACKS OF WHITEWASHING? This article is being twisted into a lame hit piece perpetuated under the sophist rationalizations of Mboverload, JamesMLane, Stevietheman, Rootology, and many other people who are apparently quite worried that this woman might actually be seen in an objective light. --98.221.28.244 (talk) 06:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I second what Kizzle said. I will delete any edit I see that does not come from WP:RS (DailyKos is not a reliable source!) under WP:BLP. Cornince (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the rumor is pretty much dead - some at Daily Kos are running from this story, though others won't give up on it and say either that's a pillow stuffed in her blouse, or alternatively that Karl Rove pwned them on their own blog and tricked them into running a fake story. In any case, Daily Kos will now be known as the site that thinks Desperate Housewives is real. Kelly ^hi! 15:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the rumor seems, mercifully, to be dying, but the way you talk about Daily Kos (as if it's a hive mind rather than a collection of people constantly arguing with each other) shows a misunderstanding of what it is nearly as great as speaking of what "Wikipedia believes", or talking about changes to an article as "Wikipedia reversing itself". —KCinDC (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Associated Press has released a stub saying that Sarah and Todd Palin have announced that their daughter, Bristol, is pregnant. This is from a reliable source, and deserves inclusion in the "family" section. Markegge (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: for discussion of editing the article re the Bristol Palin pregnancy, see another section Proofreader77 (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Traffic offenses?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Badly Cited Biography

Many citations were added or fulfilled by a blank cite by Young Trigg to a several-hundred 159-page biography. Or alleged biography at any rate. The citations are without page number, which is contrary to our standard using ref. These might be fine as sources, but they aren't standard footnotes. I propose removing all these refs, and their underlying statements until such time as page numbers can be supplied.Wjhonson (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but is any of the cited information controversial? Kelly ^hi! 16:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm - it looks like the book is only being cited for basic biographical info, none of which is controversial. Not sure why you want to delete that just for missing page numbers in the cites. Kelly ^hi! 16:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Kaylene Johnson book? I stuck a link in the External links section to the first chapter, which is online. That may help with all the early-life footnotes. Do we have any reason to doubt YoungTrigg's good faith? He apparently admitted to some kind of connection with the McCain campaign, but did any of his edits turn out to be factually wrong? What does "alleged biography" mean? -- Noroton (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think volunteering for a campaign is enough of a connection to cause COI. Otherwise we'd have to exclude anyone who volunteers for any campaign, and that's a lot of people. -- Zsero (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I ordered the book. When it gets here, I'll make the citations more specific. --Coemgenus 20:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It gets more bizarre. The name of the book as he cited it, is not even the name of the book. The book is at Amazon and it's true name is "Sarah: How a Small Town Girl Turned Alaska's Political Establishment On Its Ear". I find it very problematic, that an editor is citing a book that he apparently does not even have in front of him. The issue isn't whether the quotes are "contentious" in this case, but rather that the quotes are being made under the color of some authority in-right-of-you, when in-fact this is obviously not the case. As this page is going to be picked up and cited by many other sources, and quickly, nipping that in the bud at the earliest possible opportunity would be very good for no-egg-on-faceiness for us. Once it's mass-cited it will be problematic to put it back in the bottle. Wjhonson (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That is the name of the book he cited. [3] --Coemgenus 21:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Also here: [4] --Coemgenus 21:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have no idea. The publisher's website says "Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down". Amazon's page says "Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment on Its Ear," but the title in the picture at Amazon says "Sarah: How a Small Town Girl Turned Alaska's Political Establishment on Its Ear." Maybe no one knows. --Coemgenus 21:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The picture at Amazon, is an actual photograph of the front of the book. That should take precedence over any other source, until we have a photograph of some other alleged name. Right?Wjhonson (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree that the pic is conclusive, but the pic at the publisher's website shows a different cover than the Amazon pic. I have no idea -- I suppose either way would be accurate, and if the ISBN is included in the cite, people will find their way to the right book. Coemgenus 21:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There is something more here. I'm not sure what it is.... Something very odd. I wonder if this press is a vanity? To find a book which is just released and yet not available directly from Amazon is a bit odd. All the copies are being sold by links to individual sellers. And obviously some of them think they have something very rare. I wonder just how many copies there are of this book.Wjhonson (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not so much a vanity press, I think, but just a very small one. Their website says they specialize in "general nonfiction titles about Alaska, and ... books about sled dog racing and the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race." I would guess they changed the title when it became clear that they would be selling beyond Alaska -- "hockey mom" maybe be less of a well-known phrase outside the regions of the country where hockey is popular. But, I should be receiving a copy soon, so I'll be in a better position to judge then. Coemgenus 22:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Father of Bristol's Baby - Levi Johnston

First info and pictures are starting to come out about the baby's father, Levi Johnston. He is the same age as Bristol and in the same class at Wasilla High School.

here is a link to Levi's high school hockey profile (w/ team pic): http://hometeamsonline.com/teams/default.asp?u=WASILLAWARRIORHOCKEY&t=c&s=hockey&p=profile&playerID=62690

He was also arrested for fishing in a river where fishing was forbidden: http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:jEQCHpG0VcsJ:www.dps.state.ak.us/pio/dispatch/Trooper%2520Dispatches%2520of%252007-20-2007.20070720.txt+Levi+Johnston+Wasilla&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&client=safari

Source?--Jdrushton (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Booyah, sourced! -- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/us/politics/02palin.html

This is the talk page, stop removing sources from it like it's the actual article (-->chaser)

Bristol is pregnant

[[5]]

I am having trouble including this.

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

The Associated Press [6] is pretty good substantiation. As to whether it is relevant, that's more ambiguous, though I'm sure it will be trumpetted by some people during this campaign. Dragons flight (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Solution?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bristol Palin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First it would be libel -- if and only if it were maliciously wrong. Second, do tell how it's libel. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Please indent properly. In any case, explain precisely what you mean. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The indent was about the anon. Why did you strike through what was an accurate statement? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Precise Birthdays for the Kiddies Children.

Sarah Louise Heath: February 11, 1964 in Sandpoint, Idaho. Sarah was raised in Alaska.

Todd Palin: Abt. 1965. Dillingham, Alaska.

Todd and Sarah eloped on August 29, 1988,

Todd and Sarah have five children. Track Palin: Born abt. 1989. Track enlisted in the U.S. Army on 9/11/2007. Bristol Palin: Born abt. 1991. Willow Palin: Born abt. 1994. Piper Palin: Born abt. 2001. Trig Paxson Van Palin: Born in 2008. Trig has Down syndrome.

Above copy pasted from about.com

Can we get precise birthdays (dates, not years) for all the kids please.

Why? They are not public figures. Wikipedia policy forbids publishing exact DOB info for non-public figures in order to respect privacy and thwart identity theft.--Paul (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is "public figure" defined? It seems to me the family of a major political figure are public figures. Maxbox51 (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Like this article? Tony Blair. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That article reports the birth date of his son Leo, who was born to a nationally known political leader and reported in newspapers around the world: The Observer printed the exact time and date of birth [7]. So did the Boston Globe [8] , the Washington Post [9] , and the Chicago Sun Times [10] among others. You can't really unring a bell, and that child's birth date will be always easily retreivable whether Wikipedia prints it or not. Edison2 (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Its unlikely that exact birth dates will surface, because: 1) The MSM doesn't normal cover such info; 2) birth dates are confidential under Alaska law. Even if they came out, they shouldn't be included because they are not noteworthy and as stated above the privacy of non-public figures should be respected . --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The previous discussion of Track Palin's precise DOB was deleted! It has been widely reported that Track Palin was 18 when he enlisted in the Army, and is currently 19. A precise DOB for Track was posted on a political blog, but no suitably definitive reference is currently available. Maxbox51 (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I sense an awful lot of scurrying going on here. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Having just reviewed Wikipedia policies on biographies, it's clear that the children's birthdays are not (yet) appropriate content for this article. Track Palin's precise DOB is an appropriate subject for Sarah Palin's bio because it bears on whether she followed her own political position in favor of abstinence before marriage, among other reasons. However, Wikipedia is not intended to publish original research. Once the media has widely discussed Track's precise DOB, it will be approprate for inclusion here--but not before. Maxbox51 (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree -- until a reliable source prints Track's birthdate, there is no WP criterion under which it may be included. --Coemgenus 20:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If mainstream media announce, say, that "child x celebrated his 16th birthday today" with pictures in the magazines of the event, then there is presumably a public release of the information by the family. If the birthday is not in mainstream media, then it is private, even if a private investigator could find some database, like birth certificates, which included it, or if the birth (such as Trig's a few months ago) is widely written up. The presumption should be in favor of privacy, but we cannot unring a bell by concealing it if it has been widely published in reliable sources. Edison2 (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No Governor for AK?

There is a real problem developing here, but I'm not sure it's been reported on yet. Palin is a potential Vice President, and her Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell is (possibly they're still counting primary votes) the GOP nominee for Alaska's lone seat in the House. Leaving... who exactly to be the Governor if they should both succeed? I'm going to try to find some sources, it's hard to believe nobody in the press has noticed this yet. HEY NPR ARE YOU READING THIS? Beeblbrox (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Next in line would be AK Attorney General Talis Colberg. Dragons flight (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• The governor may designate an interim Lieutenant Governor, subject to legislative confirmation. She has designated the present Alaska Attorney General. If both offices are held by non-elected individuals, a special election is required. It's in the Alaska newspapers. cite below. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hopkins, Kyle (2008-08-29). "Musical Chairs". Anchorage Daily news. Retrieved 2008-09-01. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Hey, thanks for finding that, I got called away just as I was starting to look into it. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Veto against banning same-sex couple benifits should be added to political postions section (Whitewash)

The topic on same-sex marriages and so forth should also include the reference to her veto that would of banned same-sex couple benefits - the veto upheld public same-sex employees being granted benefits as established by the Alaskan courts. Not sure if this should be counted as sources or not:

• http://dwb.adn.com/news/government/legislature/story/8525563p-8419318c.html
• http://seaqwa.com/blogs/qnews/archive/2008/08/29/palin-s-reluctant-pro-gay-veto.aspx

This does accurately reflect the political position of Palin. The others in context, reflect her personal opinion in weight of this.

Theosis4u (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. This is a SUMMARY section. Her full position is explain on the "political positions of Sarah Palin" page. The section in question is already too detailed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that the veto was in regards to the bill being unconstitutional is more important in relation to Palin's political views than what the bill was actually about. 3-sphere (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the veto is a political position on the record, the other points in the article are simply opinions (in contrast to the veto). Though, I think those opinions should be in the article to color the actual veto. I believe both are necessary with this section - though it will make people on the extremes equally disappointed. Theosis4u (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no evidence that the veto reflects anything about her position on granting benefits to same-sex couples. Her statement about it suggests that it does not. —KCinDC (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It belongs. Whitewashing is bad. Bad, I say. This is a notable issue anmd needs to be incorporated into this artice. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Using the veto to misleadingly make Palin appear more gay-friendly is whitewashing. She vetoed it because it was unconstitutional, not because she supports benefits for same-sex couples. —KCinDC (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And likewise to only state her personal opinions and not a political action on the issue is whitewashing, like I said - neither extreme is going to be happy. I believe JUST stating her veto would be inaccurate as well. Theosis4u (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

KC, if what you say is true and can be supported, then it should reported that way. Leaving it out and arguing that the inclusion of the veto will be misconscrewed is a very large pile of moose turds. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You've got it backward. The veto should be left out as irrelevant unless there's evidence that it does indicate something about her position on same-sex benefits. The available evidence suggests that it doesn't. —KCinDC (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. This is a whitewash of the issue. The veto is an indication of how Palin believes the issue should be addressed politically. The veto was against Legislature from banning same-sex health benefits for state employees without the general populations consent and then for a constitutional amendment. Even the statement in this article is whitewashing about "...a non-binding referendum for a constitutional amendment to deny state health benefits to same-sex couples" without the full inclusion of the source - "will be nonbinding but is intended to help guide legislators, Palin has said." This clearly goes to show Palin's belief about this issue and the political process around it. The sources are even picked to remove the full details of the story - this is the one that should be sourced. Theosis4u (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• http://dwb.adn.com/news/government/legislature/story/8525563p-8419318c.html

Answer this then, KCinDC - If Palin didn't veto it and supported the Legislature to ban same-sex health benefits, wouldn't you want that included? Theosis4u (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, because signing the legislation, especially in the face of advice that it was unconstitutional, would indicate that she supported it. In this case, she's stated that the reason for the veto was constitutional, so it doesn't indicate anything about her position on same-sex benefits. Publicizing the veto seems to be part of a campaign to make Palin look more gay-friendly than she is. I certainly don't think it needs to be in the summary, and in any case including it without also including text indicating that the veto was about constitutionality, not her position on same-sex benefits, misleadingly implies that she favors the benefits. —KCinDC (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You avoided the question completely and also ignored my own comments that what is within the article should stay - for the same reasons you give. Your being partisan and non-objective to this issue, sorry. Theosis4u (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What? How did I avoid the question? You asked a question, and I answered it. "Sure" there is equivalent to "Yes". —KCinDC (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

We should just remove LGBT issues from Main Page then. Why? Because neither Obama, McCain, nor Biden have LGBT issues on their main page - it's only on their Political Position wiki page. If this is kept on Palin's main page, then it's only correct to put the summary of "opposes same-sex marriage" for Obama's main page, since that would be an accurate summary. Theosis4u (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The veto would be notable with regards to LGBT issues only if Palin did NOT veto other bills which were known to be inconstitutional. 85.159.97.3 (talk) 10:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Your right! It is impossible for a person to oppose a bill that violates their morality AND oppose unconstitutional laws at the same time. Clearly we cannot give her credit for this unless she fully supports ALL unconstitutional legistlation.--98.221.28.244 (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's whitewashing, period. For those that want to argue that the summary is correct without reference to the veto and that it should stay on the main page, they should also be including a summary on Obama's main page that he DOESN'T support same-sex marriage. For someone to not see the veto does demonstrate a position on same-sex marriage and benefits is beyond me. It doesn't demonstrate that they AGREE with it, but it does speak on how they believe the issue has to be resolved - if at all. Notice, the special election in April did favor to put the issue to ballot but I can't find anything that says Palin or the legislators plan on doing anything with it. It appears that most likely nothing will be done do to the small margin. Theosis4u (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=6328863

Despite the way many people on the left and right handle issues, believing (or being forced to recognize) that legislation is unconstitutional doesn't mean opposing the goal of the legislation. If she'd vetoed a bill criminalizing white supremacist literature because it violated the First Amendment, that wouldn't be an indication that she had white supremacist leanings. Similarly, vetoing an unconstitutional bill banning benefits for same-sex couples doesn't mean she favors same-sex benefits. —KCinDC (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Your reasoning and example are flawed. It would tell us the legal opinion of the politician on the 1st amendment - regardless of their personal opinion about white supremacy. Your mixing personal beliefs with political ones and generalities with particulars. Someone can be personally against something but know their belief shouldn't be legally binding to others. If Palin decides the special election results mean that they shouldn't purse a constitutionally amendment to deny same-sex benefits it would mean she supports it legally - though she might have a different personal opinion. This section of the article is simply trying to cause a certain population of the readers to discount her on her personal beliefs rather than expose them to the possibility that her political beliefs would be different. This is the same reasoning, imo, that Obama's section doesn't have a line summary stating he is against same-sex marriage. Theosis4u (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that the VP is required by the Constitution to meet the criteria for being president, and given that the VP is one heartbeat from power, it very much does matter how the person decides on whether to sign or veto a bill. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Todd Palin DUI

Todd was arrested for DUI. [11] Maybe this should be added to his mini bio.

Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella confirmed Monday that Todd Palin was arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol in 1986 when he was 22. Sarah and Todd Palin, who had been high school sweethearts, were dating at the time. Zredsox (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Please explain again why this is relevant to the biography of Sarah Palin?--Paul (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The same reason Todd being a snowmobiler is relevant.Zredsox (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

1986? I would think not. They weren't even married. Maybe in his biography. Your comment above suggests this is a WP:POINT you're making. Cool Hand Luke 19:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not relevant to Sarah Palin's article. It may or may not be relevant to Todd Palin's bio.--Evb-wiki (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

May be ok for Todd Palin, but not this article. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

A DUI is a criminal offense. She's married to a man with a criminal past, yes it is relevant. At the very least, it should be in Todd palin's article. Lakerking04 (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I brought it over to the talk page on his wiki bio page. As for the size of his mention on Sarah's page, maybe it should be reduced? Zredsox (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Overheated rhetoric much? The sitting President got a DUI once. That the spouse of a VP nominee got one is a non-issue. A.J.A. (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That is an opinion, and mine is in both cases it is a big deal. That being said, I already stated that I moved the discussion to his wiki page.Zredsox (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is the big deal? Bad Judgment^tm because she didn't dump him after the first bad decision he got caught making? A.J.A. (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If the 13,000 + killed in the United States in alcohol related crashes last year were around to answer you, I am sure they could come up with a reason or two as to why a DUI is a big deal. Zredsox (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Emotional rhetoric. A.J.A. (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It starts to become WP:POV when this article contains a lot of positive factoids which have little to do with Sarah Palin, like how "he is a champion snowmobiler" but leaves out any negative information about him (like a DUI). That makes this sound more like a family's Christmas Letter , full of bragging and minutiae, and less like a balanced biography, which must include both the positive and negative. Edison2 (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You are falling into the the Wikipedia NPOV trap where people argue that that for every positive thing there must be a negative thing. That's not a neutral point of view, it's a mechanical point of view. Relevancy and undue weight are just as important to consider.--Paul (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! That he's a competitive snowmobiler has a hell of a lot more to do with who Todd Palin is than a DUI 22 years ago. If he had snowmobiled once back in the '80s and had driven drunk ever since, then the situation would be reversed, but that is not the case. --Coemgenus 20:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that he is a competitive snowmobiler has nothing to do with Sarah Palin (and I think the object of this article is to define her.) That being said, I move that we cleanse the article of anything beyond a reference to him (in relationship to her) and redirect the rest to his bio page where it belongs. Zredsox (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

His current snowmobiling has something to do with Palin -- it's not huge but it's not nothing. I agree with Coemgenus's distinction. His DUI has no place in this article; snowmobiling deserves a very brief mention. JamesMLane t c 20:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a brief mention sounds right. As to what should go in his article, I don't know, but that's not something we have to decide on this talk page, anyway. --Coemgenus 20:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

His having received a DUI has something to do with Palin -- it's not huge but it is a political issue. She is the governor of the state whose laws were broken by him. No whitewashing please. If snowmobiling is relevant to Sarah Palin, then Todd's DUI is as well. Would Fox News have reported on it if it were not relevant to Sarah Palin? Digitalmandolin (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What Fox News reports is not the standard of inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Coemgenus 21:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

How does Fox News reporting it indicate that it is relevant to her as opposed to being relevant to him? Nobody is saying that it doesn't belong on his page. Oren0 (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would Fox News report on it unless it were relevant to Sarah Palin? If Todd Palin's DUI were not relevant to Sarah Palin, Fox News would not have reported on it. They are trying to cover an election and this is relevant to one of the political candidates, Sarah Palin. Digitalmandolin (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

They are a 24-hour news station, with the standards and judgment that belong to the news business. We are an encyclopedia, with different standards. Not everything that has ever been on the news belongs in this encyclopedia, let alone this article. --Coemgenus 21:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, which is why the snowmobiling stuff is gratuitous. Trivial and unimportant details about Sarah Palin's husband do not belong here. If we are going to keep the snowmobiling stuff in, the DUI stuff belongs in. If we're going to keep the DUI stuff out, the snowmobiling stuff belongs out. Digitalmandolin (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Moose!

I'm not the person currently removing the moose claim - but I would like to bring up the idea here. I have to say, it seems a little weird to include that claim - it seems unencyclopedic (I mean, why don't we mention what her mother would fix her for breakfast?), but regardless, since there seems to be debate over it I suggest we decide here.-danielfolsom 20:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I read that and thought, "What is this?" It should be removed. JCP (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be kept. It is somewhat unique to the region and helps explain who she is as a person.Zredsox (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

But Zredsox, we're not trying to explain who she is as a person - ha, we'll let the campaign ads do that - we're trying to write an encyclopedic entry on her. And I mean, we've already be criticized for having this - the New York Times story mocked us :( --danielfolsom 20:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not overly attached to it, so don't let me stop you from removing it. I am from an area where it would be considered normal, but obviously some people here think it is saying she likes tasty animals (which she does as a meat eater) and that it is a bad thing. Zredsox (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, it paints a trivial and subjective picture of the individual in question. If it must be included, its positioning should be reassessed. Having it as the introduction to the "personal life" is ridiculous. JCP (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Following that logic, maybe we should remove the entire sentence being they are all trivial details: Palin is a self-described "hockey mom" and mother of five. She hunts, goes ice fishing, eats mooseburgers, rides snowmobiles, has run a marathon, and owns a floatplane. 20:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Zredsox: it's not so much that as the issue that it's just not really an appropriate tone for this encyclopedia. I mean, we don't talk about how Joe Biden ... (I honestly don't even know how to finish this ... so I'll make something up) ... used to have a favorite baseball club that his dad got him. It's just not really notable.--danielfolsom 20:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

...but either is that she rides snowmobiles. All of these are subjective points picked from a hat to tell a story.Zredsox (talk)

Haha, I'm not 100% certain about the snowmobiles comment - but as to the moose comment: that's the thing: we aren't telling a story - we're writing an encyclopedia entry. The real issue is: you're right- we're picking stories out of a hat to "explain who she is as a person". But think about how arbitrary that is. First of all, there's no reasonable way to classify people, second of all, since there's no reasonable way to classify people - we're pretty much picking stories at random. I mean, you could argue that we're picking stories that define her, but who's to say how she is defined? It's just all so arbitrary that it turns into a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV (no point of view) policy--danielfolsom 20:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So is there an agreement that it should be removed in its entirety? JCP (talk) 20:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Seemingly--danielfolsom 20:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, User ThaddeusB brought up that he thought I was talking about the "mooseburgers" line; I was actually talking about the 3am line - is everyone else on the same page as me?--danielfolsom 21:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were referring to the moose burgers. Specifically, "Palin is a self-described "hockey mom" and mother of five. She hunts, goes ice fishing, eats mooseburgers, rides snowmobiles, has run a marathon, and owns a floatplane.[105]" To me, that should be removed or put in a different location. Where is the line you were talking about? JCP (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I was on a different page! Zredsox (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol, my fault - well Zredsox I would agree with you on the mooseburgers thing. If you want to remove that I think it'd be fine--danielfolsom 21:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the "eats mooseburgers" phrase, as this is probably too trivial a fact even for two words. I would object to the 3am moose hunting being deleted, and especially the 5K/10K family runs part of that line, though. That info seems relevant as part of her "character building" --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Also I do think the other parts of the mooseburgers line are at least slightly relevant. I mean it is a personal life section so what is wrong with listing some things she does in her personal life? --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I revt'd it. The cited source specifically says: "She's also a moose-burger-eating, snow-mobile-riding maverick who's not afraid to take on fellow Republicans she disagrees with." --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say readd the running part, but the moose hunting part is just a little unencyclopedic - especially in how it was phrased. I mean, do we need to describe all her childhood hobbies? The fact that she competed in races is arguably notable ... the fact that she hunted moose at 3am? In my view, not so much--danielfolsom 21:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

re-added as "As a child, she would sometimes go moose hunting with her father before school, and the family regularly ran 5K and 10K races" ... If yous till fell the moose hunting bit is unwarranted, I guess it can be removed. I do fell it adds a bit in way of explaining her later political positions though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That sentence could probably be summarized by sayng, "She grew up in Alaska." :-P --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I agree somewhat with the "moose burger" edit. I still find it in an odd place. Casual activities preceding important issues such as family et cetera? Perhaps it can be merged with one of the subsections. As for the hunting, which danielfolsom has discussed, I believe this should be removed. I mean, she occasionally walks up stairs and from time-to-time breathes. We don't need to add unsubstantial hobbies. JCP (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed the new edit, which includes political travels. That should not be under "personal life." The cited article is very brief; however, it seems that Ireland may not have been related to politics. JCP (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Media Bias on Coverage of Palin's Daughter Versus Chelsea

Chelsea Clinton was off limits to press coverage; even in her late 20s, in 2008, the press was criticized for mentioning Chelsea. Yet Palin's daughter, age 17, was portrayed by the media as, in essence, a slut. The main article should make mention of this stunning example of journalistic bias.

Shall we add this to the article? or waint until the birth. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose adding something such as, "soon to be grandmother," would be relevant. But this information seems somewhat trivial to me. JCP (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought Palin already was a grandmother? Digitalmandolin (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't be cute -- this is a talk page about the article, not the people. --Coemgenus 21:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Chelsea Clinton wasn't carrying a love child. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Bristol's "marriage"

Is it accurate to state that Bristol "intends" to marry the father, Levi. This is technically speculation. Perhaps saying, "it is speculated that Bristol will marry the father of her child, Levi." "Intends" just seems to give the impression that Levi, whoever he is, has proposed to Bristol. Plus, we don't know if Levi even wants to marry Bristol. 20:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The current write up says the press release stated she intends to marry him, which is accurate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Note the ring. A.J.A. (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The ring is speculation, not fact. We have no proof that that is an engagement ring. This is still speculation. The press release said she intended to marry the father -- not that she was. I could say I intend to marry Anna Kournikova, that doesn't mean I am. JCP (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Now you are just being silly. After all of this whirling dervish publicity this weekend what do you think the odd are that they WON'T get married? This is worse than a shotgun wedding. It was announced they were going to get married.--Paul (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, now that's just speculation. Also, a video of the guy getting on one knee and pulling out the very ring she's been seen wearing may well have been staged, and therefore it's only speculation. Any alleged ceremony may... A.J.A. (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there such a video? Saying that they must get married now isn't fact. Levi may very well feel the pressure and run. It happens all the time. Now, that was also speculation. If it is speculation, it shouldn't be included. JCP (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone can prove that Sarah Palin actually exists and that the external world is not a dream or the deception of an evil genie or demiurge, this entire article is speculation and should be deleted. A.J.A. (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That goes a little too far. But I'll gladly continue that discussion over at Soul. The point is, neither the family nor Bristol or Levi have verified that they are in fact getting married. Saying so is not fact. Believe me, I wish it were. I'd speculate that I was a millionaire and was indeed married to Anna Kournikova et cetera. It would be perfect. JCP (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

How do we know they aren't married? Digitalmandolin (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point -- we don't. Perhaps the entire reference to marriage should be removed? Can we come to a consensus on this? It obviously is a controversial portion of that sentence. JCP (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This poor girl has had quite a weekend. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing the parents could not have forestalled by being open and honest with the public. Like not waiting 7 months to announce a pregnancy. Digitalmandolin (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion to the article, not the people. --Coemgenus 21:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL. A.J.A. (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• MONROE, Michigan (CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama said firmly that families are off-limits in the campaign for president, reacting to news that GOP running mate Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter is pregnant. "Let me be as clear as possible," Obama said. "I think people's families are off-limits, and people's children are especially off-limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as governor or her potential performance as a vice president." Obama said reporters should "back off these kinds of stories" and noted that he was born to an 18-year-old mother. "How a family deals with issues and teenage children, that shouldn't be the topic of our politics, and I hope that anybody who is supporting me understands that's off-limits."

  --Paul (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I am glad for Senator Barack Obama. Can that be fit into the article somehow? Probably not since there is very little being said about the scandals in the article. Thus his quote would seem out of place. Digitalmandolin (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As I am sure you know, I don't think that Obama's quote is pertinent to this article. I do wish, however, that editors would take his counsel to heart.--Paul (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that you want to leave out, but rumors from blogs are extremely relevant. You may find this website more to your liking. Coemgenus 21:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The marriage is not speculation as far as Mrs Palin is concerned. We could put that her mother, Sarah Palin says the couple will marry, as she's quoted as saying on the BBC. [12] Sticky Parkin 22:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sticky Parkin, I believe you've found a solution. I have no objections to that. JCP (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

We can include the referenced fact that Sarah says there will be a wedding. That does not make it a referenced fact that there actually will be one. Any statement about a wedding should stick to it being a statement attributed to Sarah, for the time being, until Sarah or "Levi," whomever he is, makes some public statement, or until the wedding takes place, or some other referenced fact is in evidence. Edison2 (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes: Sarah's statement is sourced; nothing else is. Coemgenus 22:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to not make the mistake of assuming they are not already married in how we formulate the inclusion. That assumption has not been verified. Digitalmandolin (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Trivial Points?

1) "In her high-school yearbook, she stated that her professional ambition was to sit in a broadcast booth with sports journalist Howard Cosell and broadcast basketball games starring her boyfriend at the time, Todd Palin."

2) "Shortly after Stevens was indicted on corruption charges, Palin removed a 2006 campaign ad in which she appeared with Stevens from her gubernatorial campaign Web site."

Both seem pretty trivial and not worth inclusion to me. Other opinions? --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The first is merely fluff. The second, . . . well, duh. Wouldn't you? --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the first is fluff. The second may be substantive; however, it could be re-worded. JCP (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the length of the article, WP:WEIGHT. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the first item here is as important as the other info about her high school years in the article -- it is the only item that connects her high school time to her college years and time as a sportscaster -- making it a relevant piece of information, even if yearbook things ofetn sound a bit flip when one is older. I strongly support leaving it in. BTR (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Excess details about Trig's birth

Do we really need an paragraph detailing the chronology around Trig's birth? I think most of it was added as support details for the "dispicable rumor." Unless the concensus feels strongly that this level of detail satisfies WP:weight, I'd like to remove the paragraph. That would leave us with a "Family" section that is, in roughly even parts: marriage, husband, children summary, Track detail, Trig detail, Bristol detail. That seems about right for the "Family" section of a national political figure. Celestra (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The rumour as we all know, has been shot down. Palin's daughter is pregnant. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to edit down/summarize better if you can. Some felt it justified to include the somewhat unusual circumstances of his birth, so this should stay in some form. I still don't see any value to the surprise comment though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. A.J.A. (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The unusual circumstances justify some recognition. Especially since she was not cleared to fly. It should be trimmed down though. JCP (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not cleared to fly? [13] states that "After wrapping up the speech, Palin and her husband consulted with her physician about possibly flying home on an earlier flight. After being granted permission from her doctor, she and her husband proceeded with the trek home." That certainly seems to me that she was cleared to fly. --Jdrushton (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You might want to read the sources. First, it was a phone consultation. Second, the Doc. states that she didn't think Palin needed to be cleared to fly. And third, standard medical guidelines for PROM include immediate in person consultation and observation for approx. 48 hours before offering outpatient consultation. With all best wishes, Catuskoti (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we refer to this as Water Breakgate yet? All the news sources seem to be recognizing this as the scandal it is. Digitalmandolin (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi all. The material wasn't added to support any specific conclusion, let alone a "dispicable" one, but to only to show these remarkable circumstances for what they were. Similarly, the fact that Palin's care decision was unusual, per established medical norms, seems relevant to me. What do others think? By the way, though I understand the heat caused by the recent editing frenzy, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't assume that advocates for these edits have sinister intentions. With thanks and all best wishes, Catuskoti (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

AJA, please replace the info you reverted, and Celestra, please return the properly sourced info about medical norms you deleted. With thanks and all best wishes, Catuskoti (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The details around the medical recommendations violates WP:synth, so I removed it. (It clearly is trying to present a conclusion that does not exist in either cite.) If there is a concensus otherwise, I won't object to it being added back. Celestra (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, it's only looking to present a conclusion, but to contextualize. Trig seems to be fine despite the long-trip, as most PROM infants at Palin's stage of pregnancy (but not nearly all) are. Fact is, Palin's action wasn't the norm. Also, what about the risks to infants of women who conclude, e.g., by reading these encyclopedias, that waiting to receive medical care nearly 24 hours after PROM is no big deal? It's noteworthy, IMO. Catuskoti (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting point but I see why you removed it; however, I believe there should be a proper time frame. Was she "just about" to give the speech? Or was it several hours prior? JCP (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

premature rupture at 4am, according to news reports; at least "several hours" before a lunchtime keynote. Catuskoti (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the diff of your edit and I think that you were correct in that it violated WP:SYNTH. Any medical norms with respect to this matter need to be paraphrased from the sources that comment this particular issue. That being said I think the passage should be left alone, since this event wasn't -that- big, unless someone from Alaska who follows the news there can give us a better perspective. Switzpaw (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

<-- What the... are there still people pushing some kind of Baby Trutherism here? What is wrong with you people? If a reliable mainstream source says she used bad judgment in returning to Alaska, then we'll discuss including it. If not, then stop trying to synthesize some kind of crap. A woman is responsible for her own body, and decisions she makes are between her and her doctor. See WP:BLP and grow up. Kelly ^hi! 21:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Word. --mboverload@ 21:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's one thing to be conservative in avoiding synthesis which might be understandable, but it's another thing altogether to present something that is highly unusual as if it were utterly typical, which is what the current version does. Trashing and insulting other wikipedians to support a misportrayal doesn't promote the quality of the encyclopedia entry. Catuskoti (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, whatever. What reliable source again said it was unusual? Anyhoo, no synthesis, please, and read the policies on BLP, as you've been told before, and reliable sources. Kelly ^hi! 21:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, Kelly, please stop assuming bad intent. Here's your answer: http://www.adn.com/626/story/382864.html (Subsection -- "Early Arrival") Catuskoti (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, all that says about Palin is that she consulted with a doctor before flying, as said above. Her own personal business, nobody else's. I think this meme that something about this is unusual or bad in any way was started by Alan Colmes, who wrote that the circumstances of the birth somehow caused the baby to get an extra chromosome. There's no need to give that kind of gutter idiocy any credence, and there's no need to make judgments of a woman's private medical decisions. Kelly ^hi! 22:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't read or watch Colmes and so have no idea what he did or didn't say. The article linked to above includes a doctor stating that Palin's action violates professional guidelines. Other material that was deleted showed that the guidelines are given to promote the life of the infant (not just a woman and her doctor, in the class of a late-term pregnancy). Catuskoti (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the doctor was involved specifically with the Palin case? Or was it just some doctor with the spare time to yak to a newspaper reporter? And the other sources dealt with that specific Palin case as well? Exactly what point is being made with this information again? Kelly ^hi! 22:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You're pushing a POV, Kelly. It's not my job to answer the questions you ask. The info comes from a relevant authentic source. If you have a problem with the Anchorage Daily News' reporting, you might want to write them a letter to the editor. Your POV about these issues shouldn't be relevant here. Catuskoti (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, pushing WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Can you point to a POV edit that I've made? Kelly ^hi! 23:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, please stop being so rude. You were insisting, just above, that in order to mention material in a established source ABOUT the topic under discussion, I'd first need to answer a series of questions of your choosing reflecting your personal politics. If you want to have a conversation about weight, then let's have a conversation about weight. But don't attack me personally just cause I have a different perspective than yours. Seriously, chill. Catuskoti (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

These sources are from April and they were reported in the Alaskan press. Switzpaw (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Fairbanks News-Miner felt compelled to report on the issue as well: http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/apr/22/palins-flight-labor-falls-under-scrutiny/ Switzpaw (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh - and strangely that article says that all was well with the trip and the subsequent childbirth. What was the point of this again? Kelly ^hi! 22:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you calm down and cite exactly what part of the passage regarding Trig's birth that you are taking an issue with. Switzpaw (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm calm. The passage as currently written is fine, I just oppose people trying to synthesize some value judgment out of disconnected facts. Kelly ^hi! 23:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I just read through the edit history and saw that some other edits were added to that section since yesterday but were removed, which must be what was generating this discussion. Sorry about that -- I just dropped and I didn't notice them before commenting here. I agree -- I don't think that passage needs to grow any larger than the version currently in the article. We should be prudent about the weight devoted to this. Switzpaw (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ditching the professional guidelines, which state that in cases of premature rupture, the child's health is considered to be at risk, has already been agreed to. The time spans are relevant and reliably sourced, IMO, and should be included. Similarly, recognition (via the Anchorage Daily News) that some doctors believe professional guidelines were violated seems important. There'd be absolutely no reasonable complaints of synthesis happening there, and it would be regarding information that was considered weighty by established sources. With all best wishes, Catuskoti (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

TMI? Maybe. If nothing else, it's interesting to read about a politician leaking something besides a news story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

After trying to take into account all of this discussion, I put in the following edit, which, BTW, was meant to be constructive (i.e., to improve the article in accord with consensus): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&oldid=235708291. But then Kelly undid the whole of it. WTF????? Weren't you blocked for edit-warring YESTERDAY? Catuskoti (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note - Kelly was not blocked yesterday. —Travis^talk 02:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This was the proposed edit: The circumstances of Trig's birth attracted local publicity.[120] More than a month before the baby was due, early in the morning on a day she was to deliver the keynote address at a conference in Texas, her water broke prematurely. She delivered the lunchtime speech before flying back 8 hours to Alaska, giving birth seven hours after her return at the Mat-Su Valley Regional Medical Center.[121] Palin returned to work three days later.[37] Local Alaska media raised questions about whether Palin's decision to travel was medically prudent.[118][122]

Completely unacceptable. Who cares what some local Alaska media "questioned"? The sources state pretty clearly that the judgment was made with her doctor. Yet that is somehow omitted. What point are you trying to make here? Kelly ^hi! 00:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree this was a premature and inaccurate edit. Kelly, you've downplayed the significance of the issue -- and it is significant. You also mislead the reader with your writing. She was not "just about" to give the speech. She leaked amniotic fluids several hours prior. Furthermore, Palin's ability to travel is still an issue in question. JCP 00:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamescp (talk • contribs)

Questioned by who? The source says Gov. Sarah Palin’s decision to make the eight-hour flight from Dallas to Anchorage has some people wondering about the possible safety hazards of flying while in the late stages of pregnancy. No mention of who the "some people" are. No mention even if they were wondering about Governor Palin specifically, or hazards of flying while pregnant generally. Kelly ^hi! 00:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The link in the referenced article leads to a claim by a Obstetrician who is active in her professional medical association. In any case, is it ever up to us to estimate how well journalistically sound established sources are? Isn't that the job of reporters, etc. not wikipedians? With all best wishes, Catuskoti (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The sources also included statements by Palin's own OB/GYN that the travel was fine, and Palin stated the same thing. And the birth obviously went off just fine. So why are we trying to make a controversy out of the birth of her youngest child? Kelly ^hi! 01:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

See, you keep personalizing what shouldn't be personal. I'm not "trying to make a controversy" out of anything. Her decision was already controversial in April 2008, well before she became a national figure. Now that she is a national political figure, this already existing but probably not overly significant controversy is surely worthy of mention. Mentioning is not promoting. Catuskoti (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, just because the birth had no complications doesn't mean it shouldn't be reported. We could succeed in Iraq but does that mean we should not write about everything that happened in between? JCP 01:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make any point. Everything is properly sourced and concise. In contrast, you're deleting material wholesale so that it accords with your personal political conceptions. Seriously, what is "completely unacceptable" about what was written accept that you think, unlike Gov. Palin, that medical decisions are fine so long as they're made with a family doctor?Catuskoti (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what are my "personal political conceptions"? Kelly ^hi! 00:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever agenda it is of yours that's prompting you to delete legitimate, properly sourced and weighted material. Honestly, you seem to have been nothing but aggressive throughout this discussion, so I really have no idea what your legitimate objections, if any, might be. Catuskoti (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL may be a legitimate objection. I'm on the fence with this edit. I do think you may be pushing it a bit because it's hard to gauge how significant this to Alaskans, and you have also introduced an element of politicizing the issue when it otherwise flowed nicely with the personal info section. Switzpaw (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Reading through just now, it occurred to me that I might have misunderstood what you meant by the weasel objection. First, as I understand it, the principle regards Wiki edits, not the reliability of sources. Second, the Anchorage paper states who at least one of the physicians is in the link it provides to its previous April article. Also, though I can see now why this information wouldn't fit in a Sarah Palin encyclopedia entry, it is simply a fact that established government and medical professional associations unanimously advise patients who experience premature rupture of membrane (early breaking of water with a premature infant) to immediately seek in-patient care (and for the health of the fetus). It's not like only "some" doctors recommend immediate, in person medical examination, which would have to be the case for the weasel objection to hold. Catuskoti (talk) 02:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand the issue just fine. I reverted your edit because I think this should be handled prudently. I would like other editors to chime in. I also think you might want to chill. Your editing patterns make you look like you have an agenda, despite what you said about not trying to make a point. With respect to WP:WEASEL, think about this: Another problem is that weasel words can imply that a statement is more controversial than it is. For example, saying "some people claim that Queen was a popular band" unnecessarily raises a (false) question about the statement's truth. Now stating that some Alaskan newspapers raised questions does exactly that: it highlights an issue that may not really be that notable. Switzpaw (talk) 02:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right that I need to chill a bit, and yeah, I'd like other editors to chime in too. In the meantime, please note that 1) the Anchorage Daily News isn't a fringe of one-among-many Alaskan publication, and 2) yes, I do have a stake but not an agenda in this outcome, insofar as I'd rather that a moderately if not hugely significant event not be whitewashed by Young Trigg-like Palin partisans. But for now I'm off. All best wishes, Catuskoti (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Anchorage Daily News has the second largest circulation in Alaska. It's hardly an insignificant newspaper. Also, they've now mentioned doubts about the medical prudence of Palin's decision twice, first in April and more recently in August. With all best wishes, Catuskoti (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

i.e., clearly an important element of Alaskan society (the Anchorage Daily News) has thought this issue was worthy of mention for awhile now. So hence, no weasel (great rule though!). Catuskoti (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Just stop, please. Your actions are obviously controversial for a BLP and you're repeatedly inserting these allegations. The discussion of her son's birth is just fine as it is. Seek dispute resolution if cannot accept that. Kelly ^hi! 01:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm just not seeing what's controversial about the information you're repeatedly deleting. Nobody seems to be denying that the information was true or that it was reported by established sources? I *can* see why this information might look very good for Palin, but the job of this entry isn't to make her look like a flawless person. Plus, how is the information you've deleted different in structure from the information about Pro-Life organizations praising Trig's birth, which you've kept intact? Catuskoti (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone has information that Palin failed to follow the advise of her physician, I don't understand why any of this discussion is relevant. I could care less if she squatted over straw to birth and then severed the umbilical cord with her teeth before jumping back on a snowmobile, if that's what her physician directed. Is someone making the suggestion that her baby's health was harmed as a result of her actions? Fcreid (talk) 04:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The point was never about Palin's wisdom or recklessness but about what happened and what was reported. Wholescale, reflexive deletions, without targeting specific problems in earlier edits, have made this issue a lot more complicated and cantankorous than it needed to be.Catuskoti (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The present phrasing about Trig's birth seems to leave the reader dangling, and a good encyclopedia does not tantalize like the lead-in tease for the ten o'clock news. It says "Palin's announcement in March 2008 that she was seven months pregnant generated publicity and surprise, as did the circumstances of Trig's birth.[149][150][151]" We should not have that sentence without stating why there was "publicity and surprise" and describing "the circumstances of Trig's birth." Edison2 (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The present phrasing has been arrived at only by progressively deleting the edits of other wikipedians, with little (though some) effort to restate in ways that are perceived to be more accurate or balanced. Hence, it's a mess. We need to back up a fair distance I think. Catuskoti (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both of you that the teasing version is unacceptable. I've restored the version that emerged from the discussion in the thread immediately below, #Vague aspersions of prenatal endangerment, with a few minor modifications that someone else made later. If it weren't for the whole ruckus about Trig perhaps being her grandson, it would be obvious to everyone that the unusual events of her flight from Texas warranted a bit of exposition. JamesMLane t c 21:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Vague aspersions of prenatal endangerment

Reading the paragraph, it seems the above title would be appropriate. May I add it? ;) Proofreader77 (talk)

If you want to add it, we could definitely get into a lot more detail about the specific dangers of this class of medical condition.Catuskoti (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

As a "disinterested third party" who has not touched that paragraph (other than to playfully try out the above title over the article in preview), my impression is that the above title may represent the viewpoint of those who feel the paragraph is, um, problematic. I assume there are roughly three positions:

• A. Governor Palin's behavior (in this situation) constitutes a "bad act" (exact classification to be determined) which should be highlighted and discussed in depth for the benefit of society. THEREFORE: All verifiable information (within reason) should be included.
• B. Governor Palin's behavior was perhaps, or even probably, a "bad act"(...) but there is not enough verifiable information for us to examine it in depth at this time. A small paragraph indicating something may deserve further scrutiny should be included.
• C. This information, at this moment, constitutes "vague aspersions of prenatal endangerment" which we should not be indulging in. Delete the paragraph.

FYI, this discussion is centered around a paragraph version that two wikipedians have repeatedly reverted back to, and not the one that was deleted and that was the subject of discussion. Plus, as someone who does think the notes about the publicity about Trig's unusual birth are noteworthy, I wouldn't support any of the portrayals A-C. Catuskoti (talk) 09:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I vote C. (any other categories?) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

We should get opinions from the many MD's writing on this blog, er, article as to whether this has anything to do with the baby having Down's Syndrome or being adversely affected in some other way. If not, then rub it out. We don't really need to hear about the VP nominee leaking fluids. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Read elsewhere that Down's Syndrome was diagnosed early in her pregnancy. This has zero to do with an extra chromosome! Fcreid (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

As I thought. So unless the story has relevance beyond the "personal interest" level, i.e. of possible interest to other moms out there, then lose it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I also vote C. It isn't even relevant, given that she didn't give birth on the plane. The entire paragraph is a thinly-veiled attempt to assail her judgment, when facts indicate she traveled with the consent of her consulting physician. If outside medical sources disagree, that belongs in her doctor's biography and not here. Fcreid (talk) 04:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I refuse to vote because the question posed is immaterial for purposes of writing the article. The real question is whether a significant number of our readers would be interested to know that she engaged in a lengthy flight after leaking amniotic fluid. The answer is yes. As to "facts indicate she traveled with the consent of her consulting physician", that's neither completely true nor completely dispositive. The story in the Anchorage Daily News reports: "Palin did not ask for a medical OK to fly, the doctor said." It also reports that Palin's doctor nevertheless seemed OK with all that happened but that at least one expert said it was not good practice. We can report these different facts. By the way, the current version "she was about to deliver the keynote address" is clearly false, inasmuch as she said she was leaking fluid at 4:00 a.m., and I'll go out on a limb and say the speech was scheduled for a bit later in the day.  :) Also, it's misleading for us to report the amount of time that elapsed from her arrival at the hospital until birth was induced, while omitting the much longer period that preceded her arrival at the hospital. JamesMLane t c 05:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a conflicting read from several places, but will try to track down a RS on whether she consulted with her physician before flying. That would be a significant fact, IMO. Fcreid (talk) 05:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: [14] provides extensive background on this entire issue and confirms she not only consulted her OB/GYN (Dr. Cathy Baldwin-Johnson) prior to flying but she also maintained contact during the flight and the Seattle stopover. So, again, I vote C above that this entire section be removed as irrelevant. It's clear now that this is intended to impugn Palin's judgment, when such criticism should be leveled against her physician (if warranted whatsoever). Fcreid (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with C. The way it is now is both a vaguely negative innuendo and a magnet for OR to make it less vague. Celestra (talk) 05:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ugh! Why is this here under Trig's birth again? "...did not inform the airlines that she had begun labor before going on the eight-hour Dallas-Anchorage flight". The source [15] clearly states American Airlines has no policy requiring notification of pregnancy or restricting late-term flights. This is an important point, because a mainstream commentator has critically challenged her judgment in flying, and we seem to be supporting his viewpoint. It doesn't belong here, as it's not medically or logistically relevant. Fcreid (talk) 07:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Very slanted POV wording here

More than a month before the baby was due, she was about to deliver the keynote address at a conference in Texas when she began leaking amniotic fluid. She delivered the speech before flying 4000 miles back to Alaska (a little greater than the distance from Chicago to London), giving birth seven hours after her flight at the Mat-Su Valley Regional Medical Center. She did not inform the airlines that she had begun labor before going on the eight-hour Dallas-Anchorage flight.

A suggested rewrite

Trig's birth was more than a month premature, beginning while Palin was in Texas giving a keynote address. After completing her speech and consulting with her doctor, Palin opted to make the 4,000 mile flight home and gave birth to Trig in Alaska at the Mat-Su Valley Regional Medical Center. Fcreid (talk) 08:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, fyi, the slanted POV wording you're citing was what two wikipedians decided to keep reverting to; another edit was the subject of discussion, and was meant to address, however inadequately, the slanted/poor version that this thread is now evaluating.Catuskoti (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Before noticing this proposal, I'd done my own rewrite. I agree with eliminating the point about nondisclosure to the airline. The 4,000 miles is less important than the time it took, so I've substituted the eight hours as reported in the sources. What's really unusual about the event, though, is that so much time elapsed from her leaking fluid to first being seen in person by a physician. I've included the times from the sources that establish that point. (The exact time lapse is unclear in the sources because they don't carefully distinguish which time zone they refer to, so I've just followed what they say, not presuming to insert my own interpretations.

For the moment, I've omitted the more substantive issues about Palin's conduct. We're not talking about "vague aspersions" but about an expert who's quoted as commenting on this specific incident. I've omitted her statement for now, in deference to the editors who object to it, but passing over the subject in complete silence is also not going to be a permanent solution. JamesMLane t c 08:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

How anyone can think they know more than she did about how to handle the birth of her own child, or link it to politics, is beyond me. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The question wasn't about knowing "more than she did about how to handle the birth of her own child" or linking it to politics. It was about mentioning questions in the mainstream local press at the time about her choice. Catuskoti (talk) 09:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the sane and succinct rewrite. It does lack a salient point about her coordination with her consulting physician, but it stands fine as long as no counter-balancing point is introduced. As you may be aware, this is an issue of contention with one of the mainstream commentators and, while there may be merit to debating the wisdom of her flight at that time, that debate should remain among those qualified to do so. Fcreid (talk) 08:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words about the rewrite. There's some chance that the debate about the wisdom of Palin's conduct will be carried out in public over the next several weeks, which may provide us with more WP:RS material for addressing it. That's one reason I'm willing to acquiesce to omitting it for now. As for the coordination with the doctor, one problem is that the sources aren't completely clear on that. The ADN article, after all, does say that Palin did not ask the doctor if flying was OK, although there's other information that seems to contradict that. Also, as I understand it, the doctor wasn't an ob/gyn specialist. One POV that may be better articulated in the near future is that, under the circumstances, Palin shouldn't have driven to Wasilla after landing in Anchorage, but should've checked in to an Anchorage hospital that would be better equipped to handle a premature birth of a special-needs baby. By the time this is over, Palin's ob/gyn may have her own article, in which that question will get a section! JamesMLane t c 09:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I've no doubt there will be further debate, but this article should limit itself to the statement of fact as it now does. This is not the place to bring in "expert witnesses" on either side of an argument, and it's certainly inappropriate to throw gas on the flames burning throughout the blogosphere and MSM. Fcreid (talk) 10:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the single sentence that is enough to get you branded as a lunatic, Kool-Aid drinking vandal among this collection of is this: "Local Alaska media raised questions about whether Palin's decision to travel was medically prudent.[118][122]" But instead of insulting others, maybe we could work on improving the sentence? Catuskoti (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like there is not enough detailed info to present the full picture. For one thing, we need to know more about those leaks. Nixon fixed his leaks by hiring Plumbers. How did Palin fix her leaks? With Maxi-Pads? Depends? Inquiring wikipedians want to know! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the answer to that depends on how much koolaid has been drunk. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This much I know: One time my car was leaking transmission fluid, and Maxi-Pads worked great. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who has given birth knows that having your water break and waiting 24 hours to go to a hospital is a VERY, VERY unusual decision. Catuskoti (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there's a doctor or two out there in cyberspace willing to comment on it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact, yes. Take a look at the Anchorage Daily News article that the deleted material cites, I mean before it was altered by whitewashers. Dr. Laurie Gregg, "obstetrician who is active in the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said when a pregnant woman's water breaks, she should go right to the hospital because of the risk of infection. That's true even if the amniotic fluid simply leaks out, said Dr. Laurie Gregg. "To us, leaking and broken, we are talking the same thing. We are talking doctor-speak," Gregg said." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catuskoti (talk • contribs) 10:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll find some on both sides. Also, believe the article says spotting and not water breaking. My wife started spotting about 36 hours before delivery (and 24 before the doctor had her come into the hospital). And, believe me, she would not have allowed me to drive one second longer than necessary once labor began! :) Fcreid (talk) 10:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What we have here now is somewhat contradictory original research, which is why the details are problematic for the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Bugs, but any other conclusion is speculative and not supported by the known facts. Did she

a) simply want to be at her home hospital and doctor for delivery of a special needs child and felt the discomfort was worth that? b) driven purely be ambition or schedule or whatever and forsake family? c) actually harbor some intention that delaying arrival might curtail an unwanted pregnancy? We will never know and, frankly, it's none of our business. Fcreid (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, that's none of our business. But deleting non-original material properly referenced in the Anchorage Daily News isn't any of our business either.Catuskoti (talk) 10:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

A quick Google search shows countless differing opinions to that expressed by Dr. Greg and, particularly given that Palin was still a month before her due date, I suspect you'd find ample non-original opinion to the opposite. Why are we choosing that one particular article from a doctor who never treated her (and may have another agenda?) Fcreid (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

First, the statement was made in April, before Palin became a national political figure; second, the statement was cited in an article in a reliable source specifically regarding Palin's travel choice and third, the doctor was said to be notable because of her activity in an established professional association and her knowledge of its treatment guidelines. Incidentally, it's not relevant here (wp:synth, apparently), but find me ONE statement by a reliable source that says that it's alright to travel after preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PPROM). Google that. Catuskoti (talk) 11:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not our job to weigh medical opinion here but rather to present the facts and let others draw their own conclusions. As it turned out, the delivery went without complication, so obviously what Palin and her doctor discussed proved accurate. However, for a general discussion on the causes and recommended actions for bleeding during pregnancy, this list seems pretty extensive: [16] Fcreid (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent point. The issue becomes, did she follow her doctor's advice; did she defy his advice; or did she simply decide without asking (based possibly on several prior childbirth experiences) that it would be OK? And if we can't determine the answer to that question, then this info's presence in the article amounts to POV-pushing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this part of Fcreid's comment: "It's not our job to weigh medical opinion here but rather to present the facts and let others draw their own conclusions." Per WP:NPOV, however, the facts we present include facts about opinions. If there's reputable gynecological opinion on each side of the question, we report each side as fairly as possible. We don't censor one because we've concluded it's wrong, and we don't omit both because we consider ourselves unqualified to adjudicate. Some people will agree with Fcreid that if all went well then Palin was right in concluding that there was no risk. Others will disagree. ("Russian roulette" has been mentioned on at least one blog post I've seen.) Similarly, we don't need to be able to determine the answer to Bugs's question about whether she followed her doctor's advice. Different things will be important to different readers. It's NPOV to report something like "Palin's doctor said X, prominent expert So-and-so has said Y." Some of these comments seem to imply that we shouldn't report a dispute unless we can adjudicate it, which is not Wikipedia policy. JamesMLane t c 12:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, as a completely irrelevant anecdote, but having lived in Alaska for two years with my own family about twenty years ago, I can tell you they are a much more hardy bunch than us lower-48 types. You won't find the emergency rooms crowded with cases of sniffles. Perhaps this whole issue is nothing more than that? Fcreid (talk) 11:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. It's political POV-pushing, which has plagued the articles of all the major candidates - looking for anything resembling a scandal. Hence my comment earlier about overdue library books, which I shamelessly stole from an old Doonesbury strip. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Again with the personal insults to "settle" disputes.... So much for Wikipedia.Catuskoti (talk) 11:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I made no personal insults, so I assume you're talking to someone else. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Stating that people who are interested in edits you oppose are political hacks, trying to make controversies, etc. is a pretty personal insult. Catuskoti (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You're oversimplifying things, I worry. There's a massive debate in health care and law about the authority of local standards (did she follow her doctors' advice) versus the authority of federal, national, professional, etc. guidelines (what does the AMA say a competent doctor should do). By dismissing the whole issue by appealing to one of these sides (what her doctor said), you end up taking sides in the issue you're trying to referee, and deleting material that 1) is of interest to readers, and 2) meets BLP guidelines. Catuskoti (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there is. But unless you can cite a qualified medical professional who talks about Palin specifically and isn't trying to push a political agenda, it's still POV-pushing or conclusion-drawing or inference, i.e. wikipedians trying to pass judgment on her personal judgment. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, see Dr. Greggs and the multiply Anchorage News Report. Also, read WP:NPOV and let me know what specific text supports your declaration of the POV conditions that have to be met before verified, significant information can be included in this apparently Bugs-copyrighted Wiki. Catuskoti (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph with details of Trig's birth now hangs there without any context, leading the reader to question why it's there in the first place. "Does it tell me she's a diligent worker or a reckless mother?" The issue has not even generated smoke in the MSM, lending credence to my original assertion that the sole source article was poorly researched to begin with. The fact that a MSM commentator inserted foot in mouth based on that article does not warrant its continued inclusion. Moreover, many comments here in discussion (including some of my own) might be perceived as invasive, insensitive and hurtful. I suggest that if no further MSM fact emerges on this issue soon, that the paragraph be removed and associated discussion archived. Fcreid (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Who are you talking about?? What MSM commentator? And since when has it been the job of Wikipedia to tell you whether anyone is "diligent worker" or a "reckless mother?" David Gregory was obviously impressed with Palin's plane adventure on Meet the Press last Sunday. Others have pointed out that infants are at risk after PPROM. We are not supposed to be taking sides in any such debate. But that doesn't mean that the material that has attracted reliably sourced attention since April, should simply be deleted! Catuskoti (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Alan Colmes apparently implied that the infant's Down's Syndrome was somehow related to this flight on his blog. While he later retracted it and further recanted that he didn't suggest that, the damage was done. You'll notice I've not contributed one iota to any other aspect of this story. If you want to frame disparate pieces of nonsense that purport Palin colluded with Nazis or caused the Crimean War, feel free to do so. But enough is enough on this invasion of the family's privacy. Politics does have bounds. Fcreid (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Alaskan Independence Party--Alaska First?--Or America First?

When we get time (...next week), we'll research this. Her loyalty to this country is probably more important than who was born when--though that does go to her practice vs advocacy. Sturunner (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

While Palin herself is social conservative, the Alaskan Independence Party perhaps is more stridently libertarian: a combination making for sort of a Ron Paul type niche. (Which association between the AIP and Palin, if any, and how this association, should it exist, would play into attempting to mend the rift between libertarians and other conservatives in the Republican Party, it seems pundits haven't noticed yet. Then again, the AIP is also cooperates with the national Constitution party -- which is paleoconservative.)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 22:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There's now a citation available for this at ABCNews.Com "Political Punch," here.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 00:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

to me this is enough, when the Party Chairs says a person was a member; that is sufficient evidence. Alexnovo (talk) 24.44.126.129 (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? How is that nearly enough? I spend a fair bit of time editing Cole and Dylan Sprouse, removing various girls' claims that one of the Sprouses is their boyfriend; should I leave them in because they come from the horse's mouth? -- Zsero (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This is now something that even the mainstream press picked up. Membership of a party by a politician is not something trivial, certainly if she's later elected for an other party. This is notable enough to mention in the article. -- fdewaele, 2 September 2008, 8:58 CET

She left this party 14 years ago. Definitely undue weight to present her one time membership in this party as a current political position she holds. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It can't be considered "undue weight" when fresh details have been made public of her recent affiliation with the Alaskan Independence Party- watch video>[17] and claims by the party's leader that she remains sympathetic to their cause. She also prepared a recorded speech to be played at the recent AIP convention stating her goals are similar to that of the AIP. watch video[18] This video is also available on the AIP website. 67.169.26.76 (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I was about to question the whole thing as less than perfectly sourced but NY Times seconds the Jake Tapper blog. I spot checked some other articles from politicians who are known to have switched parties and they do seem to list past affiliations. So listing it in the infobox is (probably) okay. I think it's undue / POV for us to make any assessment about what this says about her. It's a simple fact and should be reported briefly if notable. If a controversy or scandal arises that itself is notable then, subject to weight / POV / RS and similar concerns the scandal might be worth a mention. But it is premature to say that there is a scandal that rises to the level of being biographically important. People change parties all the time - and many states have pro-secession parties with wide grassroots appeal (very few of these are about to do anything radical). In most walks of life having been a member of one at one time is not considered extreme. So best not to jump the gun to decide this is a major issue until and unless the sources do so. Wikidemon (talk) 08:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Where did this section go? Looks like someone removed it for no reason? They simply added that she's a registered Republican, but that doesn't have anything to do with her still being a member of the AIP, as confirmed by the organization's leaders.

Marriage and elopement section deleted and restored

I just restored an entire paragraph from the "Family" section that discussed Sarah and Todd's elopement -- I had edited it, so I may be less than impartial, but numerous citations were attached. Perhaps some other editors can have a look and see what they think so I don't stat an edit war.

Thanks, BTR (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Speculation from a blog. Please familiarize yourself with WP:BLP. A.J.A. (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen so many people so fascinated by a female politician's womb. Kelly ^hi! 21:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

For a politician who believes in government control of said womb, I personally can see where the fascination might stem from.Zredsox (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin believes in government control of women's wombs? Really? That's amazing if true - could you provide a cite for that? Kelly ^hi! 22:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Try reading the main article. It is filled with fascinating citations/references and all in all a great read.Zredsox (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, couldn't find that claim anywhere in there. If true, it would be astonishing. I did see that she is personally opposed to abortion, but I don't quite see how you go from there to "government control of women's wombs". Kelly ^hi! 22:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Abortion equates to government control over a woman's right to chose what to do with her own body. That being said, I am not going to debate this here as this is not a forum.Zredsox (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Kelly ^hi! 22:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Does she support legislation to restrict abortion rights? The answer to that question would answer the question raised in this section. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for all the helpful feedback and links about not citing blogs. I have put in a reworked item that is in today's New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/us/politics/02palin.html?pagewanted=2&hp and restored the "collateral damage" -- the well-cited quote from Palin's mom that got removed with the section, even though it hadn't been questioned -- and which gives some balance.

Thanks again, BTR (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

relationship with ted stevens

Does anyone else feel this section is given way too much weight? I mean we don't have here relationship with any other politician getting even one sentence (McCain excluded). I would prefer this editted down to 1-2 sentences. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Way too much weight, transparent guilt-by-association attempt. Why Stevens and no other Alaska politicians? Needs to be chopped down to a couple of sentences. Kelly ^hi! 22:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is well written. Paring it down would strip away much needed context. I would actually advocate expanding the section because of its significance. Zredsox (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what is the significance? Kelly ^hi! 22:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It is significant because (a) Palin supported Stevens and (b) she is involved in his dismissal. Now, it may be a bit drawn out. If you can cut it down without losing context, by all means. JCP (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What "dismissal"? Kelly ^hi! 22:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Was she a director of a 527 named after any other politician? The significance of the section is to provide a bit of balance to the campaign-brochure language about "running on a clean-government platform" and "challeng[ing] the state Republican establishment". If part of her claim to fame is opposing Ted Stevens, then her relationship with him is relevant. —KCinDC (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Where does the article say that part of her claim to fame was opposing Stevens? This all sounds like synthesis to me. I've cut down the section. Kelly ^hi! 22:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would think her claim to fame is running for VP. A.J.A. (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight on Ted Stevens

Based on what has been written, the "relationship" apparently was:

1. . She was involved in an organization that he was also involved with
2. . He once endorsed her in an election.
3. . She once endorsed him in an election.
4. . She made a public statement about his indictment.

Is that about it? Should we get busy writing similar "relationahip" sections for all politicians articles, linking them to every other politician? Kelly ^hi! 22:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you are free to contribute to Wikipedia wherever you can and if that is a project you would like to undertake, I say go for it (as long as you can prove notability.) Zredsox (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess my real question is, what it is about the "relationship" between Palin and Stevens that makes it more noteworthy than any other relationships between members of the same party in the same state? Kelly ^hi! 22:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree that it's undue weight, which is prohibited per policy. Hobartimus (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So I assume your first question was just you making a WP:POINT? Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it WP policy to not use other articles to argue inclusion of information in a 3rd party article such as this? So Rezko in Obama = Stevens in Palin would not be an acceptable equation. We need to look at each piece of information and conclude on its own merits why it should or should not be entered into the article and currently there does not seem to be a consensus to strip the current language about Stevens. Zredsox (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No, my first question was rhetorical - I guess that wasn't as clear as I thought. And I'm afraid you haven't explained why the Stevens relationship doesn't violate WP:UNDUE. Why is it significant? Kelly ^hi! 23:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Because of your obvious partisan position, I am sure even a mention of scandal would be considered undue by you (even though it is significant and it has been explained multiple times.) That is why we as a group need to come to a consensus rather then you deciding for the group.Zredsox (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, it's not exactly helpful to attack me rather than answering my question about why this "relationship" is significant. Kelly ^hi! 23:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If you can not find the multiple posts that explain why it is significant, what am I supposed to do? Are you trying to get me to keep re-iterating the same thing over and over? Just take a moment, and read carefully and you should find the materials you seek. Zredsox (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I see a post explaining the significance of her involvement with the 527, and that fact is still in the article. I don't see any posts arguing why a couple of election endorsements equals a relationship with a person indicted for corruption. Kelly ^hi! 23:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(1) The organization was named after him, not just something he was vaguely associated with. (2) A significant part of her political appeal is that she's being portrayed as a reformer and anti-corruption fighter, as exemplified in the article by the sentence "Palin also publicly challenged Senator Ted Stevens to come clean about the federal investigation into his financial dealings." (3) Endorsement in general don't mean much, but endorsement of a primary challenger against an incumbent is more significant, as is endorsing someone after they've been connected to corruption (though I'm not sure of the state of things at the time she endorsed). There may have been too many sentences about it before, but it should stay in the article. —KCinDC (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that she worked for the organization is still in the article (or was as of a minute ago). That's fine. But it's undue weight to take the fact that members of the same party endorsed each other (before Stevens was indicted, by the way) as a "relationship" with its own section header. It's also a BLP violation to try to tie her to an indicted politician - it's guilt by association. Kelly ^hi! 23:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Is her endorsement of Parnell's challenge to Young, which is in the article, also insignificant? I see that Stevens's endorsement of her challenge to Murkowski is in the article at the moment, which is fine with me. Established politicians endorsing primary challenges to their colleagues in the party is significant. —KCinDC (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's not the fact of including the endorsements that was worrying, but the extension of those endorsements into a purported "relationship", complete with a section title that said "Murkowski relationship". If the endorsement is included, it should be a sentence or phrase in the section on the gubernatorial election, I think. Kelly ^hi! 01:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The endorsement by Ted Stevens of Sarah Palin for the governorship of the state of Alaska (her only significant office held with respect to preparation for being vice president) seems pretty important and indicative of a relationship:

Palin welcomed a Stevens endorsement, even releasing a campaign commercial of the event, featuring Stevens offering support of Palin, with Palin smiling mightily in the background. One other bit of telling video: in July of this year, Stevens and Palin held a joint news conference, denying that there was any political distance between them.

Indicted Hometown Senator Poses Problem for Sarah Palin Digitalmandolin (talk) 09:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Article needs to mention Stevens effect on gubernatorial election

I don't think there should be an entire subhead for Ted Stevens. But the article, as is, does not account for Stevens effect. Read this bit from Washington Post: [19] "Stevens had been helpful to Palin during her run for governor, swooping in with a last moment endorsement. And the two filmed a campaign commercial together to highlight Stevens's endorsement of Palin during the 2006 race." Zredsox (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Poggio (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

See the conversation regarding Ted Stevens above. Kelly ^hi! 23:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No consensus was reached, and a certain pro-palin "editor" decided to go ahead and removed it anyway eventhough it was still being discuss. Lakerking04 (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe the section should be returned to it original state and then we should decide what if anything should go?Zredsox (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps someone could actually post the suggested wording here on the talk page before inclusion, which is the right way to handle controversial information here at Wikipedia. Kelly ^hi! 00:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The right way is to delete what you don't like and then say we should discuss all changes here? Interesting. Zredsox (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not that I like it or don't like it, it's that it violated policy and was obviously controversial. What do you propose for moving forward? Kelly ^hi! 00:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It did not violate any policy. It stated facts. It was clear. It was concise.Zredsox (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you want to reinclude? The article already says that she worked for the Stevens 527 and that she had removed a commercial they made together from her website following his indictment. Kelly ^hi! 00:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Why does the article need to include Stevens' "effect on the election"? And how do we know what "effect" Stevens had on the election? I'm not following? Please explain why this is significant in a biography? --Paul (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the current version is fine. For disclosure, I wrote it, but hey I still think it is fine. Hehe. Seriously though, her relationship with Stevens is not that important if he had not gotten himself in so much trouble, I doubt anyone would have tried to add it at all.--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The article currently says "Ted Stevens made a last-moment endorsement as Stevens and Palin filmed a TV commercial together for Palin's gubernatorial campaign." So it is mentioned. That seems okay to me, though there are no doubt tweaks to it that would also be okay, if someone is unhappy and wants to suggest something. —KCinDC (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that seems to resolve the undue weights just fine (speaking for myself). Kelly ^hi! 01:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This actual made the video be mentioned twice. Since this new reference seemed more relevant than her removing it from her website some time later, I removed the 2nd reference. (I'm sorry, but removing an old ad you no longer what associated with you if hardly controversial, and thus not worth a separate mention) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine. Kelly ^hi! 01:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Robert Battle

I've removed the references to Robert Battle's independent research site, until someone can show that he is an expert, published by a third-party, in this field of expertise. Wjhonson (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I added that, but I think you may be right to remove it. I thought, at first blush, that Mr. Battle was a professional, but I'm unable to substantiate that. On the other hand (at the risk of indulging in WP:OR) his results duplicate my own investigations into Palin's ancestry from publicly available sources. Still, probably best that it stay out, for now. Coemgenus 23:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd have no problem including your public sources, provided they can be easily validated with minimal effort, by an average editor.Wjhonson (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it's too close to original research for me to compile census records, published genealogies, and obituaries and post it here. If a professional genealogist does it, I'd be glad to cite to him, but I've never published in that field or been employed in it. Hopefully, William Reitwiesner at wargs.com will pick up on it -- his work has been cited in several other wiki articles. Coemgenus 23:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Itinerary?

I am trying to source Palin's itinerary on her trip to Kuwait. It seems that the reported visit to Ireland was just a stopover at Shannon Airport. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If a spokesperson is the only person who is claiming she visited Ireland, it should be removed even if there are not more sources. That is a definite conflict of interest.Zredsox (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That is a definite conflict of interest -- what, like the spokesman owns Aer Lingus stock? What does "conflict of interest" even mean when a source is a spokesman? -- Noroton (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

They want to make it sound like she is more worldly and thus a plane hitting a runway in Ireland to fuel equates to "She was in Ireland." That is the conflict of interest and why we need a secondary source. If she didn't get off the plane then it probably should not be included in the article. Zredsox (talk) 00:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The article citing this isn't very clear on any of her visits. We know she visited Kuwait as there are images; however, I am unsure of any itinerary. I believe CNN did a piece that briefly mentioned conversations she had there but that was on the television. The reference to her trip(s) are also mentioned twice, which is redundant. They should be removed from "personal life" since they were for political reasons. JCP 22:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Certainly more info should be looked for on this subject - but relying on a spokesperson for certain information (like relying on a primary source) is appropriate if the notability of the subject is already established, which it obviously is. Unless there is strong reason to doubt the spokesperson, I don't see the reason for removal. 141.161.71.241 (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Palin's first passport was issued in 2007, with the implication that she did not leave the USA till that time, is notable enough to be featured in the lead. Per WP:LEAD ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

She may have been in Canada (or certain other nations) without needing a passport -- Did the family drive the Alaska Highway when they moved north from Idaho? LarryMorseDCOhio (talk) 06:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That her first passport was issued in 2007 is worth mentioning in the body of the article. I'm very surprised at the suggestion that it should be in the lead, though. Travel abroad isn't that huge an aspect of a person's life, unless the bio subject is a travel writer or some such. JamesMLane t c 07:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with putting it in the lede because the office she is running for is tasked with representing the United States in international relations. Lack of passport until last year shows a stunning deficit in the resume of a person who would take on this task. Digitalmandolin (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It is source and should be mentioned, but in the lead? In biographies, leads tend to be a brief synopsis of the person's life. What documents the state department issued to her is a minor part of this, since her political career up to now has been domestic -- all in Alaska. I understand that's the point some editors want to make, this factoid is not so important that it should be the first thing people read about her. And, it is worth noting that possession of a passport was, until very recently, an imperfect proxy for foreign travel. Coemgenus 10:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the current President could even have found Europe on a world globe when he took office. Meanwhile, if Palin had known before 2007 that she would be nominated for VP, maybe she would have gotten a passport before 2007. To make too big a thing of this seems like POV-pushing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Why no mention that Palin's family is interacial or that her husband is a Yup'ik Native?

It seems strange that the fact that Sarah Palin's husband and children are Yup’ik Eskimo has escaped mention in this wikipedia article. The Atlanta Journal Constitution is just one of the major newspapers that has reported that the family's Alaskan Native heritage has played a significant role in family life. The fact that Ms. Palin's husband is a member of an Alaskan Native community is significant because it is particularly relevant to understand, Sarah Palin, her family and her husband.

Palin Bio on ajc.com

Mrs. Palin's choice as a white woman marrying into a Alaskan Native family is significant because it shows her personal strenghth and unwillingness to opt for the easy road. In Alaska as in the rest of the Unite States, it is still not the norm to engage in a multiracial relationship. Native Alaskans suffer significantly from white racism and Sarah Palin took a clear stand against that endemic racism.

The implication of this article is that Mrs. Palin's work at a commercial fishery shows opposition to environmental conservationism. This implication would not be made and situation more accurately portrayed if it was noted that this fishery is Yup'ik Native Alaskan owned.

In Alaska, Palin known for battling against long odds

Why no mention of the fact that Mrs. Palin's campaign for governor was partially the result of heavy campaigning in Alaskan Native communities by herself and Mr. Palin's grandmother (a traditional Yup’ik from a Eskimo house in Bristol Bay).

Tsali2 (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Part Yup'ik, and I think the article does mention it.

It's basically trivia. Some degree of America Indian heritage is very common for American whites. A.J.A. (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That is unsubstantiated personal opinion. Alaskan Native Population is 15.39% of the Alaskan Population. You cannot assume that 4.86% of those of two or more races in Alaska are all whites and Alaskan Natives, but even if you can, 5 in 100 is hardly "very common". Tsali2 (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The article does not mention that Todd Palin and the children are ethnically and culturally identified as Native Alaskan. Tsali2 (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't saying that Inuit heritage was common in Alaskan whites, but that American Indian heritage, of whatever tribe, is very common among American whites, meaning that many Americans who identify as white have some native ancestry. According to family tradition I'm part Cherokee, but I'm not a tribal member and have only ever identified as white. It's actually pretty standard. A.J.A. (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In that case, multiracial people (people identifying as being of 2 or more races) in the US make up 1.64% of the population as of the 2000 Census with 0.74% of the country identifying themselves as being Indian or Alaskan Native. I highly doubt that the majority of those who are of mixed race in the US are whites and Indians or Alaskan Natives. That said, you are not Cherokee as you have no cultural affiliation and it sounds like only a vague notion that you may have a Cherokee princess great great great grandmother somewhere out there who may or may not have existed. Such was not the case of the Palin's who identify as Yup'ik on the Governor's website and mention the fact that this identity is significant in their family life. Tsali2 (talk) 00:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have a hard time following my point. I'm not talking about people who identify as multiracial, I'm talking about the fact that most people who identify as white have some American Indian ancestry, which isn't just confirmed by the oral histories of many families but by actual DNA tests. A.J.A. (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That's funny, I feel like I am talking right past you. We are not talking about a situation where there is no cultural affiliation for 100+ years. Todd's mother is the former chairman of the Alaskan Federation of Natives and he identifies as Yup'ik or part Yup'ik in articles about him. In the case of the Palin's we're also not talking about people who have a rumor there maybe an Indian hanging in their family tree somewhere way back. You are not Indian in the U.S. unless you can prove it and have cultural contacts. Fact of the matter is that even if race mixing was at the level you imply that it is, based purely on conventional wisdom, these whites you're referring to have no cultural contact and have no idea what it means to be Indian. That said, Indian and Eskimo are two different things. I and many other American Indians do not see a familial relationship with Eskimos other than shared struggle. Even beyond that, DNA Testing for race is highly inaccurate and suspect for a number of reason, and entirely irrelevant because even if it worked it could only be necessary to show distant relationship and not family contacts. Tsali2 (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Marrying someone that is one-quarter one-eighth minority is hardly remarkable in itself. You'd need to show that is has had an appreciable impact on her life or views. Dragons flight (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Indian and Alaskan Native communities determine who is and who is not of their community. It is racist to say that because someone is 1/4 or less that they are no longer of the race or culture that they self-identify. That is one of the hallmarks of colonial domination of indigenous people. Breed them out, or refuse to acknowledge their ethnicity. Tsali2 (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It is racist to assume that because someone is part minority then that defines them. You have provided no evidence that Todd Palin or their children even self-identify as natives. As I said, to include such a discussion in Sarah Palin's article you have to provide evidence that having a husband who is part minority has made a difference in her life or views. Dragons flight (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's try to avoid accusations of racism (on both sides) and concentrate on what belongs in the article and what has reliable sources. —KCinDC (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree why does this article not mention that Todd and the Children are Yup'ik Eskimos. The Palin's identify themselves as Yup'ik and state that this ancestry is relevant to family identity http://gov.state.ak.us/bio.htmlTsali2 (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of my ancestors' are Irish, but I don't identify myself as Irish. That bio says his gradmother is Yup'ik, but it doesn't identify him or his children as Yup'ik. Dragons flight (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The bio says that Todd's gradmother is Yup'ik an that "Alaska’s Native heritage plays an important role in their family"Tsali2 (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That says "Through Todd’s Yup'ik grandmother, Alaska’s Native heritage plays an important role in their family." It doesn't say they identify themselves as Yup'ik. Propose wording (with reliable sourcing) that you would prefer for the article so people can see what you're suggesting. Otherwise this discussion doesn't seem useful in improving the article. —KCinDC (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I propose the addition of the following statement. "As Todd is Yup'ik Alaskan Native through his grandmother's family, Alaska’s Native heritage plays an important role in their family" (or even any note that Todd is Yup'ik Alaskan Native) and also think a note that Todd’s grandmother Yup’ik native of Bristol Bay accompanied Sarah in her race for governor as she sought support from Alaska Native voters. http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/08/29/CAMPAIGN_PALIN_odds.html and http://gov.state.ak.us/bio.html.

As a American Indian I was shocked, and proud to learn of the native connection of Palin. I was excited to see Obama's connection to the Crow Nation as well. I should note I'm annoyed Obama's connection to the Crow has not been mentioned in wikipedia although it is also of significance in Native America. I don't care for either McCain or Obama and intend to vote solely in tribal elections(as is my practice as I oppose recognizing colonial governance), but am pissed both Obama's and Palin's Indian/Alaskan Native connections are being hidden. Tsali2 (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You haven't presented any source that says Todd is a Yup'ik Alaskan Native, just that his grandmother is and that the family recognize their Native heritage. —KCinDC (talk) 04:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can be this biased that you are unwilling to post a statement that Todd Palin is Yup'ik Alaskan Native when it is repeatedly stated publicly by the family. Maybe you don't understand genetics. If your grandmother is Indian - then like magic so are you. It is incredibly unlikely that a Native grandmother would not pass on any culture to her child. It is even less likely that a politically active Native mother would not pass on culture and Native/Tribal politics to her son. See the following seven articles (obviously there are more) stating that Mr. Palin is Native Alaskan/Yup'ik:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/30/MN8J12KR7Q.DTL http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2008/08/30/feisty-basketball-captain-ran-away-to-marry-91466-21636689/ http://www.theage.com.au/world/palin-investigated-for-role-in-sacking-20080831-46d9.html http://news.muckety.com/2008/08/29/alaska-gov-sarah-palin-is-mccains-surprise-vp-pick/4771 http://www.radikal.com.tr/Default.aspx?aType=Detay&ArticleID=896352&CategoryID=81 http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/1-0&fp=48bd1c5ac62991a6&ei=1zK9SO6jHaGuyQSVrZC7Ag&url=http%3A//news.chinatimes.com/2007Cti/2007Cti-News/2007Cti-News-Content/0%2C4521%2C110504%2b112008083000267%2C00.html&cid=0&usg=AFQjCNGk0_NzvmMpO7wrCrxGIsyvAm9ynA http://www.lastampa.it/_web/cmstp/tmplRubriche/giornalisti/grubrica.asp?ID_blog=43&ID_articolo=988&ID_sezione=58&sezione= Tsali2 (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It is original research to drone on about how someone marrying a person with some Native American ancestry shows "personal strenghth and unwillingness to opt for the easy road." Sounds like pure spin doctoring. Edison2 (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That is my personal opinion after having read numerous articles this afternoon verifying that she married an Alaskan Native. I did not say that personal strength and unwillingness to opt for the easy road were statements that should be added to the article only that living in a multiracial family is significant. Tsali2 (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama comes from a multi-racial family. Whoever wins this election, it will break the mold. As far as the "personal strength and unwillingness to opt for the easy road" stuff about marrying an Alaskan Native, that sounds like a rather businesslike/political reason to get married. Don't rule out that she might simply have thought he was a hottie. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully she did marry him because he is a hottie. I suspect that in her early 20s she wasn't thinking hey, I should marry a college drop out to be successful in the future because I can ride this Yup'ik thing into the Whitehouse although having grown up in Alaska she had probably seen racism against Eskimos and pure or not and had to have considered that in her decision to marry.Tsali2 (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Todd Palin's article talks enough about his heritage. Coemgenus 23:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

A Yup'ik and a Yuppie? Should be a good match. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Section on dismissal

This section is currently very misleading. It says:

Initially, Palin denied that there had been any pressure on Monegan to fire Wooten from her or anyone in her administration.[81] She later disclosed that her staff had contacted Monegan or his staff about two dozen times regarding Wooten, including many from her chief of staff, stating most calls were made without her knowledge.

This is misleading because the 24 contacts about Wooten were not necessarily "pressure." Palin's spokesperson has said that her actions were merely to alert Monegan of potential threats to her family. After all, Wooten had made a death threat against her father. Palin has only ackowledged that one of the 24 contacts was pressure to fire Wooten.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"She later disclosed that her staff had contacted Monegan or his staff about two dozen times regarding Wooten, including many from her chief of staff, stating most calls were made without her knowledge". How is that misleading? Her staff DID make 24 calls to Monegan and some of them if not all were concerning Wooten. Lakerking04 (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Were there 24 separate threats to her family that she was informing him of? It doesn't seem unreasonable to characterize 24 contacts from the governor's office about an issue as pressure. Do you have a suggested rewording? —KCinDC (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's probably best to keep this summary brief. See WP:SS.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact remains that initially she lied about the entire affair, and only admitted that her staff made calls when the legislature hired a private investigator. Then she proceeded to claim ignorance about the entire affair despite the fact that she herself admits to sending emails to Monegan about Wooten. Something sounds fishy here, but thats not my call to make, I'll wait for the investigator to release his report in October.. Lakerking04 (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think she lied? She didn't say initially that no one ever spoke to Monegan about Wooten. She said initially that they didn't pressure Monegan to fire Wooten. It's possible to speak with a cabinet officer without pressuring him, isn't it? And, when it turned out that Bailey had indeed exerted such pressure, she held a press conference to say so.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Grr. Ferrylodge, I have to say, I am having a really hard time assuming good faith about your last edit here, where you removed all mention of inappropriate contact between Palin's and Monegan's offices. You have participated enough in the talk page here to know better. There are two sides to this story. Monegan says she was 1 pressuring him and then 2 fired him; Palin says 3 Wooten is a bad guy and 4 she wasn't aware of any pressure from her office. (This is not a forum, so no discussion of which of those stories is more coherent.) We have to touch all four bases. In my opinion, any editor who's read this talk page and then misses one of those bases, is giving the appearance of acting in bad faith, and should consider leaving this article alone permanently. Homunq (talk) 23:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Homunq, first of all, your comment would be much more persuasive if it did not completely ignore my initial comment above that the material was very misleading. Additionally, if you want to criticize a particular edit of mine, the propr thing to do is provide a diff so that people (e.g. you and I) can examine it. The diff is here. Notice that the edit summary refers to WP:SS, but you ignore that too.

I won't ignore your points, though. You say that this Wikipedia article should mention that Monegan felt his firing may have been retaliation, and that Palin had been at odds with Wooten. All of that remained in this Wikipedia article after my edit. You also say that this Wikipedia artice should mention that Palin says she wasn't aware of any pressure from her office, but the fact is that she eventually became aware of that, so the chronology is complex. I certainly left in this article that she denied firing Monegan because he defied pressure to fire Wooten, which is the main issue ("Monegan was not released due to any actions or inaction related to personnel issues in his department").Ferrylodge (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to not include a diff, thanks. In my mind, your mention of WP:SS in the edit comment was actually more damning, as your edit was clearly clipping the section as it stood rather than summarizing it. I was trying to be charitable by not attacking you on that point too.

I mentioned (and numbered) four basic points that the article should include, and was angry that you'd removed one. You return that it still had three of them. I fail to see how that responds to my point. The article as you left it had no mention of the substance of the allegations of pressure. I maintain that that is unacceptable, and would maintain the same about any of the other 3 points (including the ones that are Palin's side of the story).

You say your previous comment, above, argues that this information was misleading. Yet nothing in your comment refers to the status of the article; rather, it starts out with a direct reference to an allegation (lies) made only here on the talk page, and continues by citing details which your own edit removed.

The section could stand to be shorter. But the bottom line is that it must indicate the basic substance for both sides of the argument. Homunq (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I think the version after my edit had all four basic points. You seem to be referring to what you numbered as your point 1: pressuring Monegan. But Monegan's complaint about retaliation obviously implies that he felt pressured, and I left that in. I took out the misleading back-and-forth about which exact people may have applied pressure on what exact number of occasions.

And please look at my initial comment above again. The blockquote was a direct quote from the article, not from the talk page. Why do you not think it's from the article? Not only is it from the article, but it's also very misleading, for the reasons I explained. As Lakerking04 described above, it's phrased to make it sound like Palin was lying. Ferrylodge (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, the discussion is above. Kelly ^hi! 01:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you referring to, Kelly?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That's weird, the comment I was replying to is gone. (It was the Ted Stevens thing). Never mind...Kelly ^hi! 01:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

[out] Thanks for pointing me to this discussion, Ferrylodge. I think it's moot now that the further comment was added that she could see how 24 calls and contact from her husband and herself "might be viewed" as pressure - but I'll respond. I don't necessarily think the summary section needs as much detail as it now has (see my earlier edit here, for example - although more info and sources may have surfaced since then, so I can't say at the moment if I think what was there then is now enough) - but (and this is why I reinstated text) without some clear inclusion about the extreme number of contacts made by her staff, husband and herself, the story loses its point- all that was left before my edit was a version with no reference to the fact that there were so many contacts including those she surely knew about. And saying only that "Monegan alleged that his dismissal may have been partly in retaliation..." was not right - there are numerous sources that make it clear that Monegan more than thought it "may have been" partly in retaliation. I later removed the word "retaliation" in an effort to keep it closer to the source cited at that spot - it said "connected to". But I can't go along with removing the reason that Monegan "went public" as the Grimaldi article put it, and that's the 24 contacts by staff, the Governor, the Governor's husband, and the Atty General. Tvoz/talk 07:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Modest proposal

I think it would be worth pushing this section to a transcluded subpage. It would look identical on the page here, but it would free this section up from the tangled edit history of the rest of the page, and allow us to attain some kind of stability here. There will always be a tension over the length and balance of this section, but it is 10 times harder to resolve if 3 out of 4 careful edits run into edit conflicts, and it is impossible to find the previous version with the reference you want in the flurry of unrelated edits. I'm not being bold on this because I want to get some agreement first. Homunq (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I would not support that at present. I've never heard of such a thing being done at Wikipedia, but maybe someone can provide an example.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that the level of sustained and varied controversy over this article is record-setting or close to it, so new solutions may be in order. But if there's dissent from this suggestion, for whatever reason, I guess we shouldn't. Homunq (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a current snapshot of the section. I think this is a good floor for what should go in, and the ceiling should be no more than double this size.

Main article: Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal

On July 11, 2008 Palin dismissed Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan, citing performance-related issues. She instead offered him a position as executive director of the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, which he turned down. Monegan alleged that his dismissal was retaliation for his failure to fire Palin’s former brother-in-law, an Alaska State Trooper who had made a death threat against Palin's father, among other alleged misconduct and family disagreements. A dispute arose over whether contacts made by Palin's staff and family constituted inappropriate pressure on Monegan to fire Wooten.

The Alaska Legislature subsequently hired an independent investigator to review "the circumstances and events surrounding the termination of former Public Safety Commissioner Monegan, and potential abuses of power and/or improper actions by members of the executive branch." The investigation is scheduled to be completed in October, 2008.

First, as to transclusion, I don't understand enough about how that would work. Would you explain it at a very nontechnical level? The edit conflicts are annoying but we can hope that the article will become less active as it settles into a stable form.

Second, as to length, an arbitrary floor or ceiling would be inappropriate. In a developing story, even a consensus version might have to be changed.

Third, as to the specifics of the content, your suggested version has a very pro-Palin POV. It makes it sound as if Wooten committed certain infractions, Monegan refused to discipline him in any way, and Palin was upset at that. We can't omit the key fact that the whole thing was investigated, and Wooten punished, before Palin took office. That fact is why, when Palin pressured Monegan, he said that he couldn't do anything more about it; the matter had been closed. Furthermore, your summary omits the Kopp incident, which must be in the article somewhere, and this is the obvious place. We have a bio of a governor and one of her appointed cabinet members resigned in scandal after two weeks. That merits a mention in the accounting of her administration. JamesMLane t c 19:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fishy Business

Im starting to suspect they're McCain staffers amongst us posing as wikipedia editors. It's clearly apparent that some "editors" on here are very baised in favour of palin, whether the facts support their views or not, they don't care. Lakerking04 (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And I'm starting to suspect there are wacky Daily Kos conspiracy theorists among us posing as wikipedia editors. It's clearly apparent that some "editors" on here are very baised against Palin, whether the facts support their views or not, they don't care. (tongue-in-cheek comment) But somehow it all works out and we end up with a neutral article. Wikipedia is cool that way. Kelly ^hi! 23:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, have you made an edit that didn't make Palin look better? I think you are a big part of the white washing that is being referred to as I have watched you cut story after story that was "negative" (see: Stevens above) while fluffing the positive. As for the Daily Kos, I find it insulting that you are attacking its readers in this venue and don't think this is the place for that kind of conduct. Zredsox (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "whitewashing" to remove libel and slander sourced to Daily Kos, which is mostly what I've done. I have removed or reworded other information that violated various WIkipedia policies. Can you point to a place where I "fluffed the positive"? On the Stevens thing, I notice you still haven't answered the question above about significance. Oh, and my Daily Kos comment was directed at their conspiracy theorists, not their readers. Kelly ^hi! 23:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

KCinDC and JCP have given great reasons (that you seem to miss each time you go to that section.) I am not going to go over and over the obvious points that have already been stated eloquently. As for your bias, yes it is a concern because when we are working toward consensus as a group and in the middle of that discussion you make a snap judgment call (that something is unduly weighted) even though that is the topic of heated discussion (and doesn't require immediate deletion.) It becomes a serious violation of the spirit of Wikipedia. I am not talking about the libel and slander, I am talking about all the little things you have done to make this read like JohnMcCain.com South. You are making "judgment calls" that always favor the home team...Zredsox (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to take me to WP:RFC or some form of dispute resolution if you disagree, but I haven't done anything but mainly remove BLP violations (which includes a fabricated "relationship" with an indicted Senator). What are "all the little things" that you are talking about? Kelly ^hi! 23:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Zredsox himself made very "intresting" edits, for example here [20] he deletes a source a Rasmussen survey TITLED "Palin Makes Good First Impression: Is Viewed More Favorably than Biden" and here [21] he inserts text saying Palin's favourability numbers are "the lowest statistic vote of confidence in a running mate since...1988" after he carefully deleted that Palin was viewed more favourably than Biden. Can you say misrepresenting sources much? Hobartimus (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The first poll was removed because the numbers for Palin were from one poll and the numbers for Biden from another. I just used the poll numbers (USA TODAY/GALLUP) for both so it would be consistent. As for the information concerning Quayle, that was a direct quote from the article and I updated the article to reflect it rather than have an editors opinion of what was said. Zredsox (talk) 00:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus, we don't need to go there - one poll is pretty much the same as another and will be replaced soon enough. Kelly ^hi! 23:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes polls are interchangeable, true however the above was just a reaction to Zredsox saying "You are making "judgment calls" that always favor the home team..." and however defensible or otherwise good the edit was the source and text that stated "Palin is viewed more favorably than Biden" disappeared into nothingness and another stating "worst reaction since Quayle" appeared. Let's just all calm down and don't be so quick of accusing each other with bias, let's archive this whole thread I say. Hobartimus (talk) 00:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Daily Kos was where the Trig business got started, so yes, I think a few negative references here and there are warranted.

More seriously, much of the editing, especially from newer editors, is driven by precisely those issues which Daily Kos and other left-bloggers are using to attack her. Which isn't to say they shouldn't be covered at all, but don't be surprised when everyone else thinks contributions which reflect the preferred discourse of one side of a contested election need a little work to conform to WP:BLP, which doesn't just cover sourcing and factual accuracy but judgment calls like undue weight. A.J.A. (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And similarly, when much of the editing is driven by issues that the McCain campaign and right-wing bloggers and commentators are using to promote and defend her, don't be surprised when people think contributions that reflect the preferred discourse of the other side require similar work. —KCinDC (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course you're right - everything potentially controversial needs to be impeccably sourced. Kelly ^hi! 23:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith. —KCinDC (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is completely non-productive, as it does not go toward improving the article in any way. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Kos: One further unproductive comment, in the context of many references in this editorial discussion space to "Kos" as "left-wing" (or liberal). That is an insult to left-wing-nuts :) "Kos" is middle-wing-mush-brain: e.g., they wet themselves with excitement over "War Hero" Kerry as their champion. Left-wing nuts were for Howard Dean. Who good-ol Al supported. :) Yes, this is a totally inappropriate comment -- meant to squelch the repeating of the "Kos is left wing" meme in an environment where "Kos" is often mentioned, e.g. "you can't quote Kos." THE END Proofreader77 (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The story certainly did not originate on Daily Kos, though it may have gotten attention drawn to it there. It has apparently circulated in Alaska for months before anyone in the lower 48 heard of Sarah Palin.[22] 75.62.4.102 (talk) 07:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

First passport?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First Passport Cite (ABC) [23]Zredsox (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I just noticed that the ABC ref on the passport[24] also contains a statement by Geraldine Ferraro downplaying concerns about her foreign policy experience. Should that be included? Kelly ^hi! 02:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palin's link to Joel's Army

Is there any WP:RS for Palin's link to Joel's Army? It's all over the blogs. We66er (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You should have seen what was all over the blogs yesterday. Afraid we can't use anything about it without a reliable source. Kelly ^hi! 00:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No, there isn't. All it amounts to is that the church she attends when she's in Juneau is Pentecostal, and someone decided that the entire Pentecostal church is "dominionist". It's pure bigotry, even if Palin were actually a Pentecostal, which she isn't. -- Zsero (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that article by Dogemperor on Daily Kos that seems to be the source doesn't make any actual connection at all. It seems to be pure smear. —KCinDC (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

RS for AIP section

Is a report on blogs.abcnews.com considered a reliable source? (Trying Bold, discuss, revert this time instead of WP:Bold, revert, discuss.) Celestra (talk) 00:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Depends on if it's an editorial or straight news, and who wrote it. Link? Kelly ^hi! 00:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Presumably the one that's in the article. —KCinDC (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, I must be getting senile. Yes, that source seems reliable to me. Whatever text ends up in the article should probably make it clear exactly who is making the claims about her membership, though. Kelly ^hi! 01:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

[ec] News source blogs are generally accepted - the signed main posts by reporters, that is, not the comments of course - as per this footnote to the Verifiability policy:

Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested ..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources. So it would depend on which reference you're talking about and you might need to qualify it as an opinion, but it likely can be used as a source. Tvoz/talk 01:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The news story saysLynette Clark, the chairman of the AIP, tells ABC News that Palin and her husband Todd were members in 1994. The article should say who is making the claim. In addition, the article says nothing about her registration.--Work permit (talk) 04:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Biased Article

"She has challenged the state Republican establishment. For example, she endorsed Parnell's bid to unseat the state's longtime at-large U.S. Congressman, Don Young.[36] Palin also publicly challenged Senator Ted Stevens to come clean about the federal investigation into his financial dealings."

"She has challeneged the state republican establishment"????? Is this wikipedia or her campaign site?Lakerking04 (talk) 00:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm - the referenced source says she "took on" the Republican establishment. What alternate wording would you suggest? Kelly ^hi! 01:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point. It is a bit too strong, I suppose. It adhere to McCain public spin a little too much. Perhaps removing the "challenge" tone and just state that she unseated an at-large congressmen? JCP 01:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because the McCain campaign has made a talking point about it, doesn't mean it isn't true. They also say she is a woman and that seems to be true.--Paul (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't politicans un-seat each other all the time? Why is she notable? Lakerking04 (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably could use toning down, not sure exactly how to word it, though. It wasn't just the sitting governor she unseated, she had also taken down the Republicans on the board of which she was a member, including the state party leader. Kelly ^hi! 01:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

To throw in a neutral spin, other politicians closely related to this article ousted members of their own party. The description in their article doesn't adhere to campaign spin tactics. No need to feed the McCain spin in this one. It should have a NPOV. Simply state that she succeeded x y and z. JCP 01:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JCP. That seems like the wikipedian thing to do! Lakerking04 (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok so how many centuries is it going to take for someone to change the paragraph? Lakerking04 (talk) 01:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

A large portion of her (per-VP) notability was directly related to the fact that she took on fellow Republicans with ethical issues. Maybe this sentence isn't the place for it, but the general idea of the comment is valid. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The McCain campaign has made that a talking point. Many politicians took on the status quo but we don't praise them for it in wikipedia article. We shouldn't do that here. JCP 01:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It is spin and unnecessary.Zredsox (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree it can be reworded, but the cited sources make it pretty clear that was part of her notability, so I wouldn't necessarily dismiss it as campaign talk or "spin". Kelly ^hi! 01:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I changed "has challenged" to "sometimes broke with". Better? Kelly ^hi! 01:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm, addressing her by her last name, such as "Palin also has been known to take on..." might be better than just saying "she"; however, I am still not sure this will meet others' criteria for objectivity. I guess the question remains, is it objective to say something that is speculative? Going with my own discussion I had with you in regards to the passport listing, I suppose this is required to "set up" the factual data that follows. If we find a new way to phrase "Republican establishment" I think it would be much better. Establishment is a misleading and all-encompassing word. Perhaps we could use "Republicans in her party"? JCP 01:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"Republicans in her party"? You mean the Republican Party? Is there anything besides Republicans in the Republican Party? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem there is that no where in that article does it say she went against her party concerning Stevens. Who is to say the Republican establishment did not want Stevens to come clean? There is nothing from that source that collaborates what is being written.Zredsox (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Zredsox about the use of "establishment", but on the other hand her relationships with top officeholders in her party have been less harmonious than is customary (but on the other other hand, not completely adversarial). What about "She has had a sometimes contentious relationship with other leading Republican officeholders in Alaska"? JamesMLane t c 01:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that works. It is as objective as I think we'll get. It gets the point across that Palin has gone against the grain but doesn't portray her in an exaggerated point of view. Zredsox also makes a good point. I just re-read the source and it doesn't try portray her as a party shaker in any way. Actually, this should really be removed. It completely distorts the article and authors words. JCP 02:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Necessity for Official Portrait (or something similar)

Sarah Palin, in her current not-so-professional photo

The current photo is not professional, and it is being used all over Wikipedia (such as here and here). The photo used currently detracts from the professionalism of the articles it is used in. There is a high quality official portrait here but there must be official okay for its use. Is there something else that may be in the public domain that will not be juxtaposed next to John McCain's official Senate portrait? Something needs to be done, though, if she is the presumptive Republican nominee for VP.Wadester16 (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the official portraits from Alaska are copyrighted and not public domain, unlike works of the federal government. I think the current photo is probably about the best we have of her for the purpose of the infobox, and seems to be of acceptable quality (at least in my opinion). Kelly ^hi! 01:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Given the frequent Instamatic-snapshot quality of public figures' pictures in wikipedia, this one is extraordinarily good. It actually flatters her, I think, which is more than you can say for most of the amateur portraits on this site. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a great photo; what on earth is wrong with it? BB is right: this is extremely high quality for most of our free politician photos. Antandrus (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. The official photos for a lot of politicians don't even look like them, especially since many are far out of date. —KCinDC (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Amy

For comparison, check out this frumpy-looking photo from the 2006 version of the Amy Klobuchar article, and count your blessings. This was the best wikipedia had until they got the official U.S. Senate portrait in 2007. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL - ouch! Yes, there are some horrific free photos out there. This one is pretty flattering by comparison. Kelly ^hi! 02:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness this lady above doesn't look like she can run a marathon like Palin. Hobartimus (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly all political candidates should learn to donate good photos to prevent Wikipedians from making them look awkward and frumpy. Dragons flight (talk) 02:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You all should make sure to click on the Palin photo, note which excellent Wikipedian uploaded it, and then go to the Flickr source to see the full amazing uncropped photo with amusing comments.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I would say you have only one fault: Too much humility. Try to work on that in your copious free time. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would we want to change the photo? This one is great. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 03:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly every commenter has missed the point that I have made. Your responses critique the quality of the photo itself, which I have no objections to. I agree that it is a flattering photo of the woman, taken at a good angle, and is a quality shot. My point is that when you have this photo next to John McCain in US Presidential Election, 2008, it makes things look tacky to say the least. Then you look at the photo of Obama and Biden and see a professionally dressed, professional photo of each, which is what you would expect. This is not a professional photo, she's in casual clothes, and it takes away from the EV of an article b/c you are distracted by the photo (can't wait to hear responses to that last comment!). The official photo I referenced before requires permission for use. Do you think they would turn that down? And who would have to contact them about it? I still stand by my original statements if you would like to read them again and interpret them the way I intended. Wadester16 (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• And please don't try to argue that Biden's photo is not professional. He is posing for a camera, looking at said camera, and at least has a jacket on. Though personally I would prefer something with a tie and single colored background. But that's not my point here. Wadester16 (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Todd Palin's employment history with BP

This article notes that:

"In March 2007, Palin presented the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) as the new legal vehicle for building a natural gas pipeline from the state's North Slope.[55] This negated a deal by the previous governor to grant the contract to a coalition including BP (her husband's former employer)."

At the end of the article, however, it indicates that Todd Palin is still employed by BP:

"Todd works for the oil company BP as an oil-field production operator.[116]"

These two statements appear to contradict each other, however, looking at Todd Palin's Wikipedia entry it appears that in 2007 he was on leave from BP to avoid potential conflicts of interest due to Sarah's involvement in negotiations for the North Slope Pipeline. He did subsequently return to his job though.

The current entry should be amended so that it is clear that Todd was merely on leave and did subsequently return to work at BP.

Chronos23 (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the article used to make it clear that he did return to work to help support the family, but in a non-management position, supposedly to avoid potential conflicts of interest. That fact has disappeared somewhere along the line. Kelly ^hi! 01:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Jet Auction

The sale of the state jet is mentioned twice, under the Governor summary and then again under budget. These should probably be combined. Joshdboz (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. I think "Budget" is probably the right section? Kelly ^hi! 02:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The NYT ref has everything so there's no need to save the one from Politico. Joshdboz (talk) 02:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I just put it back in the "Governor of Alaska" section there [25] since it was removed by reason of redundance (which I disagree with). Not sure if it is now twice in the article. It's going way to fast here to catch everything. I agree that it would fit better in the "budget" section. --Floridianed (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Solved. --Floridianed (talk) 03:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Footnote FAIL

From footnote 46 onwards, the encoding has gone horribly horribly wrong. Could someone with a better understanding of the "ref" feature have a look at this please. Cheers, Witty Lama 03:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Already fixed by user:Wdfarmer. Thanks for that mate! :-) Witty Lama 03:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Early Life section

Someone recently added a few sentances of seculation that just seem unfounded and slanderous. Someone who's looged it will you delete them please? The roommate comment and preceding sentance. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Expiring Footnote

Soon, the google cache version of the "Palin Pleased with Obama's Energy Plan" press release will soon expire, and so far I have been unable to get webcite or archive.org to store it. Any ideas? Maybe just print a .pdf file or take a screenshot? --TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 03:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it'll be mentioned soon either by the Obama campaign or the media anyway. --Floridianed (talk) 03:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This works for me. Dragons flight (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Got it.--TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Just the Facts about the Wolves

(I think this deserves it's own heading)

State Incentive Program : Governor Sarah Palin directed the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to issue an incentive "To motivate permittees to redouble their efforts and help offset the high cost of aviation fuel, ADF&G will offer cash payments to those who return biological specimens to the department. Permittees will be paid $150 when they bring in the left forelegs of wolves taken from any of several designated control areas."(1)

"The Department's objective for this winter [winter,2007] is a take of between 382 and 664 wolves." (1)

"A state judge Friday [3/28/07] ordered the state to stop paying pilots and aerial gunners $150 per animal to kill wolves. State Superior Court Judge Bill [William] Morse, in issuing the order, said the cash payments are bounties, and the state Department of Fish and Game didn't have legal authority on it's own to offer them. Morse said, however, that the Board of Game can create bounties." (2)

"The state is now considering options still available to boost wolf kill numbers, including state biologists shooting them from chartered helicopters, said Matt Robus, state director of wildlife conservation". (2)

(1) ADF&G Press Release No. 07-10, March 21,2007. full text at : www.adfg.state.ak.us/news/2007/3-21-07_nr.php

(2)Anchorage Daily News original publish date 3/31/07. full text at : www.adn.com/news/alaska/wildlife/wolves/story/204937.htmlQuantumRedWolf (talk) 04:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The wolf thing is mentioned in the political positions article, along with the fact that the people of Alaska voted to support the action. Kelly ^hi! 04:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no way it deserves its own heading in the main article, it just isn't every important (historically speaking). The current 2 sentence version is more than sufficient.--ThaddeusB (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Is "However" an allowable transition?

Kelly removed the word "However" from the last sentence of the "Bridge to Nowhere" paragraph (in the Budget section) — calling it a "weasal word". I reverted the change. FWIW, I'm not attached to the word "However", but I think there needs to be some sort of transition or the last sentence hangs off the paragraph like a lead balloon.

Also, Kelly, please explain why the word "However" is not an accurate way to introduce Palin's quote at the end of the paragraph. Should "However" be allowed anywhere in the article? In any article?

IMHO, I think the word "However" is a perfectly appropriate transition when there's an apparent contradiction. — Tsunado (talk) 04:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

We can write without "howevers" and "despites". NPOV writing 101. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a weasel word in that it implies the previous statement is a lie. Better to write neutrally and let the reader draw their own conclusions. Kelly ^hi! 04:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"However" is not a weasel word. It's a perfectly normal transitional word when a sentence contrasts with the previous one. If there's no actual contradiction, then it may be a problem, but in this case removing it just makes the paragraph less readable. —KCinDC (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly claims that the word "however" is a "weasel word". However, the Wikipedia article on weasel words nowhere says that "however" is a weasel word. Instead, it defines a "weasel word" this way:

Weasel words are usually expressed with deliberate imprecision with the intention to mislead the listeners or readers into believing statements for which sources are not readily available.

In the example of the "Bridge to Nowhere" paragraph, the source for Palin's recent quote is readily available. The word "however" is not being used to obscure a lack of citation or reference.

It's legitimate to argue whether the word "however" is accurate in this particular context. However, based on how weasel words are described in Wikipedia, the word "however" is not accurately defined as a "weasel word".

Also, as a side note, both the Wikipedia articles on weasel words and avoiding weasel words use "however" to juxtapose statements. — Tsunado (talk) 05:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The word "however" occurs multiple times in the Wikipedia article on NPOV. — Tsunado (talk) 05:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

To be more precise, the word "however" is used multiple times in the official Wikipedia policy article on NPOV to transition between statements. — Tsunado (talk) 06:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Logic is not a subjective discipline. Logical is a formal science. "However" is transition word used when two logically contradictory statements are juxtaposed.

• A says X. However, B says not X.

• A says X. However later, A says not X.

• A says I support the bridge. However later, A says I didn't support the bridge.

Now, maybe there's no logical contradiction, maybe I'm misreading her statement, or maybe it's ambiguous, in which case "however" would not be appropriate. In this case, though, I think the contradiction is pretty apparent. — Tsunado (talk) 05:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO, "However" is a perfectly acceptable transition word. I much prefer writing that flows than a much of factoid sentences connected together. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP REMINDER

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP Hi everyone, just a reminder.. this is a biography of a living person, not a political blog. "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy" "..poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.." Don't complain about whitewashing. Use Al Gore as an example. It has "good article" status as a BLP and has nearly all controversial material and speculative opinion removed from it. It is our standard from which to work and will keep this discussion NPOV. Thanks! --Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 04:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What material is not compliant with NPOV and WP:BLP? Care to point it out? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the quote from Palin's roommate for one. First it's not that notable and second it doesn't really do anything good to the BLP other than add mild controversy. --Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"BLP's must be written conservatively." OK, we need to get Rush in here, then. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Zing! :D --98.243.129.181 (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Motive to release info

Presumably this: [26] [27]. It's going back and forth.--chaser - t 04:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Your warning might hold a bit more weight if the sentence you're trying to remove wasn't heavily documented in multiple reliable sources as one of the reasons the campaign made the announcement at this time... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bobblehead, on the topic of why Mrs.Palin released information at which time, all I've got to say is that if an campaing insider has an opinion that they only released the info to take the focus off other stuff.. and if that opinion was echoed in the news by every reputable agent, it's still just an opinion of some insider and not fact. How can "why she did something" ever be a fact? So I'm seeing that the sentance like "She released this to diffuse controversy" is not apropriate for BLP so i've removed it twice and it's been readded and now it says it twice in the same paragraph. I won't touch it again but it still doesn't seem appropriate. --Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, to be clear, someone pointed to the article for me to read again and I'm not seeing anywhere where it states "Mccain officials claim that this is released to debuff rumors of something else." Or anything like that. Our article has two sentances that say that though. Am I missing anything? --Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

As stated above under *Bristol is 5 months pregnant*: This is simply the circumstances of the announcement. [28] Plenty of sources mention it promenantly, and it certainly is notable. [29] --Evb-wiki (talk) 05:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

One more point of clarification, the offcial in the article didn't specify that the rumors to be countered were "that Trig Palin is actually Bristol's son". It appears in this article that the editor is making that distinction. --Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 05:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean other than in the third to last paragraph in this source:[30] and in a paragraph about halfway down in this article: [31]. You can argue that the sentence shouldn't be included for editorial reasons, but it does seem to be very well sourced in multiple reliable sources which seems to inoculate the sentence against BLP. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that Chicago tribune one was WAY more clear on the subject of who was commenting on what. This clears up the verifiabillity issue for me, thanks. So that one should be cited in the article and I see that the duplicitous sentance was allready removed double thanks.--Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 05:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This should be interesting. Now that Kelly has changed to wanting to insert the rumor into the article because it feeds into his hatred of Daily Kos, how long will it be until those formerly battling him also switch, to wanting to remove mentions of the rumor because adding it supports the McCain campaign's talking point that nasty Obama supporters forced them to violate Bristol's privacy? I'm not sure what took so long. I really expected this to happen right after McCain mentioned the rumors. —KCinDC (talk) 06:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't insert the mention of the rumor, it was already there. The only thing I sourced in the article was the attribution of the rumor. Why do you assume there's some kind of agenda? Kelly ^hi! 06:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It is clear you have one.Zredsox (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of all KOS stuff fits in nicely with cleaning this article up to BLP standards. Assuming in good faith that the goal of eveyone here is trying to make this a good article, it would be in all of our best interest not to allow blog rumors to show up here and to delete them without discussion as soon as they are seen per wiki guidelines. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That statement has been in the article in some form for about 24 hours now. Accusing Kelly of being responsible for everything you don't like about the article is irresponsible and not productive. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say Kelly inserted it, but since he's expanding that bit now he clearly no longer objects to having the rumors in the article. Granted, several things have changed about the situation. Don't take my comment too seriously. I'm mainly just amused at the way people's opinions are reversing, with the McCain campaign now publicizing the rumors in order to connect Obama to them. —KCinDC (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Go easy on the "Howevers"

This is an encyclopedic article, and not an apologetic piece, or a hatchet job. There is no need to use "however" or "despite". Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Kelly ^hi! 05:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Father, again

Any use for this: http://levijohnston.com/ ?

Also, it seems that "Aug 27" is 2007, not 2008. bigware (talk) 05:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's not advertise the guy's blog. He has more than enough to deal with. Dragons flight (talk) 05:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not a reliable source for information about Sarah Palin.--chaser - t 05:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. When do we open a page for all Palin's relitives? We have a nice family tree from Obama.bigware (talk) 05:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Fake. 1) A sixteen-year-old would have a myspace, not his own URL. 2) On a real blog there would be some pre-fame comments by people who knew him in real life. 3) The Bristol entry is a little too convenient, especially the part about her being the one. 4) If the blog were real he could edit the entries, and a Republican operative would have made sure the profanities were removed prior to his full named being made public. A.J.A. (talk) 06:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be correct. That domain was registered in 2003, and the most recent mirror on the internet archive shows it belonging to a Arizona based computer programmer of the same name. I guess he decided to take advantage of the name coincidence. Dragons flight (talk) 06:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The site is a parody and clearly states so [32] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcreid (talk • contribs) 06:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Bristol Palin's pregnancy was an open secret back home

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apologies for all the micro-edits

... but all the little typos and out-of-order footnote numbering was driving me a little batty! GiveItSomeThought (talk) 06:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin's sons future

The two articles cited concerning Track Palin do not mention his deployment orders. The only thing mentioned is "Palin said she has come to terms with the idea that Track could be deployed next year to Iraq, Kuwait or Afghanistan, where thousands of U.S. troops are based.". I will delete, once again, the section that states, "and Palin has said he will be deployed to Iraq on September 11, 2008." because of lack of sources. Lincoln F. Stern 07:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Article edits

I'm doing some significant, bold edits to some of the more clearly problematic parts of the article. I have reviewed the edit history and talk page history but they are far too long (with too many reversions, incivilities, editing abuse, etc) to be sure what has reached consensus or been rejected before. I'll do it piece by piece, just hit the main ones, and try to explain my reasoning. I'm only doing this once - I won't revert or participate in edit wars here, just trying to help bring some more sense to the article.Wikidemon (talk) 08:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

1. "Miss congeniality" - removing seeming contradiction over whether she won that award or not. I could only find a single source contradicting it - thus the weight of sources backs up Palin's account. It violates WP:UNDUE to highlight a seeming difference of recollection as to whether she did or did not win a minor award in a minor beauty contest 20 years ago. Also, removing attribution of high school career to autobiography - unless there is some concern over this it seems like uncontroverted neutral statement so it should not need attribution in the text.
2. Alaskan Independence Party - scaling back per WP:UNDUE - see discussion elsewhere on this page. We should not anticipate that this is a huge issue until and unless the sources say it is. A digression on AIP is unwarranted - people can read that article if they need to learn more.
3. Scaled back and condensed material re. firing of city employees. "refused to detail..." is POV. She wrote what she wrote. Eliminated some redundancy here.
4. Mayoral record - eliminated "fulfilled campaign promises by"...unnecessary and POV. Scaled back language about lobbying effort, well-connected, 6,700 residents - also POV. Best to simply report the fact. Also, condensed and tried to improve mayoral record language overall.

The only thing I would be slightly concerned with if the complete removal of "fulfilled campaign promises" (assuming it is well documented) since that seems be to a relevant qualifier. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Taking a pause for now. Some of the remaining issues I see:

1. Public Safety Commissioner dismissal - section is too long by a factor of 3-4 and contains a lot of extraneous detail of little importance (especially considering there is a separate article about it)
2. 2008 vice-presidential campaign - McCain's consideration of Lieberman is mostly irrelevant to Palin - that can go in some other article about the presidential election. Discussion of the timing of the announcement is trivial, as is her earlier statement of lack of interest in the position. Attempts to show a contradiction between her and Obama are mostly WP:SYNTH, and citations to the google cache to show that something was removed are WP:OR. None of this is significant. Any of her positions belong in a section or article about them, not as an attempt to show a rift with McCain (which, if it exists, must be shown by reliable neutral sources). Her acceptance speech should be summarized very briefly if it is significant at all, not quoted at length.
3. Family - detail of her most recent pregnancy are utterly trivial if used for any legitimate purpose; their only reason for being here seems to be to imply that it was not her baby. Either way these details do not belong. We can have a far more concise legitimate mention. We should avoid conspiracy theories and poorly sourced info about the timing of her announcement of her daughter's pregnancy. A single sentence announcing that she announced her daughter's pregnancy is sufficient. Because they are both minors and the point has little or no context, we should be careful about announcing the father / possible fiancee's name.

- Wikidemon (talk) 09:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Support all these edits. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I also Support all proposed edits. Lets turn this into a good article. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I support the first two edits, but I'd be very careful with the pregnancy bits, as discussion here has general decided that all the details given are relevant. A better summary might be in order, but I don't think you can justify removing the info completely. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The thread you've started touches on issues discussed elsewhere, as is of course inevitable with this kind of editstorm going on. (It would have been much more convenient for us if McCain had picked someone whose article had already received a lot of attention.)

In your first set of edits, re firings while mayor, I think you or someone removed a verbatim quotation of her own comment from a letter on the subject, which I would keep in. I'll try to look at that later. As to your second set:

1. Public Safety Commissioner: I'm too lazy to try to untangle what you did from what others did. There's been discussion of the Kopp thing -- see this discussion. I can't see the slightest basis for removing it. How can we summarize a governor's administration without reporting that one of her major appointees resigned two weeks later in an ethics scandal?

2. VP campaign: I agree that most of the stuff you mention should be moved elsewhere. Lieberman is relevant to the extent that we should probably note that one factor in Palin's selection was widely believed to be McCain's concern that a pro-choice running mate would so enrage the conservative base as to be political suicide, a point that can be made in about that many words.

3. Family - see discussion at #Vague aspersions of prenatal endangerment, above, where there was some semblance of consensus to include a certain level of detail, with dispute remaining about whether to get into the issue of the advisability of Palin's conduct. The issue is obscured by the point you mention, namely the bloggers speculating that it was Bristol's baby. Put that aside for the moment. What's not disputed is that Palin went a long time, including a lengthy flight, after leaking amniotic fluid, before being seen by a doctor. Some may find this shows admirable stamina. (I think David Gregory made such a comment on Meet the Press.) Some may find it shows poor judgment. Put that dispute aside, too, for the moment. The fact remains that it was an unusual set of circumstances and a significant event in her life. The version in the thread referred to above recounts those facts in suitably NPOV and RS'd terms. JamesMLane t c 20:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Congeniality Gate

Someone has removed the information on a competitor in Miss Wasilla, Alaska, competition in 1984 winning the Miss Congeniality award instead of Sarah Palin. The source is here: Palin was a high school star, says schoolmate Digitalmandolin (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I hear she refused to clean her room as a nine-year-old, demonstrating bad judgment by creating a trip and fall hazard. This should be included somewhere, preferably in the article lead. A.J.A. (talk) 08:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If your story were sourced and relevant, it might merit inclusion. Winning Miss Congeniality is part of Sarah Palin's resume. The information is significant enough to have been included in this article. However, new information throws the title into question. Another competitor in the 1984 competition has come forward to state she won Miss Congeniality. A biography should not include false information about its subject. Digitalmandolin (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have over 9,000 sources. A.J.A. (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I am under the impression you do not have a single reliable published source. Digitalmandolin (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have one from David Icke right here. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"Who and what is really controlling the world?" does not seem particularly relevant here. Sarah Palin's resume line Miss Congeniality award and its authenticity being thrown into question is. Digitalmandolin (talk) 10:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

But what is her view on Sandra Bullock? Inquiring minds! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

She also had several overdue library books when she was in high school. Better add that to the list of scandals. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The point, which both Kyaa and AJA ought to be making in a more friendly way, is that a single news report of a single person challenging the high school resume of a sitting Governor and presumptive VP candidate does not have sufficient WP:WEIGHT to justify inclusion. The story is out there now, and if develops into something more than one person's recollections, then we will include it later, but we need more to go on than we have now. Dragons flight (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I should not be feeding him. Sorry about that. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, no personal attacks. Digitalmandolin (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Pointing out that you have a history of making BLP infringing allegations on this talk page is not a personal attack. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

See this Politico post on the Congeniality controversy. Joshdboz (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like the source we're using got it wrong. She won the Miss C award at the state contest, not the city one (not sure if politico is a RS or I'd change it now). Regardless trying to make a mountain out of this molehill is silly. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Politico is a reliable source; they're a published newspaper as well as a website. And they tend to lean right, if anything, so the issue of bias isn't relevant here. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Politico is not a source per se - it is a publisher that presents a lot of different stuff of varying quality and objectivity by many different writers. Individual articles are used to source particular statements, and we have to evaluate each on its own terms. Anyway, a single source that contradicts a multitude of others has to be taken with a grain of salt, and using that source to suggest there is a discrepancy is hasty. Wikidemon (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Whitewashing of Palin's support for Buchanan and the Alaskan Independence Party

My well-sourced materials include direct quotations from no less than Pat Buchanan himself, Sarah Palin herself, and the directly quoted platform of the Alaskan Independence Party. I don't care whether editors agree with Palin's support for these causes or not. THEY ARE FACT. Repeated attempts to whitewash these indisputable facts by some (and you know who you are, I won't name names, yet) with unsourced material or material pretending that the Alaskan Independence Party does not seek the ultimate goal of independence are clear counterfactual POV. Before we escalate to a full out-and-out edit war -- and this entry's POV edits have already gotten the attention of the mainstream press -- ask yourself this: before editing my posts, check their sources. And if they are sourced, you may obviously edit to make it read better, but please do not remove sourced facts. The same is even more true for the detail page on political positions. I've been lenient about allowing the Palin supporters' completely unsourced material to remain. But no longer. You remove my sourced material and I remove your unsourced material. If you have a problem, please state why on this talk page rather than escalating into edit war. At least respect me by giving a wiki-justifiable reason for removing factually sourced material instead of just doing it because you don't want readers to know the truth about Sarah Palin.GreekParadise (talk) 09:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the material is WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. There is also no reliable sourcing to say that this is significant to Palin's biography. I generally tune out after hearing someone complain about "whitewashing" and this is no exception. Accusations of bad faith (being a "Palin supporter") and threats to edit war / retaliate are rather disruptive. This seems to be a WP:SPA editing wikipedia solely on election-related articles. If the brief description of the AIP is inaccurate please feel free to write a better, succinct identification of the party. However, an extended description of the platform of a party this person left 12+ years ago is unwarranted - seems like an obvious coatrack. Again (per my comments above), if the mainstream, reliable sources begin to say this is a serious scandal we can report it as such. In the meanwhile a reliable source here or there does not mean it is a significant issue to her biography (particularly not considering that there is a separate article about the party, and yet another article about her political positions). As of this moment there seem to be 36,000 current google news stories about her, and only 13 mention the AIP. That's a very cursory analysis but it supports what seems to be the weight of the sources - it is simply not a big issue. It may be soon, but not now. Wikidemon (talk) 09:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon, read my post below, her involvement in third parties is more important than you think. But I'll get back to you when I can write some more tightly sourced edits Brianshapiro

Interestingly, I'm reading an article from 2007 which covers how Palin stepped up to be the chairwoman of the Statehood Celebration Commission, whose goal was to organize a celebration for Alaska's 50th anniversary of statehood. More on that later... Brianshapiro

Guilt By Association is Not Enough: Please Provide SOURCES That Prove That Palin Was Absolutely A Secessionist

Membership in that party does not mean that she was a secessionist. Many people join political parties without lock-step agreement with their entire platforms (for example, pro-choice Republicans or pro-life Democrats).

So what the section just above this one is calling 'FACT' needs to be thoroughly clarified.

Was she in that party? Yes. Did that party have broad and varied platform? ALSO YES. Did membership imply AUTOMATIC AGREEMENT WITH SECESSION? NO!

So the 'facts' really need to be clarified here.

By the way, I am not Palin Supporter OR Opponent. But lets do a real Wikipedia article here...

67.40.136.109 (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Governor Palin's support of third parties

Actually the Alaskan Independence Party's position on secession is probably not relevant. As some people here may know, but not many people outside the state of Alaska, they had a governor from the AIP in the early 90s, Walter Hickel, who himself rejected secessionism. He was offered the ticket when many people were disappointed by the Republican nominee. After Hickel's term, Palin ran as a Republican and was endorsed by Hickel. Recently the AIP has been the state affiliate for the Constitution Party. The fact is that third party and independent groups--who don't care a whit about the AIPs stance on secession--have co-opted the party in recent history because it has ballot access. Palin also has friends in the Alaskan Libertarian Party, has spoken at Libertarian meetings, and was endorsed by the Alaskan Libertarian Party when she ran for governor, although they had their own candidate in the race. She also addressed the AIP while she was Governor as a Republican. When she ran for governor she had a debate which included all the minor party candidates in the race (including Greens and Libertarians). Palin has been largely supportive of third parties and fair ballot and media access for third parties. I added some of this information to the article, but apparently the editors thought it was 'Undue weight' and removed it. I left a message for someone who would be able to source all of this and elaborate in the article and I hope he comes here to do some edits. The fact is, this is really relevant to a lot of people, and doesn't add up to a negative. To the contrary, her support for third parties bolsters her credentials as a reformer. I hope the idea that this is 'Undue weight' is reconsidered. Brianshapiro

Try putting it on Political positions of Sarah Palin. If there's enough info there a summary sentence can be added here. A.J.A. (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

A.J.A. has it exactly wrong. It doesn't belong in the political positions article at all, because membership in a party doesn't automatically entail agreement with all its stated positions. (For example, she and McCain differ slightly on abortion, so they probably won't both agree with everything in the Republican platform.) Her past affiliation and involvement, however, is an appropriate part of her bio. JamesMLane t c 10:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's "guilt by association", or McCarthyism. The Republican platform had/has an anti-abortion plank, yet pro-choice guys like Giuliani remain Republicans. And get serious - would McCain choose someone for VP who believes in fracturing the Union? Not bloody likely. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If the Republican Party were named the Pro-Life Party and were founded specifically to oppose abortion rights (and if it were founded by a kook), then that might be a better parallel. Nevertheless, her affiliation with AIP doesn't belong in political positions but is significant enough to be in the main article. —KCinDC (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think A.J.A. may be suggesting that if there's reliable information about Palin's support for third parties, that should go in political positions. I'd agree with that. —KCinDC (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. Ballot access laws and other restrictions on third parties are a major part of why the United States only has two major parties. At the risk of treating this talk page like a forum, the two party system makes sense given the way we currently conduct elections, but there are better systems like the single transferable vote and we'd be better off switching to it and opening up the process to other parties. A.J.A. (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

@KCinDC - But it IS called the "Alaskan INDEPENDENCE Party", which very clearly indicates its mission right in its title just like "Pro-Life Party" would. What part of its motto, "Alaska First -- Alaska Always" does one not understand? They make their stance VERY clear. Secession from the U.S. is listed as a viable option under "ultimate goal" of the Alaskan Independence Party's own website. The term "ultimate goal" is used by the AIP themselves and is not up for dispute. During these conventions, which are recorded and available for your viewing pleasure on youtube, the leaders make it very clear their "ultimate goals". There is no question regarding their main purpose as a political group. Now, if you were to suggest as fact that Palin must support home schooling because because AIP largely supports this as well, this would be questionable as it does not appear to be a substantial part of its platform. @BaseballBugs - "would McCain choose someone for VP who believes in fracturing the Union? Not bloody likely" ... THAT is opinion. But what is fact is that Alaskan's have said none of them were contacted by the McCain camp inquiring into Palin's background leading some to believe that a proper investigation was never conducted. There are plenty of news articles regarding this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.26.76 (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC) 67.169.26.76 (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In response to the foregoing anon's comment: Our readers aren't idiots. The inference you want them to draw is available if we provide the facts. We can state that she was a member of this party, here's what she did in conjunction with it, here's its name, here's the key point of its platform. If we stop it there, we've complied with all Wikipedia policies. You want us to go beyond that and beat the reader over the head with it -- "Palin associated with secessionists! She must favor secession!" That adds nothing to the reader's understanding, though. If we stick with what I summarized, we haven't deprived our readers of any information. JamesMLane t c 19:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Husband's DUI

It is important to note that Palin's husband's DUI was BEFORE they were married.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080902/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin

They were married in 1988. The DUI was in 1986.

Much a-do about something in his past from well before they were married. 80.255.40.167 (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned briefly in his article, but it isn't mentioned in this article at all, as far as I can see (and that seems about the right to me). Dragons flight (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That shouldn't be on her page at all. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed it from his page since there is no context given and it happened over 20 years ago and is pretty common. --Tom 17:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I am somewhat ambivalent toward the inclusion of the material at Todd Palin, but I am unequivocally against its inclusion here. His DUI is absolutely immaterial to her biography. Shereth 18:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Is his snowmobiling also "absolutely immaterial" to her biography? Or is only negative stuff "absolutely immaterial?" Edison2 (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Typo re Public Safety Commissioner dismissal section

The second to last sentence of this section reads, "Palin's choice to replace Wooten, Charles M. Kopp, chief of the Kenai police department, took the position on July 11 2008." Of course, it was Monegan, not Wooten, that was replaced as the Public Safety Commissioner.

Thx, I've fixed that. JamesMLane t c 10:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday, we agreed that this replacement wasn't an important enough event to be in the summary, so I re-deleted it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This subject has been discussed more than once. I may have missed something in the barrage of edits, but I'm fairly confident that there's been no discussion that established a consensus to omit this information. Would you provide me with a link? What I see is this discussion, in which two registered users thought the material should stay in, while you and one anon IP wanted it out. That doesn't constitute an agreement to leave it out. You might go back and respond to the substantive point I made in that discussion about why a cabinet member's resignation amidst scandal merits at least a brief mention in a summary of a governor's administration. While I await that, I'm restoring the material. JamesMLane t c 19:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridge to Nowhere

I'm creating a new section for the Bridge to Nowhere. Stopping work on the bridge was instrumental in Palin's rise to national prominence. Now, her remark about opposing the bridge in her first speech as a VP nominee has become a focal point of criticism, and this criticism is receiving both national and international attention.

The AP, Reuters, and the International Herald Tribune (IHT) all credit the bridge for leading to Palin's national prominence. Both the AP and IHT credit it as part of what led her to be McCain's VP choice.

Associate Press:

Perhaps the Bridge to Nowhere led someplace after all…

Palin made national news last year by closing the door on the bridge designed to connect Ketchikan, on one island in southeastern Alaska, to its airport on another nearby island.

The decision came in the fall and is probably the first identifiable link connecting Palin and McCain.

Not long after that, whispers of Palin being an ideal GOP running mate began to circulate outside the state.[33]

Reuters:

Last year, Palin announced she was stopping state work on the controversial project, earning her admirers from earmark critics and budget hawks from around the nation. The move also thrust her into the spotlight as a reform-minded newcomer.[34]

International Herald Tribune:

Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska owes her selection as Senator John McCain's running mate in part to an irresistible slogan: the Bridge to Nowhere.[35]

The Star Tribune calls stopping the bridge Palin's "most notable accomplishment as governor."[36]

Additionally, Palin's "Bridge to Nowhere" remark in now major national news. It's the subject of articles in:

• USA Today[37]
• Reuters[38]
• AP[39]
• The New York Times[40]
• The Washington Post[41]
• New York Daily News[42]
• LA Times[43]

Not surprisingly, it's news in Alaska:

• Anchorage Daily News[44] — picked up by McClatchy Newspapers[45]
• Fairbanks Daily News-Miner[46]
• Juneau Empire[47]

It's also international news:

• The Daily Telegraph[48]
• The Age[49].
• International Herald Tribune[50]

— Tsunado (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Also from the Reuters article:

When she was running for governor in 2006, Palin said she was insulted by the term "bridge to nowhere," according to Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein, a Democrat, and Mike Elerding, a Republican who was Palin's campaign coordinator in the southeast Alaska city.

"People are learning that she pandered to us by saying, I'm for this' ... and then when she found it was politically advantageous for her nationally, abruptly she starts using the very term that she said was insulting," Weinstein said.

-- NonZionist (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Buchanan

Before someone tries to add Buchanan info again.... I have a source where "McCain camp rebukes Buchanan claims..."

http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/110161.html

Quote: "Buchanan said he recalls meeting Palin at a 1996 fund-raiser in Alaska, but no record of her donating or supporting Buchanan at that time has surfaced."

and "Palin support of Buchanan is 'propaganda by Democrats,' says Fla. Republican" http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1017220.html

Just wanted to add information for future references. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 10:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a contemporary newspaper source for her participating in a 1999 Pat Buchanan rally. That seems to be a lot more limited than what is being claimed at the moment though. Dragons flight (talk) 10:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't the Buchanan info as remotely relevant. The ONLY reason it is being included is because some think it makes here look bad. Until someone proves a reliable source asserts that this effected her career in some way, I am deleting the material. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The source itself states, "She doesn't appear ever to have contributed to Buchanan, however." according to donor lookup here: http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/index.php?capcode=gywvt&name=palin&state=AK&zip=&employ=&cand= --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Continued whitewashing of her support for Buchanan is improper POV. ThaddeusB even admits on my userpage he doesn't like it because it makes Sarah Palin "look bad." That's irrelevant POV. For supporters of Buchanan, it doesn't make her "look bad" at all.

Her support of Buchanan over Dole in 1996 relevant to her political life and philosophy. It's as relevant to her early political philosophy as her membership in the Alaskan Indepedence Party, or the fact that she used to support Senator Stevens before the falling out. Please stop trying to hide the truth. Wikipedians, please logically explain to me on what basis is the political philosophy of a vice-presidential nominee NOT relevant to her wikipedia article. Would any wikipedian not mention that Reagan was a Democrat in his early years on the ground that it's "irrelevant"?

If this continues to be deleted in an edit war, I will have no choice but to put a "non-neutral" tag over the site and we can have a large wikipedia vote on whether the political philosophy of a political candidate is "relevant" or not. I'm confident it is. Please don't do this. I've even included the extremely unlikely McCain denial (as if McCain knows what's going on in the Buchanan 1996 Presidential campaign) for balance.GreekParadise (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Bristol Palin section 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Potential defamation issue

The sentence about the McCain campaign announcing the pregnancy of Bristol yesterday to counter rumors by a particular website is unsupported by the cites. Both the McCain campaign and the website are being defamed by the sentence if it is untrue. If it is true, it needs solid sourcing to support that the McCain campaign specifically called out the website. Digitalmandolin (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Canadian television network is pretty solid. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what you mean. Digitalmandolin (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Canadian TV citation does not attribute the announcement to exposure by Kos, contrary to what the wikipedia article says. It mentions Kos at one point in the article, but does not state specifically that that site is the reason for the announcement. "Defamation" is a bit strong, though. "Misattribution" is more like it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Source states: "McCain adviser Mark Salter told The Associated Press the campaign announced the daughter's pregnancy to rebut the rumours." Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually CTV really does say Kos was the worst of the rumor sites. That said, I'm not sure that we should be calling them out since there is a lot of blame to go round and we don't discuss any of the other sites (as CTV does). I'm going to remove the specific mention of Kos. Dragons flight (talk) 12:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The worst, but not the only. There's nothing that says Kos was specifically the reason. That's an inference in the article, and should be reworded to agree with the citation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Kos was mentioned as a "highlight" in the language yesterday of the rumor stuff. That is fine. rootology (C)(T) 14:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

add wiki link pls

language  :: Wuu

article title:: 莎拉 白林

12:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Done as requested. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sports complex

There's only one line in the current article about the construction of a sports complex during Palin's time as mayor, but given the troubled history of the complex's construction and the debt it seems to have left the city in, it seems like this should be expanded: http://dwb.adn.com/news/alaska/matsu/story/9055227p-8971221c.html Fumoses (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If the controversy is notable, it would probably be better to put that facility in its own article. This article should very specifically focus on Gov. Palin herself, not on projects that she was involved with. I think the current mention is appropriate in that context. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

On DailyKos, there were allegations that the land for the sports complex was offered to the city and declined, that the later purchase by the city was at several times the original offered price, and that that is the source of the debt. If reliable sources can be found on this matter (Fumoses, you could chase this down), I'd say that information is notable. Since it would fit into about 2 sentences here, it would not really merit a separate article. Homunq (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

2 links to add to external links

Can an established editor please add these helpful external links to the article. Thank you. "Sarah Palin: The Making of a Candidate" LA Times, Aug 31 2008 ------- LA Times Photo Gallery of Sarah Palin with 28 images of her. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any value in the first link as it is much like the 10,000 other articles out there (except already dated in this fast moving digital realm) although I appreciated the photo gallery link and think it would be a good addition.Zredsox (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you please add the photo gallery then. Thanks. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Family section

I realise this section has been highly disputed already, but looking at it right now, here are a couple of points that come to mind:

• Do we really need to include the name 'Levi Johnston' is this section? I don't see what value it adds, and it raises privacy issues: generally, we should be reluctant to mention the names of people notable for one event, especially when they're minors, unless there's good reason to do so. Simply saying 'Bristol... intends to keep the baby and marry the father of her child.' should be sufficient. The fact that other news sources have given the father's name does not mean we should do so.
• Why do we have a line about the 'internet rumours' that 'Trig Palin is actually Bristol's son.'? The 'nly reliable source that covers those rumours in detail states that they are 'utterly unfounded'; the news of Bristol's pregnancy makes it clear they can't be true. So, given that the pregnancy rumour is an obviously false fringe theory that isn't backed by any reliable sources, why do we mention it at all? I can't see what it adds to the article, and the overall effect is just to cast negative aspersions on Palin. Per WP:BLP, this line should be removed. Terraxos (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

As for issue #1, I don't have a problem with the "name being mentioned" if its given in other sources first. I would however have a problem with an article on Johnston, per the reasons you cited. If the name is "named" in reliable sources, there is no problem here regurgitating that info. As for issue #2, I agree, completely WP:UNDUE information for an encyclopedia. Keeper ǀ 76 14:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Keeper on #1. As of this morning 500+ news sources have published his name and this soon-to-be-adult is certainly going to be part of the Palin family political history from here on out. While I understand the spirit of trying to protect his identity, I think we are past the point where that is even possible. The information is encyclopedic, and since I can't see how we can do any more harm than has already been accomplished by hordes of news media I am in favor including his name. Dragons flight (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

CBC News, a reliable source, covers the ArcXIX allegation in detail without characterizing it, so the claim, above, is untrue. That the allegation is "obviously false" is itself obviously false: the McCain camp has provided no evidence, medical or otherwise, refuting the photos, statements and deductions presented by ArcXIX. All we have been given is the word of a politician, and that does not constitute a WP:RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NonZionist (talk • contribs)

I cannot find any "ArcXIX," whatever it is supposed to be, mentioned in the CBC story cited. Edison2 (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

ArcXIX is the online psuedonym of the person who wrote the Daily Kos allegations. Dragons flight (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What is this new nonsense listing how many months during the term of pregnancy with Track? It is inflammatory and misleading slime. Grow up people! We don't list that kind of bullcrap on a bio page! Fcreid (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wasilla

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

State law (AS 29.05.011) requires that a community must have at least 400 permanent residents to incorporate as a home rule or first class city. A petition to incorporate a home rule or first class city must be signed by at least 50 resident voters, or 15% of the number of voters who voted in the area during the last general election, whichever is greater. There is no minimum population requirement for incorporation of a second class city; however, the incorporation petition must be signed by at least 25 resident voters, or 15% of the number of voters who voted in the area during the last general election, whichever is greater. [51] In other words, everything is a city in Alaska and classified in one of three ways, which are all cities (even though I have run across "Town of Wasilla" being used frequently ( 45,900 Google results.) Zredsox (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Argumentative edits

An editor recently made this edit, so that the article would say: "neither the McCain campaign nor Palin has never denied the specific Buchanan assertions that Palin suported Buchanan for President and attended a Buchanan fundraiser."

Please try to keep the article neutral, rather than trying to make uncited and unsourced arguments. The argument may be 100% correct, but it is not our job to make the argument. See WP:NPOV and WP:RS. This edit will undoubtedly be reverted by someone soon, because it's not at all encylcopedic. It just takes up people's time, and that time could be better spent improving this and other Wikipedia articles. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hickel is relevant and AIP is 3rd largest political party in Alaska

During his second term from 1990-1994, Governor Walter Hickel of Alaska was also an AIP member, and he later endorsed Palin in her run for the same office. See "Knowles, Palin in November", Anchorage Daily News (2006-09-01).

Hickel is clearly relevant, so why do people keep deleting him from the article? Because it makes Palin look normal instead of looking like a wacko? And why do people keep deleting that the AIP is the third largest political party in Alaska? To make Palin sound like a fringe nutcase? Evidently so. "Walter Hickel, a former Republican governor, was elected to the governorship in 1990 as an AIP member -- the third-largest party in Alaska....he endorsed Palin in her gubernatorial run in 2006."Ferrylodge (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

These details clearly belong in the AIP article, not the Sarah Palin Biography. If people want to know more about AIP such as its size and prominent members, that can be found by clicking the hyperlink to the appropriate location. Zredsox (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That Hickel endorsed Palin does not belong in this article? Come on. Why do you think the cited sources describe this in their articles about Palin? Because it's irrelevant? Give me a break. Would you care to explain why the Hickel info does not belong here, whereas this article should continue to say that the AIP, "challenges the legality of the Alaskan statehood vote as illegal and in violation of United Nations charter and international law and has a platform calling for a referendum on whether Alaska should secede from the United States to become an independent nation, remain a state, or become a U.S. territory or commonwealth"????

This article is trying to paint the AIP as a subversive organization, and Palin as a nutcase.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that a valid yet brief summarization of the AIP charter? If it is being misrepresented or mischaracterized then I agree it should be updated. Otherwise, it should be left alone. Zredsox (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Any brief description of the AIP would mention that it is the third largest party in Alaska, and included a Governor who endorsed Palin. You're giving vastly WP:Undue weight to a clause in their charter.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If you would like to add that just over 2% of Alaskan's belong to AIP, I would not be wholly against it. To say it is the 3rd largest party actually makes it sound like it is a "major" party and is an obvious case of WP:Undue weight Zredsox (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That's reasonable. And what of the AIP Governor who endorsed Palin?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I feel that including the endorsement paints her into a corner by going beyond the earlier association and openly stating that AIP and Sarah Palin are lockstep in ideology, very recently. I am not sure it is achieving the effect that you desire.Zredsox (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Hickel's association with the AIP a result of pure opportunism? He couldn't get on the ballot as a Republican, so he switched. That seems like less of an indication of his political positions than Palin's joining the party (though I still agree that trying to imply she's a secessionist goes to far). —KCinDC (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)No, Hickel's association with the AIP was not a result of pure opportunism. He had common ground with the Alaska Independence Party in fighting restrictions on land use imposed by federal environmental laws. The "effect I desire" is a fair portrayal of Palin's involvement with the AIP, whether it reflects well on her or not. She was a member of the AIP at the same time her own Governor was in the AIP, and he later endorsed her. This is so obviously notable that I'm not sure I can say anything more about it. I do not want Wikipedia to turn into a propaganda battle.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

We could leave in "third largest party" and could also mention that it has 14,000 members according to the latest date provided on the aip website. http://www.akip.org/membership.html. or.. we could just delete all facts about it altogether because it has its own wikipage.

Troopergate

Alaska Governor and presumptive Republican vice presidential nominee for the 2008 United States presidential election Sarah Palin is currently, as of August 2008, being investigated by an independent investigator hired by the Alaska Legislature[1][2] to determine whether she abused her power when she fired Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan in July 2008.[3][4] Palin denies wrongdoing, and the investigator's report is expected before the November 4, 2008 presidential election.[5] Palin says that she dismissed Monegan because of performance-related issues. However, Monegan says that his dismissal may have been tied to his reluctance to fire Mike Wooten, an Alaska State Trooper who is also Palin's ex-brother-in-law. Wooten was disciplined in 2006 for making a death threat against Palin's father, though he denied the accusation; Wooten is also involved in an ongoing custody dispute with Palin's sister. Several news sources have referred to this controversy as Troopergate.[6]

can this please be included on Sarah Palin's page? Thank you!

71.225.13.152 (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There's already a subsection on this investigation. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The section here also has a complete article about the case.--ThaddeusB (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

We need a better source on contraception

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

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

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

Political Positions Section

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

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

Physical Appearance

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

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

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

Miss Wasilla 1984 & Runner up for Miss Alaska

Should be in the lead. Up until a few months ago these were probably her biggest accomplishments. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

And being Governor of Alaska & before that, Mayor of Wasilla, is not higher acocomplishments? GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Miss Congeniality should be taken out. She did not win it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.25.113.122 (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion above. Corvus cornix_talk 23:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Time for a Page on Bristol

I think it is time to put up a page on Bristol, one on the boyfriend, and one on the son who is shipping out to Iraq soon. The notion of privacy for the children of political figures is a good one, but who are we kidding? these three are not individuals of legitimate public attention and interest. People will be lloking them up. Let's make sure the information they get is solid.Elan26 (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26

This section addresses your question. Coemgenus 16:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is this being deleted again and again?

Why is this being deleted from the lead?

Palin has traveled very little outside of the United States. Her first passport was issued in 2007 when she visited members of the Alaska National Guard stationed in Kuwait.

Please see WP:LEAD which states that: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist.

I would argue that the biography of this person has to include this fact in the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine partisans don't want this tidbit focused on ... that's why. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I think most folks would say (as I did the last time you brought this up) that the lead should be the basic essential facts about the person. No other candidate's travel itinerary is in his article's lead paragraph.

Secondly, the first sentence is uncited. Remember that until very recently, travel to Canada and some Caribbean islands did not require a passport. Coemgenus 16:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This absolutely does not belong in the lead. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Lets me candid about this. This is a bio article on this person, not n article about her candidacy. Important biographical information directtly related to her notability is missing from the lead:

Travel issue (notable given the context)

Beauty Pageant (notable given the context)

Previous mayorship of Wasilla.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No other candidate's travel itinerary is in his article's lead paragraph - If there is a need to add such material in other biographies, go ahead and add it. Here we are discussing this person. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

And I have discussed her -- this "tidbit", as the anon editor above calls it, is not so important that it should be included in the lead. Included in the article, certainly, but not the lead. And the first sentence is still unsourced. Coemgenus 17:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

About "the first sentence is uncited": Correct (or my suggestion)would be to write "Palin has travelled to very few countries outside of the United States." as the first sentence. The second sentence cites this fact becaus without a passport until 2007 she could not possibly have travelled any other countries then those "few" (Canada, Caribbean islands ...). Also I think that this does not belong into the lead section, but I think it is important to mention in another part of the article.

User987654321 (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(EC) When and where an individual travelled doesn't seem to be notable as a fact for the lead, unless their notability is tied specifically to their world travels - not the case here. I can easily see this mentioned in the appropriate chronological section of the article, perhaps as part of the discussion of her administration as Governor, since the visit to Kuwait is mentioned there already. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the lead discusses her term as a city council member for Wasilla, and then her term as Mayor - I think it's a good mention, to be honest. I'm not sure the beauty pageant victory is notable enough for the lead, as the other posts and facts listed are comparably more notable - and I'm not sure where we'd put it. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is, the observation that she "traveled very little outside of the United States" is a mere factoid. But the conclusion that this circumstances raises severe misgivings as to her fitness to be "one heartbeat away" from US presidency is highly relevant, seeing hat Palin's main notability now stems from her nomination. In this sense, UltraExactZZ's comment strikes me as rather disingenious. Of course, this conclusion cannot be made in Wikipedia's voice (WP:SYN) but should be attributed. It should be easy enough to find dozens of notable sources wrinkling their brows over this, so the lead should refer to those instead of trying to make the point by innuendo. --dab (𒁳) 17:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to say again that this tidbit or factoid or whatever it is is seriously of unsufficient weight to be featured in the lead. Honestly, would a weekend in Majorca have made her a better candidate? James Buchanan was well-travelled; Abraham Lincoln never left the states. Who cares? This is seriously less relevant than every other fact in the lead paragrpahs as they currently exist. Coemgenus 17:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Information regarding beauty pageant and travel absolutely do not belong in the first paragraph...any more than Obama's years as a drug addict and his inability to quit smoking belong in his. Lets try to be objective, all you politicos. Highlytech (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

well, yes, but debate on Palin's experience belongs noted prominently just like debate on Obama's experience belongs noted prominently. Because it is being debated prominently (google news). The funny thing, of course, is how Republicans after months of harping on Obama's lack of experience are now suddenly extremely lenient in attesting experience to Palin for ... "being a mother" or living "close to Russia" (Vladivostok is a mere 3,500 miles form her doorstep!) -- iht. This is rather as if Obama after attacking McCain for being too old (which he didn't, afaik) had gone ahead to select an octogenarian as running mate :) --dab (𒁳) 18:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't disagree - but the mention in the lead should be in the broadest possible terms. I can see a mention along the lines of "The selection of Governor Palin as the Republican Vice Presidential candidate has been met with both praise and criticism.", which would then tie in to the section of the article that refers specifically to that praise and criticism. That's where the discussion of her experience goes, and the travel is indeed an element of that experience - but not the most critical element, and not critical enough to merit a mention in the lead by itself. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There are accusations of bias in this thread. I will admit that my personal bias is against Palin, and even I don't think the factoids about the passport/travel and the beauty pageant belong in the introductory section. They should certainly remain in the article but they aren't of central importance to most readers. JamesMLane t c 19:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Claims of AIP membership seem premature

Tapper is now hedging, noting that voter registration documents seem to show that Palin is a life-long Republican. I this section should be pulled until we have more definitive evidence. Recollections from one (or two) AIP officials about events that occurred 14 years ago seems a stretch. Ronnotel (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree Arzel (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Not yet. The McCain camp is denying it, but it's all over the media and something like this is definitely notable.[52][53][54][55]. The reports should stay in, and once there is more evidence either way it can be just updated further. rootology (C)(T) 17:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(my last comment got lost in an edit conflict) Agree we should remove or trim it until reliable sourcing is found, without prejudice to re-inserting it in some form once sources become clearer. When dealing with disputed poorly sourced (or in this case contradictory sources) derogatory information it should stay out until it's solid. The NYT source seems to corroborate the original Politico source but it is not clear where that comes from. As I mentioned above the detailed description of the scandal and the activities of the AIP may be unwarranted on weight other grounds whatever the sourcing. Wikidemon (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree it needs to be cut. But if any AIP material stays in this article, then it ought to be converted to NPOV. That means including Tapper's hedging, and also mentioning that Alaska had an AIP Governor in the early 1990s, Walter Hickel, who later endorsed Palin for the same job.This was discussed above.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Er... what is derogatory about a political party saying she was affiliated, in and of itself? That is not derogatory. There's even a video linked of her involved. I'm just curious how this is a BLP angle. rootology (C)(T) 17:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The video of her addressing the party as Governor, and the first sentence she says "your party". Saying "Palin has been close to the Alaska Independence Party whose platform advocates secession, since the 1990s" is way out of bounds given what we know and the reliability of the sources. I think this should be pulled.--Paul (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It becomes problematic when the party is portrayed as a fringe group, by omitting any mention that it has more members in Alaska than even the Libertarian Party or the Green Party, and that it even boasted an AIP Governor who endorsed Palin. If you want the AIP to stay in the article, try making it NPOV.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it's notable, and if it needs context, that needs to be added, yes. Done: [56] As it's a state level party in our least populous state, that should be plenty of context. rootology (C)(T) 17:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if we make it NPOV here (i.e. don't portray the party as fringe), we can't escape it because it's being used against her off-wiki. Thus we should take extra care to make sure the sourcing is solid and that it's portrayed carefully. I think it would be a BLP issue (contradictory and fairly light sourcing for a disparaging fact about a living person) other than the WP:WELLKNOWN section. Even if not BLP, we do have to be careful about verifiability, weight, and bias. I see nothing wrong with a simple neutral mention, as long as we can resolve the sourcing. Wikidemon (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I got it set now. I linked additional sources above as well if people want more, and it's all over Google news. Should be easy to get more, if more are desired. If people hold it against her off-wiki for having affiliated with a third party at one point, that is not our concern. If Joe Lieberman went back to the Dems, or the Republicans, we aren't going to exclude the fact he basically invented his own party for one term to not get tossed from the Senate. ;) rootology (C)(T) 17:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked that AIP section a tiny bit more, to make it even more NPOV, and to let readers decide on the importance or impact of this.[57]. I'm aware that there may or may not be negative connotations from any third party affiliations, but that's not really our concern, for impact it may have. rootology (C)(T) 17:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm still curious how AIP affiliation being mentioned is "disparaging"? rootology (C)(T) 17:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning the AIP membership is cool, as long as it's not presented in a biased way. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'd been thinking, since we mention truly negative stuff all the time with sourcing in BLPs, in a neutral way. Belonging to the AIP or NRA or whatever isn't a bad thing. rootology (C)(T) 17:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflicts)The Tapper piece just balances statements of Alaska Independence Party officials that she was a member and attended the 1994 convention in Wasilla with denials from the Republican Party and the McCain campaign. That is how the issue should be stated in the article. See the New York Times [58] which says "...she was a member for two years in the 1990s of the Alaska Independence Party, which has at times sought a vote on whether the state should secede..." See Telegraph.co.uk [59] which says "Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential candidate, was once a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, its officials have said." That article says that the Alaskan Independence Party has sought since to 1970's to secede from the United States. It quotes party officials that Sarah and Todd Palin attended a Alaska Independence Party convention. Google News Archive returns 222 stories about "Sarah Palin" and "Alaska Independence Party" [60]. CBS News says "Palin's association with the Alaska Independence Party might be the most politically detrimental" of issues related to her candidacy [61]. The article should include one or two of the most reliable sources asserting the membership and for balance the campaign's denial. Edison2 (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense, ok. So we just need to add a "The McCain/Palin campaign has denied she was a member of AIP.[source]" and we're set then barring some dramatic thing happening like AIP producing membership rolls or checks from her, or something. Right? rootology (C)(T) 18:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You're probably looking at the AIP's motto of "Alaska first - Alaska always" being contradictory to the McCain campaign's theme of "Country first" and as a result it's being used as a political football questioning Palin's motivations. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If sources discuss that, it could make for an interesting and relevant one sentence in there. rootology (C)(T) 18:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest removing the specific # of members as excess information, "3rd largest" is sufficient. This is an article about Palin, not AIP. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Up to you, I just wanted to maximize the context. rootology (C)(T) 18:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest removing from here: At the national level, the party is affiliated with the conservative Constitution Party, and as of June 2006 the Alaskan Independence Party has 13,542 registered members (of a state population of 683,478, 2007 est.[22]) in their party, making it the state's third largest party. as it is superfluous (I thought we discussed this above?) If people want to know more about AIP (including size and affiliations) they can click on the provided link to the AIP page.Zredsox (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I trimmed it. rootology (C)(T) 18:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"AIP member Walter Hinkel, who was Alaska's governor from 1990-1994, would later endorse Palin for governor." Omitting this is blatantly POV. You are describing the most controversial plank of their platform at length, but ignoring Hinkel. Compare the 17 words I've just quoted with these 46 words now in the article: "A portion of the party's platform 'challenges the legality of the Alaskan statehood vote ... [under] international law' and calls for a referendum on whether Alaska should secede from the United States to become an independent nation, remain a state, or become a U.S. territory or commonwealth."Ferrylodge (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

[moved from above] Sorry if I don't follow the format, as I am new to this... CNN is reporting that the McCain campaign has released documents showing Palin registered as a Republican in 1982, and refutes the claim she was a member of the AIP. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/02/mccain-camp-battles-charges-palin-belonged-to-aip/ TruthWatch (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

...regardless of the evidence on her membership, I think we can agree that cherrypicking stances from the party platform into this article is POV. Homunq (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

They only have one primary stance listed directly on their homepage:[62] The Alaskan Independence Party's goal is the vote we were entitled to in 1958, one choice from among the following four alternatives:

1. Remain a Territory.
2. Become a separate and Independent Nation.
3. Accept Commonwealth status.
4. Become a State.

Zredsox (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"Since the 1990s, Palin has been close to the Alaska Independence Party.[17][18][19]" The first reference is a blog entry which is not a reliable source and it only talks about her address to the party in 2008 as Governor. The second reference is members of the party claiming she was a member, which is hearsay, and it has been disputed; the third reference is another link to the video where she addresses the 2008 convention as Governor. There NO RELIABLE SOURCE here that backs up the claim that Palin has been close to the AIP since the 1990s. This is very shoddy work. --Paul (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Pilot? Float Plane? Marathon?

The NPR article cited does not say that Sarah Palin is a pilot, that she has run a marathon, or that she owns a float plane. It mentions snowmobiles, and mooseburgers at 3:48 into the audio.

Many online sources say she owns a float plane but almost none say that she is a pilot. Her husband appears to be a pilot. I'm guessing that she is actually not a pilot.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelsanderpittsford (talk • contribs)

Does this help on the marathon? (from talk page archive): Homunq (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Sarah Palin has competed in 10K and marathon running events. On July 30, 2005, she finished sixth among women in the Anchorage "Run/Walk for the Whisper" (benefiting the fight against Ovarian Cancer) with a time of 49:01[4]. On August 21, 2005, she finished "Humpy's Marathon" in Anchorage, Alaska with a time of 3:59:36[5]. --Mayamolly (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding whether she owns a floatplane, her husband Todd owns a Super Cub.[63] Is Alaska a community property state? If so, then Sarah also owns the plane. If not, then I suppose it is possible Todd holds title to the plane in his own name only. I'm not sure the distinction is notable enough to be encyclopedic. Also, I found this reference for Sarah running a marathon.[64] RonCram (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Alaska is a separate property state, but since 1998 couples have the option to opt in to community property. Coemgenus 18:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the FAA, Sarah Palin does not hold a pilot's certificate, but her husband does. See my previous comment. - auburnpilot talk 19:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin's Membership in Independent Party: Ronald Reagan Was A Socialist Party Member in His 20's-- Thank God We Didn't Vet Him

Even Ronald Reagan flirted with fringe socialist politics briefly-- so what?

Also membership in a party doesn't necessarily mean lock-step adherence to all of its platform.

• • Could Palin have been a "Maverick' within that independent party-- and not really a 'true believer'?

Is this a case of 'guilt by association' (McCartheyism used by Liberals to target a conservative)?

67.40.136.109 (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Apples to Oranges. It is one thing to associate with a group looking to reform one's great country, and quite another to associate with a group that would rather have nothing to do with her at all; AIP's agenda is very clear. "I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions." - Joe Vogler (founder AIP)

If her position was to become a self sufficient state and secede from the union, and would willingly surrender her U.S. citizenship, this is all very relevant because it calls her patriotism into question. 67.169.26.76 (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The key word here is "if" we have no evidence that this is true, so it doesn't belong in the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It think it's more that wikipedia does not fundimentaly care about her patriotism. It might care if there were enough significant comments in reliable sources documenting expressing concern about her patriotism amoung whatever group cares about this kind of thing. But then it would only be careing about the reports not her patriotism per se.Geni 19:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin's home church

The current article claims, citing Eric Gorski's AP story, which cites Rev. Paul Riley of the Wasilla Assemblies of God church, that her current home church is the Church on the Rock in Wasilla. But both Time magazine and the Boston Herald, citing Palin herself, say that her current church is Wasilla Bible Church. She clearly attends multiple churches, including the Juneau Christian Center. But here are two sources that place her primary church as Wasilla Bible Church, headed by Pastor Larry Kroon:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/view/2008_09_01_In_Sarah_Palin_s_hometown__a_sense_of_shock_and_awe/

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1837713,00.html?imw=Y Lippard (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Church of the Rock website has posted a statement which when read contradicts the claim that Church of the Rock is Palin's current "home church". The Church of the Rock website claims that the Wasilla Bible Church is Palin's actual congregation.

http://churchontherockak.org/Regarding-Sarah-Palin.html

• Could be potentially troublesome, the Assemblies of God denomination believes you are not a true Christian if you do not "speak in tongues." 24.199.34.242 (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

And catholics believe you're not a true chrisitan if you don't attend mass. Who cares. --146.145.79.137 (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Edit: Early Political Career, Paragraph 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A dispute has arisen regarding an allegation Palin was once a member of the Alaska Independence Party (AIP), a party that advocates secession from the United States. The claim was first made by XXX. The McCain campaign has provided reporters with documents claiming to show Palin has been a Republican since first registering to vote in 1982.[65] RonCram (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

random subsection break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Snettisham avalanches, April 2008

I think this section needs edited down, and (probably) incorporated into the economics & the environment section. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This was added to fluff her resume and really shouldn't have its own section. At best, it should be cut down to a sentence and put somewhere else.Zredsox (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Belonged to secession party

ABC news reported on September 2, 2008 that Sarah Palin and husband have former ties to the Alaskan Independence Party. The Alaskan Independence Party favors a vote to allow Alaska to secede from the U.S. The ABC report stated both Sarah and husband were members of the secession party in 1995. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.69.64 (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you 69.208.69.64, but half this page is already discussing that. Dragons flight (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the article in question: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/members-of-frin.html. It's not a bad source. It mentions Clark from AIP claiming that Palin was a member in 94; the fact that Palin never registered as such; Clark's claim that she attended the 94 convention; and the McCain campagn's response that this is false "but she visited them when they had their convention in Wasilla in 2000 as a courtesy since she was mayor.". It also mentions the speech "at" the 2008 convention as a "video greeting". Homunq (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Youtube is not a reliable source

Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_IRC.2C_MySpace.2C_and_YouTube_reliable_sources.3F Ferrylodge (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If they can diagram the sentence, then it can stay. LOL

I love this sentence

"Wooten had been officially reprimanded and disciplined in 2006 for misconduct including making a death threat against Palin's father and being drunk while operating both private and official vehicles,[97][98] as well as using a Taser on his then 10-year old stepson 'in a training capacity' after the child had asked to be tased in order to show his cousin, Sarah Palin's daughter Bristol, that he 'wasn't a mama's boy'[99], which occured during a divorce and child custody battle with Palin’s sister, Molly McCann.[100]"

Is there any English teacher in the United States who would not go ballistic about this?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

So, change it? Gary King (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

So when you copyedit it you get reverted? Gary King (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Many people have cut this sentence back, repeatedly, ad nauseum, to refer to the death threat and "other" stuff. It keeps getting reverted back. I'm not going to break it up into a whole bunch of manageable sentences, because it's crud. Who cares if Bristol thought her cousin was a Mama's boy? I'm not going to copy-edit that crap.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

So this thread is basically just an unhelpful complaint? Gary King (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's a suggestion that people should please try to be reasonable. Mindlessly advancing an agenda results in crappy sentences that make us all look ridiculous. Any person or group of people that writes a sentence like the one I quoted can justly be described as foolish, and I don't want myself or Wikipedia described that way. I would cut back the sentence again myself, but it would violate WP:3RR.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, glad we got that cleared up Gary King (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, I agree the sentence is {expletive deleted}. Let me see if I can make it better. RonCram (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I must say though, it somehow fits the mood of the tale :) Gwen Gale (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hence the title of the section.  :) Ferrylodge (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Please Stop Buchanan Edit War

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palin's total net worth? Most recent financial disclosure or federal tax form

Gov Sarah Palin's TOTAL Financial networth and investments.

The narrative to the nation is that unlike Sen. McCain she is not wealthy and has a modest income. Since it is obvious that Sen. Mccain knows less about Gov. Palin than the general pubic, could someone find out her TOTAL networth (husband's included). The only financial information on Gov. Palin is that she reduced her current salary. There has been no release of financial documents to verify McCain's assertion of Gov. Palin's "modest" fin. backgroud.

Did she and her husband file a 2007 tax return form? How many houses does she own? Has she moved her investments around for to deceive the American Public (placing funds into her children's, sister's or Parent's account).

Thanks so much Komplete (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Info like this will be included when it becomes available. Dragons flight (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

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

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

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

Todd and AIP

And for the next round of the AIP story (sigh...), it appears that husband Todd was an AIP member from 1995 to 2002. [66] The current source is pretty dodgy, but I assume the major networks will confirm or deny this shortly. Dragons flight (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unacceptable format at "Political positions"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congenital popularity & general amity

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

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

Palin sought many earmarks

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

AIP Convention in 1994

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

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

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

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

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

Kopp being appointed to replace Monegan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(undent)Chryson says this:[67]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palin, AIP, and BLP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't see anything about it at the CBS website.[68] What did they say? That network has been going downhill since Murrow, by the way.  :) Ferrylodge (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Here you go [69]. It was basically 6 minutes of pure terror for the McCain Campaign. Zredsox (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Annie Oakleyish "gilf" image/lifestyle

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

 $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 23:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

National guard

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 2008-2012_DMVA_Strategic_Plan.pdf
• The AlaskaState Defense Force
• How about from the Air National Guard Page
  • "Air National Guard units, under order of the Governor, provide protection of life and property, and preserve peace, order and public safety. State missions, funded by the individual states, include disaster relief in times of earthquakes, hurricanes, floods and forest fires, search and rescue, protection of vital public services, and support to civil defense."
• How about from the Alaska Army National Guard
  • "The governor commands AKNG while it is not in active federal service. The principal executive officer of DMVA, the adjutant general, is an appointee of the governor. The Army National Guard component and the Air National Guard components are each commanded by an assistant adjutant general appointed by the adjutant general with the concurrence of the governor. "

Whitewashing and bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palin

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

Faye Palin

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

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

Weird

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

Levi Johnston

Is 18 and will attend the Nat'l Republican Convention.[70]  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 00:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Edit clash.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bristol Palin Controversy

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

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

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

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

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

Pregnancy is spelled wrong...

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

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

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

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

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