Talk:Early political career of Sarah Palin

Article probation

This is a notification that articles related to Sarah Palin (broadly construed) have been placed by the community on article probation. See Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation‎ for details. Thanks - Kelly ^hi! 17:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Now lifted.   Will Beback  talk  23:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Library matters, undue weight

I added the undue weight tag to the library section, as i feel that this much attention to such a small thing is undue weight. We have 2 sections detailing claims about her dealings with the local library that boil down to claims by one or two people about what they claim she asked about, not even something actually happening. If a book had actually been banned, or attempted to be banned, I could see the extensive coverage, but this much weight for just what people claimed she said? Bonewah (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You believe the article says that she did not attempt to ban a book? It would not, and follow WP:NPOV. Or perhaps you have evidence of such that you would like to present here to be considered for addition to the article? I welcome such information for inclusion.
However, your assessment of third party records of the testimony of witnesses as "just what people claimed she said" is a miscategorization of one of the prime examples of good material for inclusion at Wikipedia. This was not a suitable use of the Weight tag. Anarchangel (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying that I have to prove she didnt attempt to ban a book? Prove a negative? Why dont you show me in any of the sources where they say that a book was actually banned? Bonewah (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The article says "According to Paul Stuart, a local journalist who covered the controversy at the time, one of three books Palin asked the librarian to ban was Pastor, I am Gay by Howard Bess, a pastor who lives just outside Wasilla. Rev. Bess said the Wasilla Assembly of God was pushing to remove his book from local bookstores." but the article cited says "The Rev. Howard Bess, a liberal Christian preacher in the nearby town of Palmer, said the church Palin and her family attended until 2002, the Wasilla Assembly of God, was pushing to remove his book from local bookstores.

Emmons told him that year that several copies of "Pastor I Am Gay" had disappeared from the library shelves, Bess said." A far cry from what we state. Additionally, the article is simply reporting the opinion of this pastor, not a fact about Palin. I think we are way overstating things to include this, as it is simply the opinion of one man, unsupported by any facts. Bonewah (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The material was orignally added using this source: Story of banned books is murky.[1] I don't know why it was changed - maybe it was determined to be an unreliable blog, but most newspaper blogs are considered reliable.   Will Beback  talk  04:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

First off, I am removing cite 40 () as it does not support the claims being made.

Now, lets take the reliability of polifact as a given for a moment and examine the claims being made. Here is what polifact reported about the incident :

But the Frontiersman reporter who wrote that article in 1996 now says Emmons told him Palin did mention three books that she wanted removed from the shelves.

Paul Stuart is semiretired, though he still occasionally contributes articles to a weekly paper, the Mountain Ear, in Conway, N.H., where he lives.

Stuart told PolitiFact that in a conversation with Emmons after his article ran, she listed three titles. He said he could recall only two, and initially said they were I Told My Parents I'm Gay and I Asked My Sister. We looked for these titles; they don't appear to exist.

"Mary Ellen told me that Palin asked her directly to remove these books from the shelves," Stuart said. "She refused."

Asked later if the first book could have been Pastor, I am Gay, a controversial book written by a pastor who lives just outside Wasilla, Stuart said that was it.

A couple of things stand out immediately: We are basing our claim on the word of one guy who is reporting a second-hand account 12 years later. Although he is a reporter, this account is not fact checked (except by polifact, see below) in the way an actual newspaper report would be. Indeed, in his article about Palin's supposed desire to 'ban books' he left out this very important claim that Palin explicitly asked about removing books. That, to me, is a major red flag, as if it did not pass editorial oversight and we are only hearing about it now that he no longer works for that newspaper.

Moreover, our account leaves out some important facts. From polifact story:

We can say for certain that no book was ever banned. Nor is there any record that Palin initiated a formal process to censor any books.

"We have no records of any books being 'banned or censored' ever," Wasilla Mayor Diane M. Keller said in a statement released about the issue.

Keller told PolitiFact that the city hasn't been able to find any minutes to substantiate that the issue was ever raised by Palin at a City Council meeting. Nor does Keller, who was a council member at the time, recall any such conversations.

And Emmons, now Mary Ellen Baker, isn't talking.

A message on her answering machine states: "I have nothing to add to reports from that time. I do not want to discuss the matter. Please respect my privacy.

Kilkenny herself said she does not recall that any titles were named by Palin at the time.

Finally, lets look at polifact's conclusion:

As for Kilkenny's claim, there is no proof that Palin tried to fire the librarian because she refused to consider removing books. In fact, Palin asked for the resignation of a handful of department heads to test their loyalty, according to reports at the time. The claim that Palin had specific books she wanted removed is also unsupported. Kilkenny herself said she does not recall that any titles were named by Palin at the time.

Yes, a reporter provides a secondhand account 12 years later in which he says the librarian named books Palin wanted removed. But Stuart's recollection seems hazy (he didn't get the right title at first). The librarian isn't talking. There are no public records or meeting minutes to substantiate the claim. And no one else corroborates that Palin ever listed any titles. So we find no basis to find that part of the story true. " (emphasis mine)

So if we take polifact as a reliable source, we are reporting what our own RS says has no basis in truth, in a WP:BLP no less. Bonewah (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

An ABC source also lists the name of a book which was being disputed by Palin's church at the time.[2]   Will Beback  talk  22:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That ABC source does noting to allay my concerns. The portion in question is still an uncorroborated, second-hand claim without any evidence to back it up. The only thing this citation does to back up the claim is add

Stuart said he was confident of his memory. "She may have said that but that's not how it was."

Big deal, it is still only his word, the fact that he reiterates that what he said was true means nothing. All of my concerns from above are still valid, and, in fact, this article deepens one of my concerns, we now have the librarian on record as saying

"I simply do not recall a conversation with specific titles,"

You can take that as denying what Paul Stuart claimed, or you can take that as officially not confirming it, either way his story is uncorroborated. Bonewah (talk) 14:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I am going to remove the line in question based on my understanding of WP:BLP, specifically, "We must get the article right." and "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to information about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that it complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines." I think I have made the case that the material in question falls way short of Wikipedia's standard on many different levels and everything about the BLP rules insists on a higher standard. Bonewah (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I restored it and added more sources. It only took a couple of seconds to find them, probably less time than it took to write that comment explaining the deletion of the material.   Will Beback  talk  21:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

All you have done is replace one unsupported claim for another. Rather than cite a reporter who claims he was told this 12 years ago, we cite a pastor who claims he just knows its true. That is an even weaker claim than we were making before. We still leave out the fact that Palin denies ever making that request, that Emmons denies ever having that request made to her, that there is no record of any censorship attempt and no one else recalls this as having happened. You claim that it only took a few seconds to find those sources, but nothing in those sources or your response actually addresses my complaints here. I urge you to actually read and consider my position here, rather than just throw a few citations at me an dismiss me with an off hand comment. Bonewah (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

We have three sources now, and I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to find more. It's not our job to decide which issues in a life should be reported, our job is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. I agree that we should add the denial by Palin and any other relevant material. that's better than deleting well-sourced material.   Will Beback  talk  22:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

<--(OD)"It's not our job to decide which issues in a life should be reported" What?? That is totally daft. That is exactly our job, if we didnt do that, wikipedia would be an indiscriminate collection of facts. From that section "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." And from wp:UNDUE "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." The opinion of one guy is not significant to this subject, and that is all this is about, the (unverified) opinion of one person, no matter how many citations you provide. Now, please stop ignoring my arguments and address my actual concerns. Bonewah (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, I feel that wp:BLP and wp:BURDEN both support the removal of this section and so I am going to edit the article to that effect. If you intend to re-add this material, please take time to explain why the opinion of one guy is so overwhelmingly important as to be included despite the fact that all the participants in the supposed conversation deny that it took place and there is no record of any book banning or attempted book banning. Bonewah (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If something is reported often enough, then it's notable. While the exact name of the book being disucssed is perhaps less important, do I now understand you are propsoing deltion of the entire section? That we shoulnd't mention the controversy over the alleged book banning discussion at all? If so then I think we should have an RfC about ti because that does not seem like a reasonable postion.   Will Beback  talk  23:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand my position. At this point, I am only concerned with the unverified comments of Paul Stuart per this edit, and the unverified opinion of Howard Bess such as this, or anything similar to those two. The story of Palin and Emmons as reported by the nat-su valley frontiersman is at least reported in a (hopefully) fact checked newspaper, and has the benefit of not having been totally denied by the parties involved. If I want to propose any edits to the rest of this section, I will start a new talk thread to discuss any changes I would like to make. Bonewah (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This Article is Nothing but a Disingenuous Hit Piece

It's obvious that the only reason this article was written was to to include and emphasize smears that would be quickly deleted from the main entry on Sarah Palin. As a preliminary matter, is there ANY other American politician who has separate Wikipedia entry devoted to his or her "early political career"? Of course not. The author of this piece simply wanted to promote the baseless smears regarding Palin being a book banner and rape apologist, free from peer review. It's absolutely shameful.

The garbage insinuating that Palin made victims pay for their rape kits is especially galling. There has never been evidence that a single woman was even asked to do so -- it is clear that as in countless other states, including Obama's Illinois, hospitals were simply billing insurers for procedures conducted in connection with treatment for the rape. And even Alaska's amended bill permits the kits in child-rape to be paid for by insurance, a provision specifically requested by sexual abuse victims advocates.

I'll ignore the fact that the author cites to leftist HuffPo writers whose work would never be classified as a reliable source in any other Wikipedia article. But let's look at how the author misrepresents the primary sources that he cites. He quotes Lauree Hugonin as saying that "victims" were charged, but this is her actual testimony:

LAUREE HUGONIN, DIRECTOR, ALASKA NETWORD ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT (ANDVSA), JUNEAU, commented that these charges occur as a result of hospital accounting procedures. The range of costs can be from between $300- $1000 dollars. The direct charges usually result from the accounting procedures at the hospitals and not the law enforcement agencies. She noted that there has been some difficulty in Mat-Su, Anchorage, Kenai and Sitka and possibly in Bethel. She was not aware of other parts of the State where there was a problem. Ms. Hugonin advised that this problem is not on going and pervasive, but that it does occur more than sporadically.

None of this had anything to do with Palin, as the author well knows, but the careless insinuating goes on and on and on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.146.146 (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

To answer the 'preliminary matter' question, yes; see Category:Early lives by individual for similar articles on other figures. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Palin, libraries and the NYT

This paragraph is baffling to me

City of Wasilla Library records indicate that there was never a request for the library to remove the book and that no books were ever censored or banned.[11] A New York Times article in 2008 mentioned the Daddy's Roommate episode, and intimated that the episode is relevant to accusations that Palin may be sympathetic to censorship.[9] The Times article was subsequently criticized by the Times' own ombudsman for presenting "confusing and incomplete" anecdotes about Palin.[12]

We start out by saying that nothing happened in Wasilla wrt the library. We then follow it up with, not what the New York Times says, but what it intimated??? Then we point out that the NYT had problems with its own article! If the NYT has a problem with it, why are we using it, and why are we repeating what they intimate? Im removing that whole section per wp:BRD at least. Bonewah (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why we'd remove material sourced to a major newspaper. If it needs to be written more clearly then let's do that instead of deleting it.   Will Beback  talk  21:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Because (without condoning it) the passage right above it spells out the substantive portion of the NYT article. From our article "According to Laura Chase of Wasilla, and former Wasilla mayor John Stein, Palin mentioned in 1995 that she saw the book Daddy's Roommate in the public library and did not think that it belonged there." This is sourced to the same NYT article. The passage im talking about doesnt quote the NYT article at all, it merely says what the article intimated. This looks to me like a ham handed attempt to balance the previous paragraph. At a minimum saying what the article intimated is OR, especially when we say that "Palin may be sympathetic to censorship", the citation never says this. Bonewah (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Remark about library book section and Library matters section overlap

The third paragraph of 'remarks about library book', is essentially a repeat of the material in the 'library matters' section. I am going to boldy remove that paragraph as redundant and move the sources here. [3] Bonewah (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

HB 270

The section HB 270 spends a lot of time discussing HB 270, rape victims, and, occasionally, Police chief Fannon. It spends very little time, however, talking about the subject of this article, Sarah Palin. Just reading this section itself, without reading the citations, I have no idea what this has to do with Palin at all. Once i read the sources, it became clear why that is, none of them explicitly say that Palin wanted to bill rape victims for their exams, which is more or less the point of HB 270 (to forbid that practice). They do say that Fannon was opposed to HB 270, but Fannon is not Palin. I would say that this is another guilt by implication, campaign season attack. No one can say that Palin opposed HB 270 so they say that Fannon did, and because Fannon was appointed by Palin, by implication, Palin must have wanted to bill rape victims for their exams. None of this stuff should be in this BLP because (at a minimum) no reliable source directly ties any of this to Palin, and, if anywhere, it should be in an article about the McCain-Palin presidential campaign, because this is no more than campaign dirt. Bonewah (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This rape kit "material" was finally removed from the parent bio after some 17+ editors chimmed in about it and months and pages and pages and pages and pages of talk page discussion. It has remained here since these sub article tend to be more ceespoolish and not as closely watched/fought over. You analysis above is pretty accurate. At least we don't say Palin is anti rape or something like that, but I haven't read this aricle in a long time. I will look now. --Tom (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The amount of weight given to this is HB in this article is silly, but par for the course like I said above. I would nuke the whole thing, but thats me :) --Tom (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Im also in favor of removing the whole section, but lets wait a few days and see if anyone responds to our comments here. Bonewah (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Some of the material not directly related to Palin is necessary as background, but the current wording goes into quite a bit of detail, with the result that the more directly relevant information gets obscured. It should be trimmed.

As for that connection to Palin, this source says that Wasilla did charge for rape kits while Palin was mayor. It also says that a Palin spokesperson "would not answer other questions, including when Palin learned of Wasilla's policy or whether she tried to change it." This source agrees that the charges were imposed and presents the back-and-forth about what did Palin know and when did she know it. Specifically, it quotes a state representative: "'I find it hard to believe that for six months a small town, a police chief, would lead the fight against a statewide piece of legislation receiving unanimous support and the mayor not know about it,' Croft said." It adds that Palin cut the budget line that the police department had previously used to pay for rape kits. As against that, it also reports that the same budget line was used for other expenses as well, that the cut didn't specifically target rape kits, and that Croft doesn't recall discussing the issue with Palin. These facts show a legitimate controversy about what happened. It's also an issue that attracted some media attention. It should be included, with both sides reported and with the background material trimmed. JamesMLane t c 19:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no doubt that Wasilla had a policy to charge for rape kits while Palin was mayor. Its not clear to me that this ever actually happened, but that is largely beside the point. Everything that connects Palin to the the rape kit charges is supposition. The state representative you cite does not say that Palin knew about the whole rape kit thing, only that she believes that Palin did. Likewise with the budget thing, no one can say Palin specifically targeted rape kits, only that she must have known for one reason or another, so much supposition. Widely reported supposition does not change the fact that it is supposition. Barack Obama's articles dont mention the Obama-Bill Ayres 'controversies' for the same reason, widely reported or not, there is nothing factual there. Same with this, nothing factual to tie Palin to the rape kit thing, so what is to report? Still, if you want to take a shot at re-writing it, ill be happy to give my opinion. Bonewah (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Your comment is contradictory: (1) "Everything that connects Palin to the the rape kit charges is supposition." (2) "I have no doubt that Wasilla had a policy to charge for rape kits while Palin was mayor." The latter statement provides the connection you called for in the former. This was a policy of the town government "on Palin's watch", as Reagan might have said. She knew about it or she didn't. Per the CNN story, Palin's friend and deputy mayor also has some relevant information: "She does recall Palin going through the budget in detail. She said Palin would review each department's budget line by line and send it back to department heads with her changes." That suggests Palin did know, but if she didn't, then it's legitimate to ask why she didn't. (The Wasilla town budget wasn't quite on a level with that of the federal government in terms of breadth and complexity -- at least, such would be my "supposition".)

It's striking that her own designated spokesperson refuses to say whether she knew or didn't know. This unusual refusal is presumably done to try to steer between the charges of responsibility and irresponsibility. Nevertheless, however much Palin would like the subject to go away, the Wikipedia reader is entitled to have the available information, and to judge what Palin knew and whether the matter reflects badly on her.

You write, "Barack Obama's articles dont mention the Obama-Bill Ayres 'controversies'...." You're right that it's not in the main Obama bio, just as the rape kit issue isn't in the main Palin bio. What we're discussing here is whether to put rape kits in one of the daughter articles. The Ayers ruckus isn't mentioned in one of the Obama daughter articles -- it's in two of them. See Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008#Pennsylvania and Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008#"Fight The Smears" website. Both of those are terse mentions, but that's because they wikilink to the Bill Ayers article, which has a section on the "controversy" with a wikilink to a whole freakin' article that's just about the Bill Ayers presidential election controversy. (As a bonus, we also mention the issue, and wikilink Bill Ayers, in two separate articles about books that are hit pieces on Obama: The Case Against Barack Obama and The Obama Nation.) Thus, the information about this criticism of Obama is readily available in abundance to the Wikipedia reader. By contrast, you propose to expunge this criticism of Sarah Palin completely.

As to your invitation that I write something up, I'll see what other comments come in. This article is stringently governed by the BLSP policy (Biographies of Living Sarah Palins), under which negative information must be admitted by Palin, preferably under oath, before being deemed worthy of inclusion. (That's an exaggeration, but not nearly as much of a one as it should be.) I'm disinclined to take the time to craft a suitably NPOV discussion of this subject, which will then be deleted pursuant to BLSP unless I'm willing to make a major cause of preserving the information. JamesMLane t c 22:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well then, I see a potential compromise then. If you want to move this material to John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 I fully support that, this is more a campaign 'issue' then anything else. If you want to create an specific article such as Sarah Palin and the Rape kit controversy be my guest, I wont AfD it. If you think Police chief Fannon needs his own article, have fun, but lets be consistent, if we treat Bill Ayers as a campaign smear (and I think we should), then lets treat HB 270 in exactly the same way, as a campaign smear.

As for BLSP policy, seeing as there are three different sections in this article that are based entirely on the opinions of a few partisans, or backed up by the assurances that someone from Alaska is really really sure that Sarah Palin did something, or the word of one guy who swears he heard from someone else what Palin said, you will forgive me if I dont feel that sympathetic to your complaints. Bonewah (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is more of a campaign type of smear "material" that belongs in articles related to that. Its along the lines of "when did you stop beating your wife" reasoning. When did Palin stop supporting rape and turn anti-rape? Why won't she answer that question? How big a deal was this even? Anyways, good luck. --Tom (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

<- The proposals and issues here are also being discussed at Talk:Sarah Palin#Specific proposal. Comments welcome there. Bonewah (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, ive trimmed out some of the more extraneous material from this section and intend to do even more editing. Most of this section is about Fallon, not Palin and as such, has no real place here. Moreover, i think a careful look at the sourcing is in order and re-editing for neutrality at a minimum. I thought i would start with the least controversial edits to kick off the edit cycle, comments are welcome. Bonewah (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This line seems problematic to me "Irl Stambaugh was reportedly surprised to hear that the police department was charging; he said when he was chief of police, he had included a line item in the budget to pay for the cost of such exams. The budget during his tenure shows a line item called Contractual Services, that paid for "evidence collection for sexual assaults"; that line item was cut by more than half during Palin's tenure.".

First off I dont think the Huffington Post is really a reliable source, it is overtly partisan and more of a blog than a news source. Secondly, why are we including this in the first place? Seems to me that this is being included to give the impression that Palin activly tried to avoid having the city pay for rape kits, which would be at least wp:OR and an wp:NPOV problem to boot. Without more information, we have no idea why the budget for this item was cut and what effect it had, if any. Bonewah (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're wondering why your edits reducing this section won't get much of a response, it's because readership of this article is incredibly low. Look at May 2010, for example. Total views of Sarah Palin: 143,876. Total views of Early political career of Sarah Palin: 626. That's about a 2000:1 ratio! Stats for other months are similar. It's not unique to Palin, either; biographical subarticles always get a very, very low readership. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Stambaugh's dismissal

The section, Stambaugh's dismissal has an excessive amount of material that is along the lines of "Stambaugh's lawsuit alledges" or "Stambaugh's suit claims" which seems like undue weight covering a lawsuit that was ultimatly dismissed. I am going to shorten this section down to the essentials while perserving the links that still work. Bonewah (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The main article says "Stambaugh filed a federal lawsuit alleging wrongful termination and violation of his free speech rights.[66]" This subarticle now says "Stambaugh filed a lawsuit ..." with no further description of where he filed it or what the suit claimed. Why should the main article have a longer description of the suit than the subarticle? It's supposed to be the other way around. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Any better? Bonewah (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really. This is a detail subarticle, you need to cover the who, what, where, etc. The suit was filed in February 1997 in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska. The suit alleged what? I've seen breach of contract, gender discrimination, and violation of freedom of speech rights. The ruling from Judge James Keith Singleton, Jr. dismissing the case came in March 2000. I understand that reproducing the litany of Stambaugh's claims from the suit is ill-advised here, because the case wasn't decided on those merits one way or the other, but this article has to present a fuller account of the historical details of the suit than the main article does. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you would like to take a stab at it, that would be helpful. It seems you understand my concern, its now just a matter of working out how much detail is appropriate. Bonewah (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll pass. At 2800 words and getting shorter, I think this subarticle may end up getting merged back into the main article. Ideally I think this should be expanded to about 6000–8000 words and include her early life as well, but the very low readership (see previous section) just does not warrant that kind of investment. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Whitewashing

I hold this page, and the main Sarah Palin article, up to the light, as an example of how a dedicated team pushing a point of view can completely erase the facts, simply because there are not enough people to stop them. Wikipedia can never be a reliable source of information while editing privileges are abused in this way. The main perpetrator is Bonewah, but the others responding to him on this discussion page are equally guilty.
This is the real story, in red and yellow, that was beaten to death with sheer numbers on the Sarah Palin page, and quietly done away with in the dead of night here as well, as soon as there was no one watching
Anarchangel (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

A link to the page as it was, then, also, as there are a lot of links to sources in the old page that are not as easily accessible via the wiki code.
Anarchangel (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my edits, and, despite what you claim, the extensive discussion that accompanied them. What you call 'whitewashing' I call actually following the rules of Wikipedia, which so many partisans view as an inconvenience to be gotten around. But im glad you provided a link to what this article was like, I think its important for interested parties to see all the rumors and innuendo presented as fact, the opinions of a few partisans plastered all over the place like they were gospel, the exaggeration of a handful of details to monumental proportion. If you can, with a straight face, say thats the 'real story' then good for you, Im happy you've taken the time to note that here. Bonewah (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Not going to engage in the pointlessness that is attempting to reason with the unreasonable, but for the benefit of others reading this, the Fiscal Year 2000 budget linked to in this story (<- New link, not included in previous discussions) shows that Palin, responsible for the budget, made cuts that removed funds for the rape kits that were funded while Stambaugh was Sheriff. Etc, etc. I worked on this for months, and have a whole page of links, and there is another story from before she was mayor that I am saving for if she ever decides to run for prez. If anyone wants to fight this again, I might help them. It was worth fighting for once. Anarchangel (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahh the Huffington Post, truly the pinnacle of unbiased 'reporting'. You are right that we havent seen this exact link before, but we have seen this type of material before and discussed it at length. As for not 'arguing with the unreasonable', thats fine with me, seeing as so far, your 'arguments' have been mostly ad-hominems and name calling id say im not missing much. Bonewah (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/13/AR2008091302596.html?sid=ST2008091302649. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Dianna (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Early political career of Sarah Palin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.codepublishing.com/AK/Wasilla/Wasilla02/Wasilla0204.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thenational.ae/article/20081003/REVIEW/565545479/-1/SPORT
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.adn.com/2006/10/23/510447/part-1-fresh-face-launched-carries.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.adn.com/2006/10/24/217384/part-2-rebel-status-has-fueled.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090106125951/http://www.adn.com/news/government/renkes/story/42104.html to http://www.adn.com/news/government/renkes/story/42104.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Early political career of Sarah Palin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/tables/SUB-EST2007-04-02.csv
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fopinion%2F2008%2F09%2F09%2Fdo0904.xml
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cityofwasilla.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=451
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cityofwasilla.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=452
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080902060348/http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/510219.html to http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/510219.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080905040240/http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/515512.html to http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/515512.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://cityofwasilla.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=41
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080902071541/http://www.adn.com/politics/v-printer/story/510153.html to http://www.adn.com/politics/v-printer/story/510153.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=61

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)