Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Mayor of Wasilla

I added the fact that Palin is the former mayor of Wasilla, Alaska to her initial introduction in this article. It is of note that she is running for governor, but if that were not true then she would still be notable as a politician as the former Wasilla mayor. Michaelh2001 07:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Commissioner Dismissal section heavily slanted in favor of Palin

• It does not mention that this is an ongoing scandal. Generally, this sort of thing is under a 'Controversies' section in Wiki biographies.
• It says that Wooten was 'involved in' a divorce and child custody battle, which could mean he's a paper pusher at a law firm. In fact, he was the husband of her sister. He's an ex-brother-in-law.

NOT Governor yet

Pallin hasn't taken office yet. She shouldn't be listed as the 11th Governor. GoodDay 16:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Alaska governors take office on the first Monday in December of the year they are elected. Gov. Palin took office yesterday in Fairbanks (readers please note the datestamps of these comments). This was the first time since statehood an Alaska gubernatorial inauguration was held outside of Juneau, the state's capital. McGehee 17:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Needs editing?

Governor Murkowski did appoint Palin to serve as a commissioner on the state's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which she served on during 2003-2004, but later resigned, in protest over her perceived "lack of ethics" by fellow Alaskan Republican leaders. This included the state party's chairman, Randy Ruedrich, a fellow commissioner, who was accused of doing work for the party on public time and providing a sensitive email to a lobbyist. She filed formal complaints against both Ruedrich and former state Attorney General Gregg Renkes, who was eventuallly found not guilty.

• Why did Republican leaders think SHE was unethical. The wikipedia article seems to say that Randy Ruedrich was unethical, not Gov. Palin.HumanThing 00:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone put a picture of this girl up? SHES SMOKIN!

picture

can someone please put up a picture of her?-Bentley4

Well, we now have a picture of her playing high school basketball, so I suppose a normal picture isn't necessary.</sarcasm> Wikipedia in recent months has become probably the worst place on the internet to find pictures of living individuals. It's really completely ridiculous. john k 06:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree. Publicity photo's, HQ, made available on their web site - and we can't use them. And people don't even have the guts to point out problems on their own. Just send out the Nazi-bot to do their dirty work. I used to edit every day. Now maybe once every couple of months and nothing major. </vent> --Geneb1955 (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

In the Family and Personal Background section there needs to be a small edit to insert "organization", it should say she was head of the school organization Fellowship of Christian Athletes.

Relevant links

Here's a place to record links that might be useful in this article.

• "The Most Popular Governor: Alaska's Sarah Palin is the GOP's newest star", by Fred Barnes, The Weekly Standard, 16 July 2007
  (“Palin is a conservative who only last month vetoed 13 percent of the state's proposed budget for capital projects. The cuts, the Anchorage Daily News said, ‘may be the biggest single-year line-item veto total in state history.’”) CWC 11:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• "The GOP's North Star" by Patrick Ruffini (a GOP activist/columnist/blogger, so not a WP:RS), Townhall.com, 29 September 2007
  (“In a small state that generally votes Republican, the divide between Alaska's Republican elected officials could not be more clear. Palin was elected as a whistleblower, and routinely rails against the state's transactional Republican establishment.”) CWC 11:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Problems with bare links for references

I have thoroughly fixed and updated the links used as references for this article because they had quite a few faults. The essential problem is the use of bare links; i.e., a URL with no other identifying information. These frequently break, and without data like news article titles or website page titles, it is often impossible even to know where to look for a replacement source. (Archive sites like the Wayback Machine or Google sometimes help, but often do not.)

As an example, here are three problems I couldn't easily fix:

1. "Palin canceled an eleven-mile gravel road…"
   • http://ktva.com/alaska/ci_4847783 — broken link; no article title to search for; prose has no clear set of search terms with which I was able to find pertinent information
   • http://www.alaskareport.com/z45013.htm — although this is used correctly elsewhere in the article, this source says nothing clearly connected to the written prose
2. "…used her veto power to make the second largest cuts of the construction budget…"
   • http://www.gov.state.ak.us/omb/07_OMB/budget/index.htm — this is an index of information, not a specific source for the statements made in the article text
3. "[Palin] has denied rumors of running against incumbent senator Ted Stevens in next year's Republican primary."
   • Republican vs Republican in Alaska, AOL News — a opinion blog that does not mention any words from Palin, only citing her earlier election in passing
   • Conservative lawmaker’s call for GOP resignations gets mixed response, Fairbanks Daily News-Miner — the article referenced by the blog; it also only mentions Palin in passing and says nothing of her plans

Sources must provide the exact basis on which the article text is written. A document or webpage that is merely a starting point, requiring further research to find the claim made in the article, is not a source. Therefore, I have replaced these links where necessary with {{fact}} tags. If I weren't just cleaning up citations, I'd probably replace the various blog citations with fact tags as well. Blogs are almost never reliable sources.

The main point to remember is that bare links should be never be used as sources for Wikipedia articles. One doesn't necessarily have to create a fully filled-out citation, but should at least include basic title and/or descriptive information (e.g., date, author) with the reference. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sarah cancelled the road outside of Juneau...

... here is an article that gives a fairly decent explanation. However I have no clue how to do the edit thing on Wikipedia so maybe someone else can go to the article, verify the information and them post it as the citation?

http://www.seakayakermag.com/2007/Oct07/Environment01.htm

Thanks. 64.4.228.13 (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Related AfD Duscussion

I have nominated the article on Sarah Palin's husband, Todd Palin for deletion. --TommyBoy (talk) 06:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That article was deleted and redirected to the Sarah Palin on March 15.--JayJasper (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Alaska Gas Inducement Act Section

The entire section's wording seems to be strongly biased against the act. The neutrality is questionable - the section reads like a diatribe against the act, not an informational article about the act. The "references" link to blog or personal websites, not to reputable sources.

Consequently, I have deleted the entire section. TRosenbaum (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"Gay friends?"

She opposes same-sex marriage, but has gay friends and has otherwise been receptive to gay and lesbian concerns about discrimination.[17]

What does it matter if she "has gay friends?" How is this relevant to her polices toward homosexuals? I deleted the phrase while leaving in her alleged receptivenss to concerns regarding homophobic discrimination, only to find this quickly reverted. Can anyone explain to me how having "gay friends" can affect one's decisions as a leader? I strongly believe that this little phrase lends a POV to the article.Shabeki (talk) 10:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Shabeli, perhaps I can explain and put this into perspective for you. Governor Palin supported amending Alaska's constitution to ban gay marriage, and was/is willing to support allowing the people (not the legislature) to decide if medical benefits should be denied to same sex couples. However, she vetoed legislation that would have denied medical benefits to gay state employees and their partners, since she feels the citizens of Alaska ultimately should make that decision. That being said, Gov. Palin choose to campaign as someone who had gay and lesbian friends and respected homosexuals (see the cited source for more information) and this was newsworthy in her run against Gov Murkowski in the republican primary. This is not a "point of view" statement, it was a legitimate issue in the campaign, as Alaska has a large number of gay and lesbian residents. Again, feel free to read the cited source to gain more information.

I hope this answers your concerns. If not, feel free to tell me what your concern is and hopefully I can help you gain perspective. Best Wishes.

PanzaM22 (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Mike

polar bears

Links are suggested for the polar bears controversy (the suit against listing as endangered). (1) Links are suggested for the legal case. When the decision is in, there a should be a link to that. Meanwhile, I think there should be links on the status of the case. (2) The site should link to the wikipedia polar bear article. Note that the issue of listing for U.S. is somewhat distinct from the issue of whether the polar bear is threatened globally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.67.39 (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

How/Why in the hell is this considered a "controversy"?!? Ynot4tony2 (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Mat Maid controversy topic

It seems that whomever wrote the Mat Maid controversy topic wrote it with a bias against Sarah Palin, as it made no mention of the fact that the reason she fired the Mat Maid board was simply because they refused to see her in any way after announcing they were shutting down the dairy. This was the reason they were fired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.10.61 (talk) 03:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Mayor of Wasilla

I added the fact that Palin is the former mayor of Wasilla, Alaska to her initial introduction in this article. It is of note that she is running for governor, but if that were not true then she would still be notable as a politician as the former Wasilla mayor. Michaelh2001 07:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Commissioner Dismissal section heavily slanted in favor of Palin

• It does not mention that this is an ongoing scandal. Generally, this sort of thing is under a 'Controversies' section in Wiki biographies.
• It says that Wooten was 'involved in' a divorce and child custody battle, which could mean he's a paper pusher at a law firm. In fact, he was the husband of her sister. He's an ex-brother-in-law.

NOT Governor yet

Pallin hasn't taken office yet. She shouldn't be listed as the 11th Governor. GoodDay 16:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Alaska governors take office on the first Monday in December of the year they are elected. Gov. Palin took office yesterday in Fairbanks (readers please note the datestamps of these comments). This was the first time since statehood an Alaska gubernatorial inauguration was held outside of Juneau, the state's capital. McGehee 17:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalised

This article and even the discussion have already been vandalised by the Obama people. I shall try to find the previous image and restore it but I'm not good at this. I recommend you lock this page ASAP. Thank you. But you should have seen it coming, what with the track record of Obama's campaign HQ.

VPILF?

I'm not entirely certain "Vice President's I'd Like To Fuck" is a good link... I say this as a registered Green who isn't worried about the effect on Palin per se, but as someone who thinks that maybe a bit of decorum is warranted. I also note that there has been NO discussion of the inclusion of this link. Given that Palin's wiki page is likely to become a very popular and very important, links ought to be vetted, at the least. I am going to remove it unless someone wants to have a discussion about the link - placing it without discussion is no better than deleting it without discussion. Morgaledh (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Needs editing?

Governor Murkowski did appoint Palin to serve as a commissioner on the state's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which she served on during 2003-2004, but later resigned, in protest over her perceived "lack of ethics" by fellow Alaskan Republican leaders. This included the state party's chairman, Randy Ruedrich, a fellow commissioner, who was accused of doing work for the party on public time and providing a sensitive email to a lobbyist. She filed formal complaints against both Ruedrich and former state Attorney General Gregg Renkes, who was eventuallly found not guilty.

• Why did Republican leaders think SHE was unethical. The wikipedia article seems to say that Randy Ruedrich was unethical, not Gov. Palin.HumanThing 00:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone put a picture of this girl up? SHES SMOKIN!

picture

can someone please put up a picture of her?-Bentley4

Well, we now have a picture of her playing high school basketball, so I suppose a normal picture isn't necessary.</sarcasm> Wikipedia in recent months has become probably the worst place on the internet to find pictures of living individuals. It's really completely ridiculous. john k 06:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree. Publicity photo's, HQ, made available on their web site - and we can't use them. And people don't even have the guts to point out problems on their own. Just send out the Nazi-bot to do their dirty work. I used to edit every day. Now maybe once every couple of months and nothing major. </vent> --Geneb1955 (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

In the Family and Personal Background section there needs to be a small edit to insert "organization", it should say she was head of the school organization Fellowship of Christian Athletes.

Seriously, some people just have too much time on their hands that they can put up a dumb picture in place of the regular one...

Relevant links

Here's a place to record links that might be useful in this article.

• "The Most Popular Governor: Alaska's Sarah Palin is the GOP's newest star", by Fred Barnes, The Weekly Standard, 16 July 2007
  (“Palin is a conservative who only last month vetoed 13 percent of the state's proposed budget for capital projects. The cuts, the Anchorage Daily News said, ‘may be the biggest single-year line-item veto total in state history.’”) CWC 11:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• "The GOP's North Star" by Patrick Ruffini (a GOP activist/columnist/blogger, so not a WP:RS), Townhall.com, 29 September 2007
  (“In a small state that generally votes Republican, the divide between Alaska's Republican elected officials could not be more clear. Palin was elected as a whistleblower, and routinely rails against the state's transactional Republican establishment.”) CWC 11:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Problems with bare links for references

I have thoroughly fixed and updated the links used as references for this article because they had quite a few faults. The essential problem is the use of bare links; i.e., a URL with no other identifying information. These frequently break, and without data like news article titles or website page titles, it is often impossible even to know where to look for a replacement source. (Archive sites like the Wayback Machine or Google sometimes help, but often do not.)

As an example, here are three problems I couldn't easily fix:

1. "Palin canceled an eleven-mile gravel road…"
   • http://ktva.com/alaska/ci_4847783 — broken link; no article title to search for; prose has no clear set of search terms with which I was able to find pertinent information
   • http://www.alaskareport.com/z45013.htm — although this is used correctly elsewhere in the article, this source says nothing clearly connected to the written prose
2. "…used her veto power to make the second largest cuts of the construction budget…"
   • http://www.gov.state.ak.us/omb/07_OMB/budget/index.htm — this is an index of information, not a specific source for the statements made in the article text
3. "[Palin] has denied rumors of running against incumbent senator Ted Stevens in next year's Republican primary."
   • Republican vs Republican in Alaska, AOL News — a opinion blog that does not mention any words from Palin, only citing her earlier election in passing
   • Conservative lawmaker’s call for GOP resignations gets mixed response, Fairbanks Daily News-Miner — the article referenced by the blog; it also only mentions Palin in passing and says nothing of her plans

Sources must provide the exact basis on which the article text is written. A document or webpage that is merely a starting point, requiring further research to find the claim made in the article, is not a source. Therefore, I have replaced these links where necessary with {{fact}} tags. If I weren't just cleaning up citations, I'd probably replace the various blog citations with fact tags as well. Blogs are almost never reliable sources.

The main point to remember is that bare links should be never be used as sources for Wikipedia articles. One doesn't necessarily have to create a fully filled-out citation, but should at least include basic title and/or descriptive information (e.g., date, author) with the reference. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sarah cancelled the road outside of Juneau...

... here is an article that gives a fairly decent explanation. However I have no clue how to do the edit thing on Wikipedia so maybe someone else can go to the article, verify the information and them post it as the citation?

http://www.seakayakermag.com/2007/Oct07/Environment01.htm

Thanks. 64.4.228.13 (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Related AfD Duscussion

I have nominated the article on Sarah Palin's husband, Todd Palin for deletion. --TommyBoy (talk) 06:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That article was deleted and redirected to the Sarah Palin on March 15.--JayJasper (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Alaska Gas Inducement Act Section

The entire section's wording seems to be strongly biased against the act. The neutrality is questionable - the section reads like a diatribe against the act, not an informational article about the act. The "references" link to blog or personal websites, not to reputable sources.

Consequently, I have deleted the entire section. TRosenbaum (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"Gay friends?"

She opposes same-sex marriage, but has gay friends and has otherwise been receptive to gay and lesbian concerns about discrimination.[17]

What does it matter if she "has gay friends?" How is this relevant to her polices toward homosexuals? I deleted the phrase while leaving in her alleged receptivenss to concerns regarding homophobic discrimination, only to find this quickly reverted. Can anyone explain to me how having "gay friends" can affect one's decisions as a leader? I strongly believe that this little phrase lends a POV to the article.Shabeki (talk) 10:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Shabeli, perhaps I can explain and put this into perspective for you. Governor Palin supported amending Alaska's constitution to ban gay marriage, and was/is willing to support allowing the people (not the legislature) to decide if medical benefits should be denied to same sex couples. However, she vetoed legislation that would have denied medical benefits to gay state employees and their partners, since she feels the citizens of Alaska ultimately should make that decision. That being said, Gov. Palin choose to campaign as someone who had gay and lesbian friends and respected homosexuals (see the cited source for more information) and this was newsworthy in her run against Gov Murkowski in the republican primary. This is not a "point of view" statement, it was a legitimate issue in the campaign, as Alaska has a large number of gay and lesbian residents. Again, feel free to read the cited source to gain more information.

I hope this answers your concerns. If not, feel free to tell me what your concern is and hopefully I can help you gain perspective. Best Wishes.

PanzaM22 (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Mike

polar bears

Links are suggested for the polar bears controversy (the suit against listing as endangered). (1) Links are suggested for the legal case. When the decision is in, there a should be a link to that. Meanwhile, I think there should be links on the status of the case. (2) The site should link to the wikipedia polar bear article. Note that the issue of listing for U.S. is somewhat distinct from the issue of whether the polar bear is threatened globally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.67.39 (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

How/Why in the hell is this considered a "controversy"?!? Ynot4tony2 (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed?

It's obviously confirmed. It's sourced everywhere. Get over it. /me

CNBC says it's her, but I can't think how to fit this in color="blue">(talk) 13:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's only two hours until the official announcement, I think we can wait that long. Kelly ^hi! 13:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Make it two if you want to count this as a reliable source. Oroso (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Now the Chicago Tribune. Oroso (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Add CNN to that list too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.81.147.160 (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain advisers confirmed that she's the Veep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.77.70 (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.mccainpalin.com/ Seems to confirm this as well Cavafox (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Has different registration info to johnmccain.com, and... an insurance advert. Presumably not an official campaign site.--The Bruce (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I will give you the registration, its possible that they actually had people who were smart in trying to hide it. I am not seeing any advertisements when I load the site. Just a front page with an image and some text. It may be my security settings though. Cavafox (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The ad is still there when I look (it's for ICICI Lombard, though I don't think that's significant - it just seems to be a googlead). The whois info indicates it was registered by the proxy on January 29 (the day of the Florida primary). That's more than a month before McCain became the presumptive nominee. So if it is genuine, then unless his team registered a whole slew of sites for everyone they were considering (and did so before even Romney dropped out), the whole veepstake thing was a sham. If that's true, I wonder if he had to cut some kind of deal in return for one of the endorsements he got during the Flordia campaign. But as I say, I still think it's a fan site of some sort, not part of the McCain campaign.--The Bruce (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The ad I see is a "paid for by john mccain" one about who's the biggest celebrity. It's also been in the news lately that mccain has been quite active in internet based advertising, specifically noting higher bidding on key adwords terms related to issues in this election cycle. 171.159.192.10 (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"On August 29, 2008, presumptive GOP nominee John McCain chose Palin as his nominee for vice president." Actually, he announced her selection today. Presumably, he actually made that selection days or weeks ago. 66.218.190.100 (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

STOP EDITING IT. SHE IS THE NOMINEEE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.247.39 (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No, she is the presumptive nominee until she officially receives the nomination at the convention.--JayJasper (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You happy now? It's all over the major networks that she IS THE NOMINEE! --Krakaet (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No, she is still the presumptive nominee until she officially receives the nomination at the convention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.22.229.180 (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

L:earn some politics. McCain is currently the presumptive nominee officially, also. It's not official until the convention.

Someone please tell me this same conversation was on Biden's talk page! Strawberry Island (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

How can you keep saying this? John McCain has a website that confirms it now![1] --Krakaet (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you please stop talking and read our article on "presumptive nominee" first? She is not nominee until next week. F (talk) 07:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's how it works. Neither McCain's nor Palin's names have even been placed before the convention in nomination for President and Vice President. Presumably this will happen at the Convention which has not convened yet. Then there will be a vote which may happen by roll call or by proclamation. Then, they will both become nominees. So both McCain and Palin are now presumptive nominees. McCain is also a candidate. Palin is not technically a candidate, since in the US there is no process before the convention for people to officially declare themselves as candidate for VP. The fact that Palin's name is on McCain's website does not indicate that either she nor he are the nominees. It does not contradict anything we have said here about presumptive nominees. --Crunch (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean, "Get over it". Huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatemailname (talk • contribs) 13:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is it PAY-lin? Michael of Monty Python seems to say it differently. 216.179.123.111 (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You're correct - maybe someone with expertise at the IPA symbology can place that here. Kelly ^hi! 15:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Erm I thought Michael was also "PAY-lin". Can someone put the correct pronunciation in English, not IPA gibberish? Timrollpickering (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct, Michael Palin's Palin is pronounced "PAY-lin". – ukexpat (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "the correct pronunciation in English, not IPA gibberish"? IPA is universal and using IPA any English speaker (or non-English speaker) can accurately pronounce the name. If we write "PAY-lin" how does that help? The pronunciation of 'PAY' depends on which country you are living in. If you have a problem then learn IPA.--217.202.153.5 (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Please link

{{editprotected}} [ja:サラ・ペイリン] = Sarah Palin Japanese version.Please make a link.from japan219.106.52.108 (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

First, this was the wrong template, in the future use {{Editsemiprotected}}. Second, this has been added. Oren0 (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Election Results

Apologies if this question belongs elsewhere but how is it possible that the Margin of Error on the Election Results for Ms. Palin is 7.6%? That seems inordinately high for actual election results (as opposed to, say, exit polls). In fact, the contender with the next highest number of votes (Tony Knowles) is within that MoE. Furthermore, how can Ms. Palin's number be so unprecise when all of the other contenders have MoE within 1%? I'm not trying to suggest anything untoward, just curious how this sort of thing is possible and hoping somebody can shed some light. Cheers. Daqron (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Text moves

I tried to revert the text moves by Wayfarers43 (talk · contribs) but ended up blanking the section due to edit conflicts. Wayfarers43 moved the family/personal background information to the bottom of the article per "journalism standards". I think this should be moved back up, as we're not writing a news paper article. This is meant to be a bio. - auburnpilot talk 15:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither a candidate nor a nominee

Let's get the wording right. Palin is neither a candidate nor a nominee for vice president at this point. She is merely John McCain's pick to be the nominee. If nominated next week by the convention, she will be then be the nominee. --Crunch (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Terminology therefore should be corrected to "presumptive nominee" FatherStorm (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. --Crunch (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "presumptive" is right - it is the same convention we followed for Joe Biden last week. Kelly ^hi! 16:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Slightly different because Biden was at least a candidate for President at some point, but you've the point. --Crunch (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

To quote from the Presumptive nominee article: "In politics, the presumptive nominee is a political candidate who is all but assured of his party's nomination, but has not yet been formally nominated." Palin (McCain, too, for that matter) will not be formally nominated until the Republican convention is held.--JayJasper (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just saw McCain announcing her publicly as his VP pick on all the major cable news networks. That good enough? :) -- Atama^chat 16:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No. John McCain isn't a nominee either. See presumptive nominee. Oren0 (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct, she is the presumptive vice-presidential nominee. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between a "pick," a "candidate" and a "nominee." McCain is a candidate. Palin is a pick. She is technically not a candidate, though that term is used, incorrectly to describe her status. Neither are nominees and won't be until the convention nominates them. --Crunch (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Public domain video

We have some public domain video of Sarah Palin, shot by the Department of Defense, that can be found here. Do we have anyone with sufficient technical expertise to convert some of it into a Wikipedia-compatible OGG format? Kelly ^hi! 15:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's easy to convert videos without being technical, as there are even websites that do this (eg [2]). I could convert the video for you, but I would have to make absolutely sure that downloading and converting the video is legal (ie that it is really in the public domain). How can I make sure that the video is really public domain? NerdyNSK (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that the site claims to be operated by the army ARCENT. Trying to confirm this, I visited the army's page[3] and I see the site is linked from there, which I believe is sufficient confirmation to ensure the legality of the site. Now I need to make sure the videos are really public domain. I have a problem with this, as I see that the FAQ stays silent on the question of whether we are allowed to use the stuff. I chose one of the videos from the search results, the one about the visit to Kuwait, but I do not see any licensing terms being listed on the video's description page. That page says that the "submitting unit" is "50th Public Affairs Detachment". Where could I find confirmation that the stuff they produce is really public domain? A quick search on Google does not reveal any homepage of them, although I see that they probably belong to the US army which would make them a federal US source, and as far as I know all federal US sources are in the public domain... what I want, however, is an official webpage (eg their homepage) saying that they really belong to the federal government and that their stuff is public domain. NerdyNSK (talk) 10:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Info on Army son

link [54] "http://stage-v2.wtopnews.com/?nid=104&sid=1247586" no longer works. Can not find information about her son being deployed to Iraq. Lincoln F. Stern 16:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Back to the top of Army son, I can find no source that confirms or denies her son's deployment to Iraq. The source mentioned above does not apear to be open to the public. I see no reason to include the statement without a citation. At the very least the statement should be tagged as needing a citation. --Crunch (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone added a citation needed sticker. I added one as well for him being in the military (given link no longer works) Lincoln F. Stern 16:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Check the regulation on this sit about the qualification to be a recruiter http://www.usarec.army.mil/hq/recruiter/Index.htm

AKO is not a public site, and privacy act info should not be posted here. The contact information posted there is changed manually by individual members of the Army, and is not public access. New recruits are initially loaded in the AKO system with their recruiting station infomation. It is not reasonable to assume that is his actual assignment Eodmo (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Recruiters are not deployable and ther is no need for recruiters in a combat zone! Besides the fact that he is infantry on a special assignment as a recruiting station assistant and basically wasting the governments money spent to train him to do his job as infantry.Wesxpresswmb (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone visited the fact that he may be on TAD orders? That is very common in the military, he can just he on TAD orders for a month before going to Iraq. I know a few people in the Marines that did that. What I think is odd; he joined after Sept 11th, which was 7 years ago, correct? How is he still a PFC? That is an extremely low rank for someone one a second enlistment. I think that information must be in accurate. Chexmix53 (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I just re-read the bit about when he joined. it is appropriate for him to be a PFC with only a year in, and it is appropriate for him to be on TAD recruiters orders until he deploys. Chexmix53 (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he reportedly joined on 11 September 2007 - last year - not 11 September 2001. Akiracee (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Reference item 74, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/us/politics/29palin.html, redirects to a sign up page. This is for Palin's sons upcoming orders for Iraq. Can someone find a non-registration news site? Lincoln F. Stern 22:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why information about the son's deployment to Iraq, which was cited to a NYT article, was removed. Robert K S (talk) 09:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Something else

Sarah Palin was NOT the first Alaska governor to be sworn in at some place other than Juneau. She was the first governor since statehood, I believe. But before putting that you should check the inaugurations in the 1960s. Alaska has had 2 other capitals in the past, plenty of governors were sworn in in Sitka. I know, I lived there, I didn't just look up something on the internet.65.2.29.233 (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a forum for general discussion of her. Kaisershatner (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Reread this comment, it's a suggested change to the article. Shii (tock) 16:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

quote with no context

In the article, "In a CNBC interview about her ongoing ethics investigation, Palin stated that she was unsure about what a Vice President does every day."

She actually stated that, "As for that VP talk all the time, I'll tell ya, I still can't answer that question till someone answers for me - what is it exactly that the VP does everyday?". This was in July, so if she accepted, chances are she has this squared away in her mind.

With no context, I don't know if including this at all even is unbias or useful. Emesee (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. That type of writing is weaselly at best. Removing is right, in lieu of expanding to a paragraph or section on the trajectory of her VP considerations. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Update. I tried to incorporate the material better, by connecting it to the other content concerning her (presumtive) nomination being a surprise, and sending the actual quote to the footnotes. I think it reads much better now. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No one knows what a VP does every day. They really have few duties of any kind. Some are allowed to do important things. Others are allowed to go to funerals. --70.225.92.16 (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

A political science major with even a passing reading of newspapers over the past 8 years should be able to list out quite a few things the current vice president has accomplished.

if it is a direct quote from her it is valid especially in regards to her nomination as a vice president

Palin's ethnic heritage?

Any sources regarding Governor Palin's ethnic heritage, i.e. is she of German, Norwegian, English, Irish, Swedish, or even Native American descent? Or some mix of European ethnicities? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.170.226.46 (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears from this family tree [4] (which doesn't really track her father) that she is of mostly Colonial American (i.e. English) ancestry, with some German ancestors a few generations back too. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, her last name does sound to be Swedish.

Norum (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt Michael Palin is Swedish too. FunkMonk (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Her birth name is Heath. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Troopergate scandal?

Admittedly, I haven't done any outside research on the matter but the information in the "Commissioner Dismissal Scandal" section doesn't seem to reach the point of being a "scandal." I would describe it as a "controversy". I think scandal implies that *clearly* a wrong was committed. If the investigation turns up something that Palin did that was clearly wrong, then I think it should be called a "Scandal". How do newspapers in the area describe the matter? Lawyer2b (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree, and switched it. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that is should be "controversy" as it IS under Federal investigation. However it has been changed to "Public Safety Commissioner dismissal" (Aventari (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC))

Silly Americans, with your lax definitions of scandal. Up here in Canada, a sitting Prime Minister can be kicked out of office for the "scandal" of investigating corrupt policies set in place by a previous Prime Minister. 68.151.60.194 (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

They call it "Troopergate" and there are several sources that refer to it that way and even lampooned in cartoon editorials.

citation http://www.rogermaynard.com/images/p2008/brergov.gif

you will have to find the other news and Blog citations. But they are out there.

signed anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.81.223 (talk) 03:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Additional citation "Alaska Troopergate"

"From David Hulen in Anchorage --

The AP moved this story this afternoon under the title "Alaska Troopergate."

Investigation dogs Alaska governor By STEVE QUINN Associated Press Writer JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — Gov. Sarah Palin, a rising young GOP star mentioned as a possible running mate for John McCain, could see her clean-hands reputation damaged by a growing furor over whether she tried to get her former brother-in-law fired as a state trooper.

A legislative panel has launched a $100,000 investigation to determine if Palin dismissed Alaska's public safety commissioner because he would not fire the trooper, Mike Wooten. Wooten went through a messy divorce from Palin's sister." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.81.223 (talk) 03:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

citation http://community.adn.com/node/129030

signed anon

You may want to mention that she welcomes the investigation. source: http://partner.neopets.com/NewsArticle.aspx?catId=42&articleId=1609830&page=2 (and yes, I'm aware that it's odd to be getting news from Neopets; it gives the journalist's name at the end of the article, so that shouldn't matter)Sorator (talk) 04:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Grammar Edit Unsuccessful

I was attempting to edit the following line to address the grammar:

Palin is strongly pro-life, a supporter of capital punishment,[28] Also has stated she likes hunting mooses for a past time, and promotes rifles as collector's items.

I was unable to find this text in the edit section or edit page. I am confused unless the page is somehow protected now. The area of the edit window where this text should be now says something about promoting creationism in schools. --Tralfaz (Ralraz, yech) (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone had removed it earlier; that's why you didn't see it. It's back now in fixed up form. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that section looks much better now. I was cringing at the use of Mooses. --Tralfaz (Ralraz, yech) (talk) 00:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin said creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public classrooms

Palin's answer to a question from the moderator in a televised debate: 'Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.'

See http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2006/10/27/intelligent_design_and_the_ala/

This should go into a Political positions of Sarah Palin article, which will no doubt materialize at some point. It's definitely notable to include for a governor, who presumably has influence over state educational guidelines. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The statement in the article on this right now is patently unfair and does not represent her position at all. The article currently says: " While running for Governor of Alaska, Palin supported the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in schools"

I followed the link to the article cited for support of this, and I found her saying this:

"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

In light of that, the sentence the article includes is simply false. She doesn't support teaching them alongside each other. She just doesn't think it's bad for a teacher to discuss both views and the reasons people support both if students happen to bring it up. That's not what people reading the article are going to get. It needs to be removed or changed to reflect her position more accurately. Parableman (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried to fix this so it more closely resembles what the referenced source actually says. I think the key is the words "taught" versus "debated"; as they have different connotations. The source includes both an original direct quote as well as a followup clarification quote, so by the source it is clear her intent is not to introduce creationism into the curriculum; which just saying she supports teaching it would imply. -- Dmeranda (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's better. I'm still not satisfied. Her clarification says that she thought it was ok to discuss it if it came up, i.e. if it was raised by students. She thinks that's fair game, and a lot of people think it's inappropriate for a science teacher even to get into the issue, because they think it's religion. The Dover case made that even the law in the Third Circuit. So it's not an uncontroversial position, but it seems misleading to say she advocated the teaching of it but then say it doesn't have to be part of the curriculum. That sounds as if she thinks it can be part of the curriculum but isn't going to oppose it. Her position clarification doesn't give me that impression. It sounds more like she thought it was ok to have it discussed if students raised the issue. Parableman (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This 'debate' quote came after she had advocated for teaching creationism side by side with evolution (sorry I don't have the specific citation):

The volatile issue of teaching creation science in public schools popped up in the Alaska governor's race this week when Republican Sarah Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state's public classrooms.

Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, 'Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.128.56 (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, and then she clarified the next day that what she meant is that it's ok for a teacher to include both in a discussion, not that she expects teachers to include creationism in the curriculum side-by-side with evolution. The article states this in an extremely misleading way given what she clarified her view to be. It doesn't matter if she stated the view misleadingly. We have the information that she clarified it, and it's completely unconscionable to fail to include that if you're going to include the part that she says she needed to clarify. It would be better to remove the entire discussion of it than to include only her initial statement without acknowledging what she said in clarification the very next day. Parableman (talk) 03:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed it again. This time when I checked the article went so far as to say she advocated teaching creationism, which totally misrepresents what the cited source actually says if you read it. Being asked a question in an electoral debate and providing an answer is hardly advocating. And again she made timely clarifications that she didn't mean teaching as in being part of the curriculum. I've tried to just provide a straight summary of the source (and her quotes) and remove the misleading connotations; it may be a bit wordier but I hope it is more factual. -- Dmeranda (talk) 04:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I also made same fixes on Political positions of Sarah Palin#Education, which appears to be an in-progress fork of this section. If anybody makes further changes please check both articles. -- Dmeranda (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=235159027&oldid=235158932 <--- so many errors this should be scrapped or rewritten. I could tell the moment I read it that one person wrote those two paragraphs. They don't fit with the article at all. Methodical (talk) 10:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, now some distorer has come along and removed the careful clarifications we've made, replacing them with something almost as bad as the original line that needed clarification (but this time with "intelligent design" instead of "creationism"). They also removed the reference to the article where she clarifies herself, replacing it with a citation of a New York Times article from today that makes the same misrepresentation that the article now makes. This is getting ridiculous. Parableman (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

We are currently bending over backwards a bit far. Sarah Palin indeed first said, on camera, "I am a proponent of teaching both." ("Advocate" may therefore be the wrong word, but "proponent" is her own word, and should not be censored.) It is not unusual for a political figure to make one statement to indicate their personal preference, and then backtrack and soften the statement by clarifying. It is also quite possible that the change indicates her willingness to listen to feedback and integrate it. Thus, I think it would be highly appropriate and relevant to include both the original statement and the clarification. Otherwise, we blur the history of her political stance. It is not unusual to let both an original statement and a clarification stand (citations aplenty, on request). "According to The Anchorage Daily News, Palin answered a question about evolution and creationism by stating that she was a "proponent of teaching both," but emphasized, the next day, that she primarily wanted students to be able to discuss all ideas freely, and would not push to make creationism a required part of the official curriculum. [80]"

Please note that the term "discussion of the debate" is itself a politically-loaded construct. (It presumes that there exists a scientific debate that can be studied and discussed.) The neutral term would not be "discuss the debate" but rather, either "discuss" or "debate." I have gone with "discuss," as the more general term.

I also want to note that her revised language leaves open the possibility of teachers being allowed, requested or even encouraged to teach creationism, so long as doing so is not "required." It may not be our job to draw attention to this, but neither is it an ideological attack for someone to do so. Parsing rhetoric is a valid logical exercise.

I have not made any changes yet. (I have a new e-mail address, and it has been years since I have edited.) I will tweak the entry along these lines once (re)verified, unless I see a cogent answer against it, here, or unless someone beats me to it (my eyes are not what they used to be.) JFS Ph.D. (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability of family members

[initial part of this discussion was somehow lost in all the thousands of edits today]

...family is notable if for no other reason than historical fact. in regards to politics it is notable because it can indicate values or lack of values. family is also notable that in the event that any other member of her family makes it onto wikipedia there is a clear point of reference to go back to

Why are we including non notable references to the family? NonvocalScream (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is her family not notable? Tenho Karite (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course this is relevant. It's all well sourced. Don't think families are relevant? See the page of every major public figure ever. This removal is borderline vandalism. Oren0 (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You really need to read this for a definition of vandalism. Do you know the contribution I make to this project, calling me a vandal. Heavens. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that you are a vandal. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and all that, but show me the page of any public figure in the remote notability range that Palin is now in that goes as far as your edit (no mention of spouse or children). Oren0 (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I mean to say, did they contribute to the notability of the subject? What main contributions have they made? I would posit that the mention is incidental, and privacy interests remain until such contribution can be made. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course they do. Did you watch her acceptance speech and the coverage thereof? I can't tell you how many times I've heard about her husband, or the terms "mother of five"/"hockey mom"/"son going to Iraq". Both the coverage of her son in Iraq and her son with Down's syndrome have been quite significant. Oren0 (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Oren0. A description of her family is appropriate. Family appearance is a key part of American politics and elections. She began her appearance today by introducing each of them in turn, and talked about her absent Army son at some length. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

But *how* did they contribute to her notability? NonvocalScream (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"Contributes to the subject's notability" is not the criterion for inclusion of facts in an article. The criterion is attributability in reliable sources with proper weight. The family meets that bar. Serious question: do you believe that spouses should not be in articles such as Joe Biden and pages of other governors or senators? Oren0 (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I do, if the mention in incidental. This goes to the core of notability. Is it worth mentioning also, the aunts and uncles? NonvocalScream (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

From WP:N: "These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles." When she mentions her five kids and her husband as the first thing she says on the national stage, their mention becomes more than incidental. If she does the same for aunts an uncles, they'll merit mention as well. Oren0 (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Almost the first thing Palin did in the Dayton rally announcing her as Vice Preisdential nominee was to introduce/name all of her children and her husband, so I think it's definitely notable. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

My status as a registered Democract completely aside, this article seems to be a of an NPOV concern to me. Are we really to believe that this poliitician has had no controversies in her career? Are we really to believe that she is as "squeaky clean" as the article in its current form might lead us to believe?

I've tagged the article as an NPOV concern and would like to have a discussion here, in hopes of reaching some form of consensus on the subject. Thanks. --Winger84 (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You haven't made any case for NPOV at all. There are numerous controversies mentioned. Please make your case before re-adding the tag. Kelly ^hi! 16:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kelly here. Suspecting there should be controversies doesn't equal a NPOV dispute. - auburnpilot talk 16:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless you know of something "bad" to write about her that is sourced, I cannot see how the article is not neutral. It is factual, is it not? Just because an article is missing any "controversies" (which it's not... see the commissioner's dismissal section), does not mean that it is point-of-view-ed. Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The article reads like an advertisement taken straight from either her website or the Republican Party's website. Hence, neutrality can - and has - been raised as an issue. The tag can not be removed without a consensus being reached here. --Winger84 (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Which specific part is not neutral? --Ali'i 16:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe there are just a few more positive things than negative, sometime difficult thing to believe from a politician, but still possible. We shouln't try to exactly match the thigs that someone finds positive to the exact number someone else finds negative. Any issue + or - if properly cited could be added. Wikihonduras (talk)

If you find something then add it. Don't use innuendos to justify your political agenda. --user:jojhutton-- —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This is in no way a "political agenda." In fact, I'm pleased that the Senator McCain has chosen her as his VP, because she appears to be a very strong candidate. My concern here is the fact that the article reads very much like an advertisement, rather than an encyclopedia article. --Winger84 (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Winger,

1. I don't perceive a non NPOV article at this point.

2. Of course, any notable controversies that can be sourced according to wikipedia guidelines should absolutely be included.

3. I think you should have more than simply your apparent "belief" that an article about any politician without controversies means that it is not NPOV to charge that an article is, in fact, not NPOV. Lawyer2b (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll compromise. I'll pull the NPOV tag, but I am going to replace it with the ADVERTISEMENT tag because if this article doesn't fail NPOV, it certainly meets ADVERTISEMENT. As I've said, there's no "political agenda" here. I'm very pleased, and very surprised, that Senator McCain selected Governor Palin as his VP choice. In fact, if it were someone other than McCain as the Presidential choice on the Republican ticket this year, this VP candidate might have been enough to make me vote Republican in November, rather than Democrat. --Winger84 (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that the article reads like an advertisement. (As of when I read it anyway, as it is changing constantly). Seemed fairly straight forward and factual to me. I certainly didn't see any "peacock terms." (But like I said it is in constant flux so it may or may not be "advertisement-like" in some versions.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The assertion that this is an advertisement is ridiculous. Before throwing around such claims please familiarize yourself with WP:SPAM, then explain how this article even comes close to what that guideline defines as promotion. -- Atama^chat 16:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is the neutrality tag back on the article? There is no consensus for that. Kelly ^hi! 17:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the main reason some people feel the page should be controversial is that she herself is controversial. But the two do not always go hand in hand. Until something actually controversial arises, I say that everyone chill out. 72.211.237.4 (talk) 05:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of this Article

This article, in my opinion is not neutral and objective. This article seems relatively pro-Palin and also some parts of this article are very informally written. Psdubow (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Could someone explain exactly why there is an NPOV tag on the article? (Some specifics would be appreciated). Kelly ^hi! 17:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently cause the media can't seem to find enough dirt to slant it in such a way to support the allegation that she's the devil. :P My god, a relatively clean politician. How refreshing! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

While that last one was a little over the top, struck after seeing emoticon Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC) I agree that but for the disjointedness that such an article in flux has at times like this, that neutrality is not really an issue. Even if it were, a tag may have its own issues as the article changes so rapidly. That said, I concur with not needing the tag, but don't strongly object keeping it until the editing slows down and it becomes easier to assess specific deficiencies. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd give it 24 hours before we worry too much about the NPOV. So little is known about Palin that the media are struggling to get much out about what makes her tick. Her bio is pretty vanilla on the surface based on the fact that... because she's a virtual unknown, few have ever done any digging. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's so laughable, look I'm the biggest liberal nut going so don't accuse me of an agenda. If there is something she's done worth mentioning we will add it. I hate this idea that everyone must have done something controversial in their lives. Some people are just boring and have no controversy, it happens. — Realist² 18:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

NPR has just run a story less than an hour ago about how often this page is being edited (in a pro-Palin way). I admittedly haven't done much Wikipedia editing, but hearing that bit on NPR makes me feel that this page should be flagged somehow, no? Keykrazy (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the lack of a negative tone within the article has more to do with the relatively short time that she has beein involved in politics. As additional sources of dirt evolve feel free to add to the article (assuming that the references are notable). I am not seeing any overt NPOV issues here, though that may change over the next few weeks.--Tralfaz (Ralraz, yech) (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It would appear to me that it is impossible to have a facts only article on any political candidate. Case in point: the obviously biased commentary on this page about this reading as an advertisement, and lacking negatives, when there is plenty of editorial comment disguised as fact. Look no further than the editorial commentary misleading the reader on the "bridge to nowhere" issue, drawing argumentative conclusions provided by left-wing blog sites. That's NPOV? You guys tickle me. Cut the crap, stick to facts. 71.63.29.72 (talk) eric schmitz

how is this pov. don't just say it is pov, but say how. find a pov section, or sentence, and show how it is pov. if the article is pov,due to an omission, find that omission and add it. Perhaps Palin has a squeaky clean record, after all she is young,(for a politician) and not well known Rds865 (talk) 07:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please eliminate the redundancy on her quote about VP

First, it is shown twice.

Second, both quotes are purporting to be quotes, yet are different. Until this is resolved by someone with a tape of the quotation, please remove it.

If we get the real quote, then it is fair to put it in, although I see comments of that nature not really biographical in nature, and unless it becomes a campaign issue, silly for this to have as a highlight for her bio.

This bio needs a careful hand. Her life is relatively short for being a Vice Presidential candidate, so there will be a lot of holes in her bio needing filling. I would love to point people to her wiki page, so lets try to get it as accurate as possible.

Example: I saw that the basketball team won the state championship. This needs to be confirmed, and added if true.

need a real quote?

[5]

Roughly at 2:50

217.95.47.180 (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wedding date

In her speech today, August 29, 2008 -- http://www.breitbart.tv/html/163813.html -- she noted that it's her 20th wedding anniversary, so that would set her wedding date as August 29, 1988.Lawyervon (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this would be a reliable citation. Kelly ^hi! 18:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The "old-age home" is the Palmer Pioneers home. The court clerk who married them still works at the Palmer courthouse.

Down Syndrome

Down's Syndrome is a disorder not a "disease." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.61.217 (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's a "syndrome"  :-) As such, this should not be hard to fix acceptably to those of all labeling persuasions. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What's with the Conservative meme implying that liberal or por-choice Americans support the abortion of a fetus diagnosed with a condition such as Downs syndrome.24.92.102.48 (talk)

when someone is fired by a polititian simply for disagreeing with them it is a threat to democracy itself therefore relevant when discussing scandalous behavior

It seems that whoever wrote the Mat Maid controversy topic wrote it with a bias against Sarah Palin, as it made no mention of the fact that the reason she fired the Mat Maid board was simply because they refused to see her in any way after announcing they were shutting down the dairy. This was the reason they were fired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.10.61 (talk) 03:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the notability of this topic anyway. Governor fires some bureaucrats, film at eleven!0nullbinary0 (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Should there be more mention of her attractiveness and how that may affect the '08 election? Just a thought Aaya35 (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That's beyond an ignorant and sexist comment. Obama is an attractive man, is there a paragraph about how attractive he is and how that will affect the election on his page?Chexmix53 (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but it is a fact of life that her appearance may play a role. Society is not now, and never will be, free of sexism, and women will always be judged for their looks more than men are. Palin's looks matter more than Obama's...sad fact of life but a fact nonetheless. However, Wikipedia is not a place for speculation or prediction. Such a mention has no place.Alanmjohnson (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not "Down's Syndrome." The correct term is "Down Syndrome," and I have edited the title to reflect that. Please see the National Down Syndrome Society page (http://www1.ndss.org/) and Medline Plus (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/downsyndrome.html) for confirmation.

Vandalism and protection discussion (consolidated)

article is being hacked !!! please fix photo !

Wayfarers43 (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC) this article is being hacked and should be blocked for the time being. Please fix the photo.

Agreed: "Before all this, she was a man"? CLearly vandalism. 207.237.198.152 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Seconded

It's just some silly vandalisim. It's expected for now. It will cool of soon. Tenho Karite (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Been cleaned up and semi-protected now. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Please lock this page

Somebody has been vandalizing this page. And, as Biden's page is locked, it would make sense to lock this page. Thank you. 192.77.143.150 (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it would be a sensible move.--JayJasper (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's currently under semi-protection, so that anonymous and newly-registered editors can't make changes. That should help. -- Atama^chat 16:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've unprotected it. Times like these are the most important to have anon editing enabled, as there is a lot to do and many anonymous readers will have valuable content to add. We can reverse vandalism very quickly, and block any persistent vandals.--ragesoss (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"hot" governor???

Whomever uses the word "whore" to describe the lady is a reprobate and I condemn them.

" is the hot Governor of Alaska, and the 2008 Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States"

looks like vandalism and is probably going to go rampant. why isn't this article under some sort of protection?

also

isn't she the VP presumptive candidate until elected by the R. convention next week? 68.173.2.68 (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Been cleaned up and semi-protected. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Should this article be semi-protected?

There has been some back and forth with protection of this article since the VP announcement. I've just unprotected it, with the same rationale that we use for leaving Today's Featured Article unprotected. More anonymous contributions are constructive than destructive (glance through the history), and vandalism is reverted very, very quickly for articles in the spotlight like this one. Anonymous contributions that are prevented by semi-protection, however, can't be restored so easily. Unless there is a specific systematic attack on this article, as opposed to just a normal proportion of vandalism during a period of intense editing, I think it should remain unprotected.--ragesoss (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Does that logic apply to John McCain, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama—all of which are semi-protected? --Elliskev 19:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily, because those articles have reached states of relative stability. This article is still improving rapidly, and anonymous users are helping with that process.--ragesoss (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Really? Look at the edit history for the last 5–10 minutes. --Elliskev 19:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There are too many bad edits by anonymous users at the moment to keep up with them all. While I appreciate that some anonymous users are helping improve the article, for the time being the article has to be protected. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I looked at every anonymous edit between 19:22 and Jredmond's protection at 19:28. I count 4 instances of vandalism, 7 contructive contributions (3 of which fixed anonymous vandalism), and 3 good faith but unconstructive edits. One of the fixes was very important; an anon changed an expired html link in a footnote (from a "news ticker") to the permanent address of the story. On balance, I think anon contributions are good. And as I said, we can always remove vandalism, but there's no way to recovered edits that were never made because of protection.--ragesoss (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Jredmond just restored semi-protection, arguing that vandalism outweighs positive contribution at the moment. I disagree; looking through the history, I notice that many of the anonymous contributions are in fact good faith edits (often with sources, even) that are simply out of place or repeat what is already mentioned elsewhere. I think semi-protection ought to be removed.--ragesoss (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is the first non-news result for "Sarah Palin" on Google. Since Palin is a relative unknown, lots of people (including the Washington Post) are searching the Web for info and winding up here. While some anons were contributing positively — and we need to be sure to encourage them to register — the pace of revision made it impossible for the rest of us to keep up. The article is still changing very quickly, but we're no longer at ludicrous speed; I attribute that to semi-protection.

This article has also been under the eye of ST47's BLP watch bot since June, when a series of anonymous contributors kept adding poorly sourced defamatory accusations[6]. I haven't seen any of that stuff resurfacing today, but in that tide of contributions it's easy to miss things.

Finally, I don't see a very strong parallel between unprotecting this and unprotecting a daily featured article. For one thing, FAs are already stable, so while anons do improve the daily FA slightly, they don't build it from scratch like they would be doing here. For another, visitors stumble across FAs, but thanks to Google and news coverage they come here specifically for this article.

Now that I've said all that, if you want to lift the semi-protection before it expires (noon tomorrow UTC), then go right ahead. This article isn't worth a wheel war, and we can always semi-protect or fully protect again if we really need to. I just want the rest of us to be able to keep up with new revisions. - Jredmond (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

With hundreds, if not thousands, of editors watching this article, semi-protection seems a bit silly. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Lock Up the Errors

Wikipedia has again locked up an article except for changes by Wikipedia owners/elites. Do you see the two errors in the following two sentences:

"On August 29, 2008, Palin was announced as presumptive Republican presidential candidate John McCain's vice-presidential candidate, or running mate.[59] Palin's selection surprised many Republican officials who had speculated about other candidates,[60][61] such as Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, United States Senator Joseph Lieberman, and former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, or did not know Palin personally."

They can't be edited in the normal fashion; they must await some Wikipedia owner/elite to notice how poorly written they are.

This article is not currently locked, and may be edited by anonymous users. In any case, it is changing very rapidly, and is undergoing hundreds of edits in a very short time; short-lived bad sections are inevitable until things settle down a bit.--ragesoss (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

height

How tall is she? There's a long tradition in political science of tracking the Heights of United States Presidents and presidential candidates, so I think it's relevant to the article. --M@rēino 19:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What an article. — Realist² 19:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

One of those things that you never realize you've wanted to see until you see it. I love this encyclopedia. --Kizor 21:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No controversy sections

No controversy sections. They are not good, disperse the information into the relevant section of article or don't include at all. — Realist² 19:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

{{editsemiprotected}} There appears to be some vandalism in this article. The first paragraph refers to Sarah Palin as the "retarded govenor" of Alaska. Can someone please fix this?

Already reverted. - auburnpilot talk 20:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

minor change (literally)

{{editsemiprotected}} \ Early Life \ says "Palin holds a bachelor's degree in journalism from the University of Idaho where she also minored in politics." The University of Idaho does not offer an minor in 'politics'. They do offer minors in 'political science'.

Already fixed. Thanks. - auburnpilot talk 20:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

IPA

That IPA can't be right. Shouldn't it be /peilɪn/, not /peɪlɪn/? The ɪ would be a southern way of pronouncing that dipthong, but not the general American way, I think. Homunq (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Vogue spread

{{editsemiprotected}} This needs to be reviewed. The supposed photo shoot for Vogue was a photoshopped image created and posted on the Internet. http://kodiakkonfidential.blogspot.com/2007/12/sarah-in-vogue.html

• This happened, do a simple Google search and you'll see the Vogue photoshoot is real. What you found is a blog entry and is not cited in the article. Instead, an appropriate cite to the Anchorage Daily News story on the Vogue shoot is included. --Friejose (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. My apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ffunky (talk • contribs) 20:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This info was removed by "Calliopejen1" as a "trivial fact" but it hardly seems trivial to me that a sitting governor posed for a major magazine. Apparently I don't have permission to add it back in, or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csullo (talk • contribs) 02:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The Vogue spread was just mentioned, showing the photo, on GMA Saturday. Kathimcgraw (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)kathimcgraw

The Vogue photoshoot was real. Look for the video news report of local Alaskan news from December 2007. However, the image of Palin on the cover of Vogue is a hoax, because in fact Penelope Cruz was on the cover, not Palin.

ITN

After checking out more than 1000 edits, I still can't figure this out so anyone who helped on this article can take it:

On 29 August, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article(s) Sarah Palin, which you created or substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--Spencer^T♦C 19:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoever is deleting/reducing hiring controversy, please stop.

There is no consensus on deleting the hiring controversy. The hiring controversy has the Alaskan media in an uproar. See "Palin has been under heavy criticism since firing former Department of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan." http://www.ktva.com/commissionercontroversy/ci_10192665 If she has been under heavy criticism, that should be reflected. The rest of the article reads a bit like it's written by her staff, and this section will be understandably controversial for a while. But it should not be deleted.Jensiverson (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and she promoted a known sexual harassment aggressor, but mention of that was also scrubbed :: Palin replaced Monegan with Chuck Kopp, who had previously been removed from supervision of an employee he had allegedly sexually harassed. [53] Palin knew of Kopp's alleged sexual harassment before she appointed Kopp. [54]

I agree this needs to be discussed - but maybe not in such detail. RE: Kopp - I understand this has been mentioned in the Alaskan press, but don't slander this man needlessly. He was found innocent of the allegation. Thus the above comment isn't helpful. It would have been standard practice to remove Kopp from supervising the complainant during the investigation. But the investigation found him innocent. What's the controversy? 20:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The Kopp part continues to grow. The language of the current three sentences is very unfortunate. It intends for the reader to draw a conclusion about Mr. Kopp (and the Governor) that is not supported by facts. There is nothing illegal or unethical or notable about appointing someone who was cleared of a harassment allegation to the position of Public Safety Commissioner. Akiracee (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Homunq made some changes that I think are an improvement - cheers. Akiracee (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Now I'm confused about this Kopp guy. Has he already been fired (served 11 days)? Akiracee (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin know Kopp had allegedly sexually harassed an employee. See http://www.ktuu.com/global/story.asp?s=8712164 "Before appointing him, Palin said she was aware of the prior complaint against Kopp." Kopp was reprimanded. http://community.adn.com/adn/node/127679 I don't think these are controversial points. If editing is necessary, that's fine, I don't want any misimpression, but I don't see the controversy with those two points.Jensiverson (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the sources says she knew he had been cleared of any wrongdoing. Another source says she didn't know at all.   user:j    (aka justen)   21:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I assume you're refering to http://community.adn.com/adn/node/127679 which says she didn't know about the reprimand. It shouldn't read that she says she knew, yes, but she definitely knew that there had been an alleged sexual harassment. He has not, according to the published news, been cleared of all wrongdoing as I understand it, (an affirmative step beyond finding the allegation had not been substantiated) because he was reprimanded, and he stepped down. "Kopp came under increasing scrutiny from the governor after he acknowledged this week that a 2005 sexual harassment complaint while he was chief of Kenai Police resulted in a letter of reprimand from the city." http://www.adn.com/news/politics/story/475539.html These are allegations, and should always have "alleged" in front of it. But this should be in there. It's a pretty obvious, public controversy. The person who alleged the harassment hasn't backed down. Jensiverson (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

How about this or something like it: Palin replaced Monegan with Chuck Kopp.Palin knew that Kopp had allegedly sexually harassed an employee, but thought the claims had not been further substantiated and did not know that he had been removed from supervision while he was investigated and received a letter of reprimand.

or more accurately:

Palin replaced Monegan with Chuck Kopp.Palin knew that Kopp had allegedly sexually harassed an employee, but thought the claims had not been further substantiated and did not know that he had been removed from supervision of the employee while he was investigated and received a letter of reprimand.

Please see the similar discussion at the bottom of this talk page. And the source ([7]) does not back up the assertion that Palin herself knew that Kopp had allegedly sexually harassed an employee. Happyme22 (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this fact is in question: Palin know Kopp had allegedly sexually harassed an employee. See http://www.ktuu.com/global/story.asp?s=8712164 "Before appointing him, Palin said she was aware of the prior complaint against Kopp." I'm not sure how much clearer it can get. Perhaps easy to miss amidst massive editing, but it's there.Jensiverson (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

... I just added a separate article for the hiring controversy. That does NOT mean I think the section here should shrink, just that it should not grow by much. Homunq (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Slate reports draft Palin movement lead to her pick

Here is an interesting Slate article [8] about the Palin pick. Maybe some of this can be incorporated into the VP selection area. Remember (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Abortion and capital punishment

Well-sourced statements on her positions with respect to these social issues were once in the article, but have disappeared. Srnec (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember there being anything more about her stance on abortion in the article since I first looked at it this morning. The article is currently in a constant state of flux and things have been going missing, readded and restructured like mad. I think a valid suggestion at this time is to not panic and wait until the article calms down a bit and see if they come back. If they were well-sourced, I'd imagine there won't be a problem restoring them. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"what is it exactly that the V.P. does every day?"

This quote is unquestionably relevant. Please stop pushing it into footnotes only. I am 1 away from 3RR so I cannot continue to do so myself. Homunq (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If this quote is to be included (which I have no problem with), the WHOLE quote should be give to show proper context. This was done in some previous versions, but has since been editing out (I don't know why.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is because others edited it out, and I put back what I felt was the most relevant portion. I think that the current compromise is OK - basically, a more-complete quote, but edited down so that it is not given the undue prominence of a blockquote. Homunq (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

My vote: I don't think it is "unquestionably relevant." It appears it was a throw away sentence, not an opinion or policy position. Akiracee (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

(Comment from footnote pusher) I put the whole quote in the footnotes for editorial spacing concerns (the length of the quote itself seems out of proportion to the content it's trying to support). The actual wording of her comments regarding the VPship can be tweaked, including well chosen actual snippets. I would want to minimize this, though, as scare quotes, or even the appearance thereof, make for a poor article. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. It's been reverted back to a blockquote. I won't edit war, but I do feel this needs revisiting at some point. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I would be fine with something like "spoke dismissively about the importance of the office" which gives the flavor of the quote, with the quote in a footnote, but the first footnote-only version ("admitted she had not been groomed") was far from that. Homunq (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC) ps. I think that scare quotes on individual words are silly (just use indirect quotation), but that including quoted phrases in a sentence is meaningful. It isn't just a matter of distancing the editorial voice from the sentiments, it is a way to keep conciseness and flow while giving the most authentic feel for the original tone.

I give up. I was just trying to put in a compromise, and failed as 3 successive edit conflicts showed me 3 different (conflicting) interim versions of the relevant section. I definitely vote for some "spoke dismissively" type paraphrase, but I'll let the rest of Wikipedia hash it. Homunq (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the quote is relevant. She's up for the VP job. The fact that she didn't know that the VP presides over the Senate is worth considering, even if she was only joking about it. I say put in the full quote and its context. 24.187.189.117 (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This woman could potentionally become the next vice president of the United States, and doesn't even understand what a vice president does. This is certainly worth inclusion into the article, in fact this is frightening to believe.

The Truth is... SHE SMOKED WEED!

She smoked weed. it was likely that she was smoking weed while she was holding public office. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/29/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4397109.shtml

in spite of the fact that several "controversial" TRUE FACTS about this woman were present on her Wikipedia page this morning, they have suddenly disappeared and now the page is locked. i guess someone is hiding a lot of skeletons . I can understand scrubbing untrue statements from Wiki sites, but when the truth is posted, with references, it should not be deleted. Whoever is scrubbing her image and hiding her skeletons should be ashamed of themselves. Scottf43 (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're really concerned about articles being scrubbed clean of skeletons try looking at the Obama page sometime. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That source does not indicate that "it was likely that she was smoking weed while she was holding public office." You're about one more violation of the biographies of living persons policy away from being blocked. If her prior use of marijuana is widely covered in the mainstream press, then it will likely end up with at least a brief mention here. In the meantime, do you have any other interest in this article or the encyclopedia besides featuring this tidbit as prominently as possible? MastCell ^Talk 20:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I love it when people say things like: "True Facts". It is funny because a 'fact' is 'true' by definition. This demonstrates the lack of thought behind the words.--An-Alteran

I'd just like to point out (with no particular agenda or specific changes that I'm promoting) that there's a danger in restricting this articles sources to items "widely covered in the mainstream press." Palin wasn't widely covered in the mainstream press until her name came up as a potential VP pick, and even then she was widely discounted until today. As of today, what the press chooses to report on will begin to erode the thin details that were previously available and if that's Wikipedia's focus, then it will be a potentially different perspective than that which was available a few months ago. That transition itself is notable. I'm not advocating giving equal weight to fringe publications, but if a lesser-known media outlet in Alaska is our only source for some detail, that might not be sufficient reason to exclude its mention. -65.116.132.250 (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out (with no particular agenda) that the national news media (CNN, MSNBC, ABC News, USA Today, AP, etc) is not the same as "mainstream press". The national news media is certainly an important part of the mainstream press in the United States, but they do not hold a monopoly on the term. We have a list of newspapers in Alaska, a list of television stations in Alaska, a list of radio stations in Alaska, and even a Category:Alaska media. I'd say that for a subject that until recently was mostly of Alaskan interest, many of the news sources in those lists and category would be the best "mainstream press" sources to find information on the subject of this article. I'm sure many of them would even qualify under our reliable sources policy. Don't get lazy and expect CNN to do our jobs for us. Gentgeen (talk) 09:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out another source (from the day before yesterday's version of the article). http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/governor06/story/8049298p-7942233c.html It will be interesting to see if this becomes a major issue considering Obama's admitted drug use --D3matt (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and Bill Clinton "didn't inhale," and G.W. Bush acquitted for possession of cocaine, if it's a cited fact (from a legitimate source,) what's the big deal.

Agreed. If drug use by Clinton, Bush, and Obama make it into their articles, what's the justification for deleting it here? Without it, why is her opposition to marijuana legalization even being mentioned? I doubt it's mentioned in the articles of 95 percent of politicians who have that position. —KCinDC (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please keep this article neutral....hawks are trying to descend

Look at all the hatemongers flooding this page to jack this article up full of "controversey"....we all knew this would happen. WIkipedians posing as "NPOV" when in reality they want to spice up the article full of a gigantic "controversey" section...you want this article to have a big "controversey section" don't you? Admit it, you think it "needs" a gigantic section full of macacas. Cmon you wiki libs. I estimate that within 72 hours half this article will be devoted to "controversey"...I can only hope moderators will do the right thing and protect it from the hawks that insert controversey in the name of NPOV

"wiki libs"? c'mon. Oh, and sign your posts (Aventari (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC))

I agree-no big controversy section. I also agree with those saying that the separate sections on controversial issues should not be minimized. She is going to be a major figure. She could be President of the United States shortly. She is four months from being a heartbeat away if Senator McCain is elected. She has a limited public record, what there is worth a full examination. So, to the best we can, neutral, and without shying from what has been publicly reported by reputable sources, good or bad.Jensiverson (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Todd Palin discussion (consolidated)

Removed Section Regarding Husband

'Palin's husband, Todd, is a Yup'ik Alaskan native.' -this statement is highly suspect. Todd Palin is Caucasian from the continental US, and not an indigenous Alaskan, so he can not be considered an "Yupik Alaskan Native." Intranetusa (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The cite points to a book by someone named Kaylene Johnson. I haven't read the book, but the Amazon.com reviews are scathing. And the full text is not up, so we don't even know if it says that he is an Indian. If he indeed is an Indian, we will doubtless be reminded of this fact during the next 67 days from other sources. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

He is 1/8 Yup'ik.[9] His mother is 1/4. He's only an "indigenous Alaskan" because he was born there. To quote the Anchorage Daily News, "Palin was born in the western Alaska town of Dillingham to Jim Palin and Blanche Kallstrom, who is a quarter Yu'pik Eskimo." I'm going to fix the article accordingly. -- Atama^chat 16:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

New article suggestion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was

put this in?

I can't add this to the article...

Todd Mitchell Palin is a 42 year old oil field production manager in Alaska and First Gentleman of Alaska. His wife is Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska and Vice Presidential candidate for the November 2008 election representing the Republican Party.

I linked it, the whole article can't go in though.Jensiverson (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Early life and career

He was born in Dillingham, Alaska to Blanche and Jim Palin. His grandmother Helena Andree </ref> is Yup'ik (indigenous peoples of Alaska). In 1988, he married Sarah Pallin who were high school sweethearts.

For 18 years he was a blue collar employee in the North Slope oil fields of Alaska working for BP and now is a production supervisor.

Champion snowmobile racer

In 2008, while defending the Iron Dog Championship, he was injured when he was thrown 70 feet from his machine. This race is a snowmobile race which traces the path of the Iditarod race with an extra journey of several hundred miles to Fairbanks added. He first competed in the race in 1993 and has been the champion four times. His racing co-pilot is Scott Davis. He has previously raced with Dusty Van Meter in the race and were co-champions in 2000 and 2002.

Family life

The Palins have five children. Track is in the U.S. Army and scheduled for overseas deployment. They have three daughters, Bristol, Willow, and Piper. Mr. Palin fishes and is a pilot holding a Airplane Single Engine Land license.

References

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Date linking

Date links

I don't want it to appear as if I'm edit-warring over dates, but... Date links are deprecated per WP:MOSNUM. The dates don't have any values as wikilinks, they hide inconsistencies from registered users with date preference settings, and provide no benefit to 99% of our readers. Before I delink them (again), I'd like to hear comments. If the consensus is to ignore MOSNUM, I'll live with it. --Elliskev 18:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Additionally The McCain article does not use date links. !--NB—THE DATES IN THIS ARTICLE ARE NON-AUTOFORMATTED -- is included at the top of the edit page. --Elliskev 18:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

People are likely just unaware of the standard change and are acting in good faith. Personally, I'd just let it sit until the editing dies down since it is rather trivial (and if you really want to fix dates, the other 99% of wiki articles are still wrong ;)).--ThaddeusB (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That's reasonable. --Elliskev 18:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I was involved in relinking the dates, and indeed I was not aware of the guideline change, which apparently was made this week without fanfare. I never saw any space for public comment on the issue. Custom formatting of dates has always been one of the features of Wikipedia dearest to me because it permits for dates to be universally writable and readable, at least for registered users. Robert K S (talk) 05:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Again

I've delinked the dates twice; will whomever is linking the dates here please read WP:MOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

For those who aren't aware, this was recently changed. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), linking dates has been deprecated. - auburnpilot talk 20:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

new information to add?

her popularity in Alaska has soared as high as 83% as she has gone on to sack political appointees with close ties to industry lobbyists, shelved pork projects by fellow Republicans

from http://www.wsj.com/article/SB121993453813079803.html?mod=psp_mostpop

-- Gov. Palin denies that, saying she removed the commissioner she appointed 18 months ago because she wants "a new direction," and offered him a job as liquor board director which he turned down.

from http://www.wsj.com/article/SB121993453813079803.html?mod=psp_mostpop I don't know if the liquot board director pays well so someone should look into this.

--- She appears, for example, to have forced Alaska's dominant oil producers, ConocoPhillips and BP PLC, to finally get serious about a natural-gas pipeline -- without making any tax or royalty concessions. "People see her as the symbol of purity in an atmosphere of corruption," says Anchorage pollster Marc Hellenthal. "She's more like Saint Sarah."

from http://www.wsj.com/article/SB122002615833483595.html?mod=Politics-and-Policy Radiomango (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

i see the category 'American Pentecostals' - nowhere in the article do i see a reference to the denomination to which she adheres or to any religious movement or philosophy with a name that she supports - can someone add 'she belongs to xyz Church' . . . or whatever? does someone know? - i am curious - not finding the answer easily on the 'Net - b betswiki (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Faster than a bullet

I love wikipedia because it not only conveys subject information but can give a glimpse of the historical conjencture. Until yesterday, who had heard of her? On 22th August, a week ago, there were absolutely no edits to this article, not even vandalism!! :))) 82.230.24.185 (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, wikipedia is a good place, please remember that talk pages are really for discussing improvemts to the article only. Welcome to wiki though. — Realist² 21:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a bureaucratic dystopia, where objective truth is subject to revocation upon "consensus". 75.168.211.99 (talk) 01:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia does have sundry kinds of systemic bias, but reliable sources can help. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Systemic bias" and constant shifting of fact renders Wikipedia unusable. 75.168.211.99 (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Whilst reading political articles and other high traffic, controversial topics, yes, the reader should be wary but this is true for most published information anywhere. I would also say many Wikipedia readers are smarter than some editors think. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Protect page - Controversy investigation info is being removed

It is also interesting to note that any hint of scandal on Palin was reported immediately, but that the John Edwards scandal was very widely known in October 2007 but remained completely unreported by the mainstream media. Double standards and partisanship do not add up to sound journalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Earlier today there was info in this piece about the ongoing investigation of Palin's office for abuse of power. It is now dilluted and almost gone.

Here are the facts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPTMcs8wpHc

from a reputable local network news broadcast.

PLEASE LOCK THE PAGE and correct the cleanup / hack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davequ (talk • contribs) 21:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

We have to be careful about giving too much undue weight to that matter, as it is only a small portion of Palin's life and career. A lengthy section detailing an intricate investigation and what she and many others may or may not have done is not appropirate here (please read WP:WEIGHT). A mention of it and some facts are okay, however. Happyme22 (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not remember there being a considerable amount of additional space given to this investigation, the current three paragraphs were shortly duplicated by a smaller subheading but that material was redundant. I wonder if there is a grass roots movement to have this repeated, earlier someone else posted similar language. Maybe a copypasta from Above? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I, as one of the people who was editing the longer version, think that the summary is pretty good, or at least was when it first arrived. Well done, Happyme. Homunq (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) --Happyme22 (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There was a good amount of sourced material that was deleted without any discussion. This has been a major focus of the news during a substantial period of her short term as governor. It deserves a reasonably thorough treatment unless it is broken out as a separate article. How about, as suggested above:

Palin replaced Monegan with Chuck Kopp.Palin knew that Kopp had allegedly sexually harassed an employee, but thought the claims had not been further substantiated and did not know that he had been removed from supervision of the employee while he was investigated and received a letter of reprimand.Jensiverson (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I personally support breakout as a separate article: Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal controversy. I like your passage, Jensiversion, but there is no way to give enough details on this issue to satisfy the truly curious without weighing down this article as it stands. Jensiversion, I urge you to be bold and start such an article add your edits there. Homunq (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: of course the current summary section would stay here. But if we start digging into Kopp, we have to dig into Bailey and the nephew and all the rest. That should happen, yes, but in a separate article. Homunq (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Was Palin really an opponent of the "Bridge to Nowhere"?

From the Anchorage Daily News on October 22, 2006 (Q and A while running for Governor):

5. Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?

Palin: Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now--while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.

September 19, 2007, Palin's statement while redirecting funds away from the bridge

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20908207/

"Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer. Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened."

I put the above info into the article (just half a sentence, though who knows how long it will last there). Homunq (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Foreign policy/relations?

The Kuwait photo suggests that there would be at least a paragraph to write on this topic, and such a section would be welcome. Homunq (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really much to write about. She visited the troops (Alaska National Guards Battallion) in Kuwait. Once. That's about everything i know off in terms of "foreign policy". It might even be better looking for Palin to leave the photo and not clarify the lack of foreign policy content... 217.95.47.180 (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Of Course she has foreign policy experience....Alaska is right next to russia...duh

more useful input from the anons =( Veriss (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Marathon time and result: post under Family and personal life

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. On August 21, 2005, she finished "Humpy's Marathon" in Anchorage, Alaska with a time of 3:59:36. --Mayamolly (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Supports Parts of Obama's energy Plan??

That claim references a Huffington Post article that makes the claim, and two newspaper articles that make no mention of Obama's plan. The Huffington Post links to a page with other links and no mention of Obama directly. Right now it's overloaded and mostly not responding, so I can't check all the links. I suspect the most you can say is some things she has supported/done (gas pipeline, giving energy rebates) are similar to things Obama supports. As it's written, it sounds like she made a statement about Obama's plan saying, "I support these measures in his plan," or something to that effect. Unless that's true, the claim should be removed or drastically reworded. 209.159.37.194 (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It currently reads "he has supported aspects of Democratic nominee Barack Obama's energy plan related to encouraging the further use of natural gas but has opposed his plan to raise taxes such as the windfall profit tax." Is that sufficiently NPOV for you. Seems OK to me, but I change if you have an alternative you'd like to see (Note; I didn't write the current or any previous version) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The original article was a press release that appears to have been taken down after Palin was announced the presumptive Republican VP nominee. The original article (through Google Cache) can be found here: [10] It's the first result under a google search for 'Sarah Palin Obama energy.' I hope you don't mind if I edit the section to explain this. Seleucus (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

husband and BP

This page says her husband WORKS for bp, his page says he resigned in 2007. Rescuechick 23:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Which is true? --Elliskev 00:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Should 'Palin' redirect here or to the disambiguation page?

I was surprised when I typed in Palin and wikipedia sent me straight here. I would think Michael Palin is important enough, especially since Sarah Palin was unknown to most people in the US until about 12 hours ago.

Up until 12 hours ago, you would have been correct. But for the foreseeable future this redirect seems appropriate. There's a notice at the top of this article pointing people to the disambiguation page. I, of course, like Michael Palin (especially The Life of Brian and A Fish Called Wanda), but for now the redirect seems okay.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge don't write stuff like that. I might think you actually have a sense of humor!!!!OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Perish the thought, Orange One.  :)Ferrylodge (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Mmmmmmmm. I'm a Republican, but I'm not so sure that Palin should be a full redirect here. It really ought to be a disambig. It's not like an extra click is gonna hurt anyone. --Elliskev 00:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Check out McCain, Obama, and Biden. The point is, the vast, vast majority of people typing in "Palin" right now are looking for this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

True. Just presenting an alternate POV. I assume we'll eventually revert to a disambig? Even after she's the VP? --Elliskev 00:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, What would McCain, Obama, and Biden dismabig to? 'Palin' is different in that Michael Palin is a likely candidate for a search. I go back to my assertion that it should be a disambiguation page. Again, it's only one more click. --Elliskev 01:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow. They would disambig to McCain_(disambiguation), Obama_(disambiguation), and Biden_(disambiguation).Ferrylodge (talk) 03:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, there's an Obama Castle (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.45.81 (talk) 06:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I say redirect to the disambig page. If she loses, Michael Palin will be much more remembered 25 years from now. And think of our non-U.S. readers. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If you type "palin" in the search box (which is what most users will do, not put it on the URL line), you get Michael Palin and Sarah Palin as the first two hits. So everybody will find what they are looking for. To redirect Palin to here is to impose a too U.S.-centric, recentism-centric perspective on things. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If she loses, then I'll fully support redirecting to the disambig page. Not quite yet, though. Our anglophile readers will just have to suffer for the time being, IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If she loses, it makes sense to direct "Palin" to the disambig page. Until and unless she does, it makes most sense for "Palin" to direct here. Even among non-US users the current US VP nominee is likely to be of significant interest. Rlendog (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Support disambig if she loses. Hobartimus (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please continue discussion at Talk:Palin (disambiguation) Nil Einne (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

POV/OR in "Bridge to Nowhere"

Could someone remove the speculation about Governor Palin's reason for cancelling the bridge project? The quote doesn't support the premise that she cancelled the project because the federal government wouldn't pay for all of it. Celestra (talk) 01:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Never mind...that was edit number ten. ;-) Celestra (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Houses Added to Ticket

Is the quote "MSNBC added the quote "How many houses will Sarah Palin add to the Republican ticket?" as "breaking news" when Sarah Palin was nominated. The Center for Public Integrity reported that Palin owned three houses (one residential and two recreational) according to her 2007 financial disclosure form.[79]" appropriate for this article? It seems to me to be irrelevant to a biography page and just a snarky political attack point. GatorOne (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is rather pointless and should likely be left off. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --Elliskev 01:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed it for now, if some people really think it should be added back ok. GatorOne (talk) 01:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If it's restored, maybe we should add all the very recent MSNBC bias discussion? For contextual purposes. --Elliskev 01:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's not relevant to her biography unless she or others make it a controversy that embroils or it appears to strongly affect her. If anything it should be on MSNBC's page if their editorializing during a hard news article becomes a controversy rather then on her biography page. Veriss (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Relevance aside, how is this an "attack point?" No matter who McCain had picked it would have added some number of houses to the Republican ticket. She brings the average down to 5.5, how does that hurt the ticket? --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska

It is important to note that Wasilla is a small town of 5000 people <as noted in Wiki>. This provides citizens an idea of the size jurisdiction she served (as mayor and city council member of Wasilla) prior to becoming Governor of Alaska. § —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizenect (talk • contribs) 01:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

People can see that by clicking the "Wasilla" link so it isn't needed here in my opinion. GatorOne (talk) 01:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like an attempt to minimize the "experience" of Palin. If this edit goes in, then it should merit breaking up the city council experience to emphasis the 16 years she's been in politics. --Theosis4u (talk) 01:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, breaking up the article into the positions Palin held would be more consistent with the format on other bio pages, i.e. Obama's. The topic line should also state the years in that position. Example from Obama's page - "State legislator, 1997–2004" --Theosis4u (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have also been a bit curious about her early history facts but I'm waiting to get that book that writes about it before making decisions. Still, I support noting that Wasilla is merely a small town to place it in context of her experience. It may or may not diminish her but I feel its relevant. Mayor of New York City versus Mayor of Podunk? For example could NYC lower its property taxes by 40%? Probably not, the city would go bankrupt. But if you have a handful of people, you can do things that you can't in cities 20k+. Sorry I have been harking on this topic but I feel like whoever write that part is a big wank. .:davumaya:. 10:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah if all that goes in it should also be noted that she's the only candidate (including the two for pres) with any experience in governing a state. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that she is of national import, please consider adding additional information regarding her tenure as mayor of Wasilla. Specifically, her involvement in the controversial land aquisition for a regional sports complex [11]. According to this article, the city raised sales taxes, used emminent domain on the property, then lost a lawsuit to the rightful owner. Eventually they paid over $1.25 million, for a property that they could have purchased for $125,000. The city's finances are still reeling from this action, and contruction of the $14.7 million facility [12]. Ljmajer (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Entry has been tampered with!

Dear Folks,

Earlier today (Aug.29, 2008), I happened to look at Sarah Palin's Wikipedia entry and noticed the paragraphs describing her failed attempt at running a state-owned dairy processor (Matanuska Dairy Maid). I went back to look at the story this evening and it had vanished. Gone! What the heck is going on?

It was a state budget so was moved mostly intact into that the section discussing Budget issues directly above. Veriss (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like an account with the same name as Ms. Palin's son is cleaning and sanitizing the Wikipedia entry. KiTA (talk) 03:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

OMG POV EDITS ON WIKIPEDIA. THIS MUST BE NEWS! :P The article has been heavily edited since then and the apparent SPA has gone silent. Move along, nothing to see here. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is the information on this:

Highlights of Palin's tenure as Governor include a successful push for an ethics bill, and also shelving pork-barrel projects supported by fellow Republicans. Though she initially expressed support for the Gravina Island Bridge project, once it had become a nationwide symbol of wasteful earmark spending and federal funding was lost, Palin decided against filling the over $200 million gap with state money.

See: [13] Thanks! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 03:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This has been covered ad nauseum. Veriss (talk) 06:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Political positions sub-page

Political positions of Sarah Palin has now been created, and contributions are welcome. This will prevent the main article from cluttering up. Lampman (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Should the relevant info, but be duplicated on the main page then? At this point it still is. What is the standard procedure in these cases?--ThaddeusB (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it probably should be summarized as a separate section in this article, then some of the content that's here should be trimmed down. The section on gay marriage, for instance, is not really that important to her term as governor but some people may want to go to the political positions page to see what her views on the matter are. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the link/section heading. This should facilitate the trimming down of the current content to summary form.--ThaddeusB (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Note, a proper way of summary is to write in paragraph form the many points instead of separating them into subsections. .:davumaya:. 05:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have severely trimmed down this section into a proper summary now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Firing Controversy/Impeachment Quote

The quote about "could face impeachment" seems wrong to include to me. It's a quote from one state senator who said ""This is a governor who was almost impervious to error," says Hollis French, a Democratic state senator. "Now she could face impeachment, in a worst-case scenario." Wall Street Journal I haven't heard it mentioned anywhere as a real possibility and it seems to just be talk by the opposition party. GatorOne (talk) 02:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Now the whole section is gone. There's some middle ground here between blowing it out of proportion and deleting it completely. GatorOne (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The impeachment quote is clearly POV & in context doesn't really say what it seems. I removed this part, but restored the section. The section should probably be summarized further since it has its own page now.--ThaddeusB (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post saw fit to print the possibility of impeachment, it seems to be censorship to remove it from this article on the grounds that it is "POV." Edison2 (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd ask you (and many users on here) to kindly to review the article on censorship and then read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to understand the difference between the two actions. Secondly, to address this source, I have read the source supplied and the quote is taken extremely out of context (what did the reporter ask?) and the article itself does not speak about impeachment but as the title states "Palin faces a probe." Meaning they have not even begun addressing the concerns, let alone decide for impeachment. Plus is it surprising the opposing political party would state the worst-case scenario? As such, this news story shouldn't be given weight until proceedings actually occur. .:davumaya:. 05:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that everything regarding this controversy has been removed. I agree the quote about impeachment should have been removed but removing the entire section seems to be very political. At the least, a statement should be added that she is currently under investigation by the legislature for abuse of power. With a link to a summary of what lead to the investigation. insxobj06:10, 30 August 2008

From what I have read so far....concur. Veriss (talk) 06:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)>

Inaccurate statement in Budget section

"In 2008, the state gave each resident $1200"

The qualification for a resident does not exactly coincide with the qualification to receive the $1200, not all residents qualified for the $1200.

Also, the first payments will not be made until at least September 12, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.74.113.13 (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Why was important information removed?

I think it's pretty important to keep all information about this person accurate and full in detail. I'm a bit dismayed that I'm coming to find that Wikipedia is obviously suseptible to the Republican noise machine.

Please re-add this information, it was obviously removed.

Budget

In the first days of her administration, Palin followed through on a campaign promise to sell the Westwind II jet purchased (on a state government credit account) by the Murkowski administration. The state placed the jet for sale on eBay three times. In August 2007, the jet was sold for $2.7 million.[31]

31 = http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/25/us/25jet.html?_r=1&fta=y&oref=slogin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webshaun (talk • contribs) 03:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I have no idea what this Republican noise machine is it seems to be often referred to on this page and I doubt it has much sway, it sounds like a cartoon on Adult Swim. So please stop users on here would desist from speaking of this machine. Secondly, that fact I believe was removed for being deemed not very relevant. A campaign promise to sell a plane? Perhaps there is controversy beyond it that I do not know of but it sounds very procedural and does not seem to speak of any problems. .:davumaya:. 05:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this was part of a huge political scandal - the jet was probably the main downfall of her predecessor, Frank Murkowski. This was a huge symbolic move for her and sort of christened a new non- (anti-?) Murkowski era. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh.... I should've figured this scandal had lots of bells and whistles. I think whoever knows more should summarize more about her predecessor and why when she took office it was relevant. For example it states she rescinded dozens of appointments but doesn't tell me why or in what context she did so. I get that something is wrong with Murkowski but its never clear in the article what he did. .:davumaya:. 10:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Futile attempt's from Daily Kos kids trying desperately to dig up dirt on Palin and that's all they came up with - I don't blame them for trying to post the little irrelevant piece of garbage they actually did turn up but I do have a problem with their insane attempts at vandalism and turning Wikipedia into their dKosopedia. Wikipedia is neutral. If you want a biased encyclopedia go edit dKosopedia on your blog website--Papajohnin (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Bridge to Nowhere" vs. $1200 for each Alaskan

The page currently states, "Palin's government accepted the federal money would have been spent on the Gravina Island Bridge, had Palin not canceled the bridge because the federal government wanted Alaska to pay for part of it. This gained the state of Alaska over $200 million, which it could spend however it wants. In 2008, the state gave each resident $1200."

Clearly, this implies that the money Alaska received for the Gravina Island Bridge is being distributed evenly to all the state's residents. As an Alaskan, this is the first time I have *ever* seen a connection between the $1200 we're to receive this year and the 'Bridge to Nowhere.' I think the two should be separated into different paragraphs. The $1200 is designed as an 'energy rebate,' for the higher fuel prices in Alaska, as compared to the rest of the state, and (I believe) only those receiving a 2008 Permanent Fund Dividend will be receiving the additional $1200.

65.74.34.57 (talk) 03:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This may have been a problem with a particular edit that caused part of the article to vanish due to the inclusion of an odd symbol. Does it still present the article like that? I can't find this. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Mention of attractiveness?

Would it be appropriate to mention that commentators have referred to her as "telegenic", "photogenic", "attractive", "gorgeous", "pretty" etc ? As runner up for Mrs. Alaska she has proven that her looks are better than the average person. In the television age could "hotness" not be viewed as an asset? Maybe it will make some men more likely to vote for her ? Or jealous ugly women less likely etc ? 72.91.214.42 (talk) 04:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin prefers her beauty queen past not be emphasized, she said in a taped segment from earlier this year.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 03:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

is it really up to her ? I thought we were the editors ? 72.91.214.42 (talk) 04:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Just: where on that page is this? Tvoz/talk 04:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we remove it from this article, or add this to the article, which would have an affect of drawing attention to it? I'm perplexed why this was worth mentioning... —  X  S  G  03:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a FYI for contributors, since I believe subjects desires should be taken into account in BLP's (namely, by not emphasizing the beauty pageant stuff etc too much, as she'd prefer).  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 04:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am asking about her "hotness" not her beauty pageant past. I think her good looks are an asset. All the other candidates are ugly - and people sometimes vote on looks alone. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

In terms of biographies, we have a special obligation to the subject that is Miss Palin, that we avoid inserting or over-emphasizing (WP:weight) our assertions of them. Especially since they are still alive and publications of them continue to be made, we have to maintain an objectivity that usually means following the source itself (the person). What you are proposing while true, does leave the encyclopedic realm into triviality such as say a columnist article (unspoken facts that do not necessarily need to be spoken about). .:davumaya:. 04:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

But I am giving her a compliment. Why can we not compliment McCain's genius in picking such a pretty running mate (I'm sure he noticed) ? It will likely win him the White House. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Also let's be honest here, she is a great pick for soon to be President McCain because she is so hot ! beauty pageant winners usually have great speaking skills and good looks for the cameras. This works great with 24hr news networks. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop this is not a forum to discuss this trivial topic. .:davumaya:. 05:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

pageants are not trivial ... and are notable. Have you ever won one ? It's sexist for males to call beauty pageants trivial. Miss Alaska is a big honor. Also I am not merly discussing, I am saying it should be added to the article, the purposeof this forum 72.91.214.42 (talk) 05:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Newt Gingrich just told Greta Van Sustren on Fox News: "She's had 5 kids and looks this good" --- you see her looks are a plus. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 05:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What Gov. Palin may mean -- and what's journalistic practice, is to do as this WSJ blogger does and, if a serious commentator notes something fun/trivial,

eg the WSJ here's "At the NGA [National Governor's Association] conference she demonstrated her fun side—she appeared at an energy session in glittery platform heels and Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell said she had been 'first on the dance floor' one night, leading governors in the Electric Slide."

--such stuff should be an afterthought rather than a leading obserservation. (I think?)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 05:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Charm has a lot to do with politics and I glark there'll be lots of reliably sourced commentary to be had on this. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with it, as long as it was done with some discretion. ie. NOT "VPILF" ;) --Papajohnin (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and thus a subjective measurement. As Wikipedia's purpose is the creation of an encyclopedia instead of writing editorials, we are better off providing readers with the information needed to make an informed decision instead of telling them what they should think. The article mentions that Palin won a beauty contest and placed 2nd in another, worked as a television sports reporter, and provides multiple images. How much more information is needed for a reader to determine if she meets a readers personal standard or current societal standards for attractiveness? --Allen3 ^talk 20:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

We cannot include something like "she is pretty". But as mentioned above, I think we should, with a look at WP:V, include it if major reliable sources judged this to be important to the campaign. Because we have to write about all things that reliable sources deem important, not judge about whether she is attractive or not. We just report that others do or do not. SoWhy 20:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)