Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Radio show appearance

Does anyone think this information is even remotely relevant? I think it should be removed wholesale, or at least edited down to one or two sentences and merged into the body. It is definitely given undue weight in its current form. Other opinions? --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree, I also had to remove the word controversy as well, it's not up to us to the reader something is controversial, they can make up their own mind. — Realist² 17:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem for me is that it's sourced by a blog and an opinion piece in the Anchorage Daily News. I haven't been able to find a news story on it yet. --Coemgenus 17:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had to remove a link to youtube too. — Realist² 17:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I really don't get the relevance of this. A.J.A. (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a severe question of undue weight here, which is a violation of POV policies. It's a fairly common smear tactic to plant reliably sourced stories about minor incidents which go into excessive detail in biographies. We have to ask ourselves: is this incident more or less notable than any other slip-up in public? Did it have any continuing political repercussions? Or did it more or less die right there? Are we giving more weight to, say, a particular press appearance of no subsequent news value than to, say, 4-5 years of the subject's life? In this case, if you can't demonstrate that this incident was significant and had continuing consequences, I think the whole section should be removed. RayAYang (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It's pretty insignificant in the large scheme of things. Kelly ^hi! 22:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think would be appropriate to at least mention this in the article as it is being touched upon in the MSM and is 100% sourced and valid. Zredsox (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly think it's notable in the scheme of a biography page, but if it's going to be included it needs to be shortened to a line or two. As has previously been mentioned, it certainly doesn't deserve the same space as other facts which are actually biographical. GatorOne (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

From new section added below:

Last January, Sarah Palin appeared on "The Bob and Mark Show" where host Bob Lester despises Lyda Green, and her reaction is childish and unacceptable.

Source:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/31/palin-laughs-as-opponent_n_122776.html

Already been discussed a few sections up titled "Radio Show Appearance" GatorOne (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Moved to existing section. --Coemgenus 00:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Faye Palin might not vote for Sarah Palin

• [1] Sarah Palin's mother-in-law uncertain about how she'll vote --FuturePil()t (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

So, what's your point? GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not so sure this is noteworthy enough of inclusion, but that's just my opinion. --kizzle (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• And Cindy McCain's half sister says she won't vote for McCain. So what? Corvus cornix_talk 22:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree, this is not pertinent. A majority of people are not voting for McCain. It would be a chore to mention all of them.Zredsox (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocks

If a discussion doesn't manifest soon, people are going to start getting blocked, please stop edit warring. John Reaves 21:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"Edit-warring" doesn't apply to WP:BLP violations. Kelly ^hi! 21:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What you've been removing isn't a BLP violation. John Reaves 21:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh rly?[2] [3] [4] (Just three examples, many more available.) Where were you when this crap was going on? Go ahead and block me, oh powerful admin. Kelly ^hi! 21:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, although you have been a great help to the article your removal of talk page sections about legitimate discussion was not ok in my opinion. --mboverload@ 21:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, I'm referring to one specific section, thank you your previous and future removals, but that one section was restored several times and was not a BLP problem, simply put is was disruptive. John Reaves 21:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Please provide diffs both sides plz. --mboverload@ 21:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's blocking Kelly at this time. This page is being edited very fast, and much of it is garbage. He's erring on the side of strong BLP enforcement, which I think is laudable. Now that several editors have made clear that the section above is not a BLP violation, I expect that section to remain, but I don't want to tie anyone's hand from removing garbage on this page. Cool Hand Luke 21:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. This is being alluded to in mainstream media, so the potential for inclusion is a valid concern, and NOT a BLP violation in and of itself. rootology (C)(T) 21:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Any potential slander of a 16 year old girl OR any material that makes speculation without facts (ie, guessing that a baby wasn't born early but was actually born from a different mother) Would violate BLP guidelines and need to be removed before discussion per BLP guidelines. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

There has been a discussion going on here, but the discussion was removed due to BLP concerns, so John, please pay attention to what's going on. Corvus cornix_talk 21:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It would seem I'm far more aware than you. John Reaves 22:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Not if you're planning on blocking people for removing BLP violations. Corvus cornix_talk 22:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The block threat for removing a section that wasn't a BLP violation, i.e. the section that is still here. Is this really that hard to understand? John Reaves 22:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, since you did not say and still have yet to explain what section you're talking about. Corvus cornix_talk 22:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I assumed you knew since you told me to "pay attention", I assumed you had been keeping up and "paying attention", obviously not though. Perhaps the history tab holds your answers? John Reaves 22:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

If I may, it is #PLEASE NOTE -->> Pregnancy Talk <<-- directly above. Removed several times by Kelly and J. Cool Hand Luke 22:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The "BLP violation" is the section above. It's not a BLP violation. That said, Kelly should not be blocked for this, but I think we're all in agreement here. I think we're done, so accusing editors of not paying attention is unhelpful. Cool Hand Luke 22:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It should have be blanked with a reason why it was blanked, not removed wholesale. --mboverload@ 22:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying. What's the difference between blanking and removing? Do you want a big blank space in the middle of the article and the Talk page? Corvus cornix_talk 22:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently. But the policy is clear: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted." Removal of a discussion of a WP:BLP non-article space violation needs no further discussion. WP:DFTT.   user:j    (aka justen)   22:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

But it does need explanation or reference, according to WP:BLP. Unless I am misreading the relevant passage re deletion.Kitchawan (talk) 22:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we're all in agreement that there's no source satisfying WP:RS, the question is whether we can actually talk about whether or not there's a source on this page without J reverting it. --kizzle (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm - if I put a section on your talk page saying "Let's discuss whether Kizzle is a liar", with some flimsy speculation from some blogger, would you support that? That stuff gets burned out with flamethrowers immediately (or it ideally should). Kelly ^hi! 22:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Your example: "Let's discuss whether Kizzle is a liar"
• My example: "For those wanting to add anything about Sarah Palin being pregnant, unless you can provide reliable, verifiable sources via WP:RS, they will be deleted per WP:BLP"

--kizzle (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Residence Question

The article states that the governor's family lives in Wasilla, 45 miles from Anchorage. Yet the Governor presumably lives in Juneau, which is the state capital, during the week. Is this worthy of clarification?Kitchawan (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Time for a trim (Undue weight comes under the NPOV criteria)

The "reaction" section needs a serious trim, undue weight and recentism. — Realist² 22:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree - in addition to what Realist2 said above, the fact that a weasel word pretty much starts off the section is definitely a bad sign. There's a lot of well cited info in there, but a reword and a trim would make the section a lot better--danielfolsom 22:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel the same. I also don't think we should have this statement Obama gave, it doesn't seem to add much. Besides, originally his campaign wrote a harsh statement about her that was later revoked and replaced with Obama welcoming her and saying that his campaign had a "hair trigger" reaction, that all seems more notable than the statement we currently have. Sleeping frog (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"Reaction" needs to be gutted and evenly weighted or removed. Currently it reads like a McCain political advertisement with a smattering a static. It should more realistically crafted to show the reality of the situation from both sides.Zredsox (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this really needs to be cut down to basic reactions by major political figures and the national polls (once enough time has passed for the polls to be multiple and reliable). However, impacts on fundraising (for both parties!) should be considered a legitimate "reaction" by the public. Kelly ^hi! 22:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it needs trimmed. Problem is every time something goes, two things replace it. Argh. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to trim anything yet we have enough space. Also where did the poll numbers go that showed the reaction of voters? Now the reaction of voters is missing from a section titled "reaction". This should be put back. Hobartimus (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

OMG, it grows every time I come back, people, please read WP:UNDUE WEIGHT and WP:RECENTISM. They are great policies. — Realist² 22:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Because of the Undue weight given to the section I have tagged it for NPOV. This might sound odd, but according to official policy undue weight is part of the NPOV criteria. — Realist² 01:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Visits to other countries

Should this really be its own section? I feel like this being its own section possibly violates the Wikipedia policy that dictates that articles must not have a point of view (specifically I believe it violates the section on undue weight). Perhaps the info in it is noteworthy and should be mentioned - I'm not arguing that – but I think we need to tread carefully given the newfound notoriety of this person, and giving this sentence its own section isn't really treading carefully. thoughts?--danielfolsom 22:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we break down her "Political Positions" section into three subsections: 'Social', 'Economic', and 'Foreign Affairs'. We could add this info to the foreign affairs subsection where it would be appropriate. Sleeping frog (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I like that idea :) --kizzle (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ditto - good plan--danielfolsom 23:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but add "Environment" and/or "Energy and Environment". Arjuna (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

More Photos

There are only a few photos on this article. After looking at the pages for John McCain, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden I noticed that Sarah has very few photos in comparison. Those three articles all have several photos in some of the sections. We shouldn't be so afraid to add more photos. The article could use some style, color, and graphics to improve it like the other articles. Sleeping frog (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The photos have been repeatedly removed because they have military people in them. See Commons:Category:Sarah Palin. Kelly ^hi! 22:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the addition of more photos as per the other articles. Hobartimus (talk) 22:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Then please find some. Corvus cornix_talk 22:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

At the time we didn't know that the military photos were her visiting her own Alaskan national guard, now that we do I feel they are acceptable along with a proper description. Sleeping frog(talk) 22:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to rehash here, but I can't find the diff (I even tried WikiBlame); could someone tell me why Image:Sarah Palin.jpg was removed?--danielfolsom 23:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that it's low-quality and ugly? Kelly ^hi! 23:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Except that it is neither low-quality or ugly. It is merely not her in Kuwait with American troops, so apparently it doesn't satisfy someone's standards. --Evb-wiki (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL. Corvus cornix_talk 23:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh my, people are getting a little touchy around here. That photo is "low quality and ugly" in my opinion. Now please don't tell me I am at odds with WP:AGF. That is an opinion about the image, not about the intent of the photographer/uploader/editor who placed it in the article.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

My comment was directed at Evb-wiki , which is why it's under his/her rather incivil comments. Corvus cornix_talk 05:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, per Wikipedia:IMAGE#Image_choice_and_placement "Gloria Steinem looks best as a portrait photograph of herself alone, and not with other individuals." - so why don't we make an effort o find all the singular images of Palin, and that way we can add more pics to the article, as seemingly everyone wants. In fact: here are the pics I found on commons:

• Image:Sarah Palin Kuwait 22a.jpg
• Image:Sarahpalincrop2.jpg
• Image:Sarah Palin.jpg

Why don't we try and agree on using one of those, that way we'll have more pictures, and we'll have ideal pictures.--danielfolsom 23:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason we can't use all three. They are diverse enough and generic (NPOV) enough. And, there is room in the article. --Evb-wiki (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Silly question - are the Alaska National Guard photos PD (as works of the US federal government) or copyrighted (as works of the state of Alaska)? For example, the source for Image:Sarah Palin Aviation Day.jpg - [5] - says "Copyright© 2002 Alaska Department of Military and Veterans Affairs". I clicked on several of them at random and found several photos from this site. Some of them gave the author as a member of the US Air Force - those are PD, regardless of what the copyright notice says so we are fine there. But ones like Image:Sarah Palin Flight Simulator.jpg and the above-mentioned Image:Sarah Palin Aviation Day.jpg give the author as "Photo: Capt. Guy Hayes, Alaska National Guard Public Affairs". Do we know for a fact that this person is an employee of the US federal government and not of the government of Alaska? --B (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a really complicated kettle of worms (mixing metaphors). :) I thought about this when I found and uploaded the photos. National Guard troops work for their state when called to duty by their state. They work for the federal government when called to duty by the Federal Government. But they are really in a gray area. In the modern American military, they are completely mixed with active duty and Reserve elements. Some are weekend warriors (except when deployed), some are full-time. Some are in Guard formations, some are in active-duty formations. However, from a copyright standpoint, I think we can take the photos as PD, considering most were taken by Federally-activated Guard formations. I'm sure if any challenge arises the photos can be deleted. Kelly ^hi! 23:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken (and, of course, I could be) Uncle Sam signs the Guards' paychecks.--Evb-wiki (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct there. Kelly ^hi! 23:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"prominent member of Feminists for Life." (AND) "However"

There is an "However" appearing and disappearing.

ARTICLE READS (for the moment): "Palin is a prominent member of Feminists for Life.[84] However, Palin has said she is in favor of the death penalty.[85]"

• THIS CONSTRUCTION ARISES (I suspect) because Feminists for Life has "historically" been against capital punishment. HOWEVER: The organization has deemphasized that issue. (NOTE: It is reasonable for organizations to focus their attention and resources.)
• RHETORICAL QUESTION: Does the wording prominent member of imply complete agreement with agenda?
• DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PALIN AND FFL POSITION: Feminists for Life has no exceptions in its pro-life stance. Palin has an exception for life/health of mother.
• BOTTOM LINE: prominent member of in this instance does perhaps require qualification. The current phrasing seems to be trying to address this point. However ... (Suggestions?) Proofreader77 (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the word "prominent" is justified unless she can be proven to be seen as important within the organization. I don't think the word "however" is necessary, as I doubt many would automatically think "pro-life"/"Feminists for Life" = "against death penalty". Right or right, the "life" in these contexts is normally seen as applying primarily, or even exclusively, to one's abortion views. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows "however" is on Wikipedia's words to avoid-danielfolsom 00:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

re: "'however'" is on Wikipedia's words to avoid" -- Good to know. I didn't (nor the page). Thanks. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

FOLLOW-UP: Let us note that however is not to be avoided in all cases. Proofreader77 (talk) 09:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

re: ThaddeusB ("prominent" [member of] - NO / "however" - NO): I tend to agree. (he said weasel-wordily:) NOTE: No, this not a huge deal. Just an issue at my pay-grade. Other comments? Proofreader77 (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the "However". It may need further improvement though. 2nd Piston Honda (talk) 02:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

separating (spatially) pro life and capital punishment

Noting that the "however" issue has been "solved" (for the moment) by moving capital punishment to a different paragraph. SOME COMMENTS:

• Some believe you can separate the two issues. Some disagree. (The cause of the edit flux.)
• The above difference is somewhat complicated by the reference to Feminists for Life which for many years was (may still be, but not highlighted) an organizational member of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. Since 2005, the organization has de-emphasized that element of policy, but many associate the association with a unified opposition to sanctioned violence. (For example, Patricia Heaton, the current Honorary Chairperson of Feminists for Life, is on public record as being pro-life and against capital punishment.)
• All of the above, together, may tend to inspire editing.
• ASIDE: prominent -- Given the small set of "prominent" people, we may be thinking too hard about that word, except that word's (perhaps implied) emphasis on the implications of her membership in Feminists for Life.
• None of these comments are meant to imply that people or organizations cannot self-identify as they choose.
• The Wikipedia page for Feminists for Life clearly states its potentially controversial positions (but may need updating), and so the reference here does not stand alone. (obviously) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

the set of ALL people who have been described as a "prominent member of [FFL]"

• Sarah Palin (395 Google hits) presumptive Republican nominee for Vice President of the United States
• Patricia Heaton (1 G hit as Patty) Actress/Current Honorary Chair of Feminists for Life
• Jane Sullivan Roberts (1 G hit) Head of in-house practice group for leading legal-search firm Major, Lindsey & Africa, and wife of the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (NOTE: there was much "interest" in implications of her FFL membership during confirmation of her husband)
• Connie Purdue (1 G hit) (1912-2000) Trade unionist (Established FFL in New Zealand) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofreader77 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Feminists for Life (and the parenthetical)

NOTE: The sentence containing reference to Feminists for Life now reads:

"Palin does support contraception,[89] and is a prominent member of Feminists for Life (which takes no position on that issue[90] but a more restrictive one on exceptions)."

• I added the parentheses, and the "but" clause (with wikipedia link to the clarifying section of the Feminists for Life page).
• While a parenthetical of this kind can often be avoided, the case of Feminists for Life is a bit more complex. (TO WIT: Gov. Palin's positions and those of FFL have some differences. I believe the wikipedia article for FFL along with the link to the specific section highlighting the organization's positions is an acceptable way to handle this.
• Regarding the word prominent -- Its presence drew my attention to the organization (and hence this section of discussion). Of itself, I do not think the word has any great import, other than that highlighting -- and the editing attention it has drawn. (he said semi-redundantly/circularly)
• BOTTOM LINE (my current position): prominent is OK, with the context of the parenthetical (or however that information is best conveyed). Proofreader77 (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Noting that the word "prominent" AND the parenthetical are now gone. That may be the right way to go. So it is, for now. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC) (NOTE: Tsunado performed these edits. Further changes should perhaps be discussed with them.) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresenting what the source said

This edit [6] was made to sourced text and it changed it's meaning that it no longer reflects the source accurately. The original source was this article [7] titled "Giuliani: Palin More Qualified Than Obama" the whole statement was a comparsion between Obama and Palin, the edit should be reverted. And if you really want to get rid of the Obama material in a non-partisan way how about that massive qoute from Obama? Do we need all parts of that qoute? Hobartimus (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

A (different) comparison

Kelly - why do you keep taking out this? Statistics aren't typically POV-plagued. I mean, I'm not the one adding it back in - but this is the second time you've removed it, and I've wondered both times.--danielfolsom 00:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind straight statistics, but the Dan Quayle comparison is obviously unnecessary POV. Kelly ^hi! 00:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So would it be more appropriate to say she had the second lowest Gallup poll ranking (kind of like what we do for "second female on a major political party ticket" (that's not an exact quote))--danielfolsom 00:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just found this poll and will quote it in the article. Kelly ^hi! 00:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok - but leave the other one in too; we aren't going to selectively use polls--danielfolsom 00:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is an anti-Palin poll POV, but somehow a pro-Palin all of a sudden is meritable for inclusion? Nevermind, not productive. --kizzle (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) (first involvement on this page) I agree that the Quayle comparison is POV, and is best left out. Simply stating the "40 percent" can suffice. Given the new poll data, you could include both polls, indicating the rise after extensive media coverage. Antandrus (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say keep in the Quayle remark - because saying it's the second lowest is just like saying she's the second woman (although we should possibly remove Quayles name - just say it was the second lowest), but also say that there's a contradicting poll - obviously we should use both sources--danielfolsom 00:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok Kelly - you have to back up a bit - first you say that saying she had the second lowest poll numbers and making a comparison to Quayle's numbers is violating NPOV, then you make a comparison to Biden and remove the other poll? i'll leave Biden's comparison in - but I'm going to readd the Quayle one--danielfolsom 00:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Haha, I was beaten to it - thanks User:Evb-wiki--danielfolsom 00:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is at all fair (NPOV) to say 'second lowest approval rating', as it is quite deceptive. I don't doubt that it is technically true, but it is due almost entirely to her being unknown by a much larger percentage of the population than is typical. The material *might* be worth including, but it needs to be adequately explained. I would be willing to bet that her disapprove number is also way below normal, for example. (Of course I don't have all these polls in front of me to compare to be sure so I am not adding such info at this time.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That is the point of the poll. She is unknown and I am sure that contributes to the reaction (which we are capturing here) just like it did when another unknown (Dan Quayle) was chosen to run as Vice President. I think it helps balance out the section which is heavily Pro-Palin in reaction, when in reality the majority of people do not think she is ready to lead (as indicated by the poll.) This has nothing to do with favorability ratings....Zredsox (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, your comment perfectly illustrated the problem with this citation. It is factually false to say that "the majority of people do not think she is ready to lead" - only 33% said that. 33% < 50.1% last I checked. The low number of people saying yes (39%) is directly related to the percent of the population who expressed an opinion, not the % who said "no, not qualified". However, the poll (or at least the way it is being presented) makes it sound like most don't think she is qualified, which is not the case. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I was offering an opinion here, but that did not translate to my editing of the article as I took the material directly from the source and stated it as such......but it could be said that, "The majority of Americans either held no opinion or did not think Palin was ready to lead."Zredsox (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And the opposite, "The majority of Americans either held no opinion or thought Palin was ready to lead" would also be true and would be a slightly larger majority than the first option. See how the language chosen clearly makes it POV?

Yes, which is why none of that language was included in the article. Instead just facts were stated. The numbers and the historical perspective (the Quayle numbers being a valid context.) No opinion is being offered. That is just the reality of the situation. Zredsox (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

True, but if we're going to take one reliable source and assume its comparison is accurate, then we must do the same for the other reliable source.--danielfolsom 00:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that it is not at all clear what "lower ratings" mean in context, either here or in the original source. If someone could find the raw poll data, rather than the media article it would be a big help. Thanks --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL - I just noticed that 51% had "never heard of her", yet only 29% had "no opinion" on her qualifications which means at least 22% of the population based their opinion on her being qualified or not on no information whatsoever. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't America great? World domination by the clueless! :) Kelly ^hi! 01:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the Gallup writeup of the poll: [8]. It seems much less POV driven than the USA Today article to me (for example, they don't lead with the deceptive not ready to lead question.) I will attempt to rewrite the WP article to more NPOV in a sec. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, rewrite complete. I used the same emphasis and ordering as Gallup. I think that is fair. Comments are welcome, however. :)--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think the poll as written does a good job of helping to balance what is a generally pro-Palin "reaction" section. By re-writing it you would just be further contributing to the partisan bias of the article as a whole. It should remain as is unless we want to remove the entire section (which I think we should.)Zredsox (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd support removing the entire section. It is very news-like and blog-like. It certainly is encyclopedic.--Paul (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• There are multiple polling organizations and every day at least one of them releases poll results. Do we really want a section of the article to be tracking public and editorial opinion? Isn't that the job of the Internet bloggers, TV networks, the newspapers and the magazines? It certainly doesn't seem to be the job of an encyclopedia. I think these battling poll results should be removed from the article as Recentism. (In this case EXTREME Recentism).--Paul (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this section on immediate reaction is a reasonable entry in an encylopedia, and immediate poll numbers are reasonable to include as well. The usa today/gallup poll was done on friday, the day of the announcement. Perhaps one more poll that captures reaction a day or to later. Beyond that, it does get silly. I think the original wording Over the past two decades, only Dan Quayle received lower ratings after being picked for a ticket captures the USA today and Gallup articles, which are both reliable sources for a USA today/Gallup Poll.--Work permit (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the Dan Quayle thing is an unsupported POV. Kelly ^hi! 01:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

How is it unsupported? Kelly, I'm sorry, but you can't selectively pick which reliable source you want to use. They are both reliable, and they are both statistics. Now I'm not saying we should mention Quayle - but don't call the poll "unsupported POV"; I mean, it's a poll--danielfolsom 03:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

My goodness, that snowballed fast

After I rewrote the poll to NPOV, the first edit removed most of what I wrote. The second, the rest of it, and a a third the entire reaction section. I agree the section was way too big, but WTF that was serious overkill? --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The section is inappropriate. This is a biography about Sarah Palin. The entire reaction section was about the 2008 presidential campaign. 1) It is not biographical info about Sarah Palin, and 2) leaving it here is like piling up a lot of brush and wood, putting a can of gasoline down on the ground next to it, and erecting a sign that says: "Burn Me" --Paul (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But a summary should remain, with a link to John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 to discourage the reanimation of the section. I assume you are pasting the deleted section into that article like your edit summary said. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I just added the "Reaction" material to the John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 article. It will need trimming down there, too.--Paul (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is perfect over there. No need to link it from here or have a divisive summary. Just glad it is gone and we can get back to the task at hand.Zredsox (talk) 02:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I added a see also link directly to the reactions section from the VP section here; this should be sufficient. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Summary style

The content of the removed material must be summarized back otherwise it would be mass blanking type stuff that is not allowed. Hobartimus (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin's Audio Scandal - STOP REMOVING THIS, WP is democracy!

[duplicate material moved to section above]

It's not getting removed. Scroll up to that section of the talk page. GatorOne (talk) 00:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually wikipedia is not a democracy, see the official policy: WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Sleeping frog (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol.. I was just going to say that. :) --98.243.129.181 (talk) 01:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This material lacks notability, and should be removed asap. We aren't here to spread sensationalism. Read the policy on dealing with biographies before editing please: WP:BLP Sleeping frog (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In other words your objection related to Wikipedia policy about it not being included is notability purposes? I think the source meets verifiability unless people think the audio was faked? --kizzle (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts are that it isn't entirely notable to a biography, and if it is to be included it needs to be shorter. The space which was being given implied that it is of equal importance to her biography as her background or her policy views which is absurd IMO. GatorOne (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not notable, true. But it's also POV because only the clip was included. This wasn't: "Daily News op-ed notes, Palin later released a statement reading, 'The Governor called Senator Green to explain that she does not condone name-calling in any way and apologized if there was a perception that the comment was attributed to the Governor.'" Sleeping frog (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, notability is definitely a factor, I was just confused as to the reason "sensationalism".--kizzle (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"Notability" does not apply to the issue of whether a particular bit of text or information should be included in an article, only to whether a particular subject should have its own article. The questions applicable to a particular factoid or text are: is it reliably sourced and verifiable, and does it give undue weight to a particular position, or does it make the article more encyclopedic. Also does it comply with the policy on biographies of living persons. There are of course many more policies and guidelines on the best editing practices. Edison2 (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Dates should not be wikilinked

WP:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Date_autoformatting Ferrylodge (talk) 00:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought they were suppose to, but now I know better. Feel free to unwikilink them. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Done.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Slanting of article

This article is becoming very slanted. The fact she once smoked marijuana is now mentioned in two separate sections of the article. This despite the fact that the Obama article doesn't even mention that he once used cocaine. And speaking of Obama, now there's a huge blockquote here in this article quoting his assessment of Palin, unlike anything in any other politician article at Wikipedia. This stuff is all hugely inappropriate and unprecented for a BLP at Wikipedia. I hope that the political hacks and propaganda experts would please take a much-needed rest. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that 'slanted' is the appropriate description, but it certainly is not encyclopedic. I agree about the Obama quote. I think it should removed. If someone wants to add it to the Obama article, I'm fine with that.--Paul (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is slanted. It almost reads like a McCain/Palin Campaign ad! I am sure that there are some campaign workers "helping us." It needs a more neutral point of view from top to bottom.Zredsox (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think the marijuana issue needs correcting I think you could combine the sentence in "Personal Life" to merge it into the statement in "Political Positions". It seems much more relevant as a political issue than past drug use does as part of a section otherwise primarily about her family. GatorOne (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know Obama's page does mention that he used drugs - it used to say cocaine but someone changed it (from the edit summary I saw it was because the source didn't specify). We could change marajuana to drugs here - although I think that would produce an even more negative light on Palin - since we say she used marajuana when it was legal under state law.--danielfolsom 01:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal marijuana use belongs in the section on personal life. Personal use does not belong in the section on political positions. Instead, personal use is now in both sections. This is not complicated.

Additionally, the whole "Reactions" section is absurd. People want to find out about her, not what other people think of her, or what other people think about those other people. Does the Joe Biden article have a "Reactions" section? Come on.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

We're discussing the reaction section above - right now I think people seem to be gravitating to its removal, and that's the point of Wikipedia - you bring up what you think is wrong in the article, it's discussed, and consensus is established. You can't expect the article to be perfect the first time you look at it! And hey, if you think something's wrong with it - be bold and make the edit.--danielfolsom 01:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What's the title of the talk page section where you're discussing that?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This is just wrong. She spoke about her drug use in a political context. It was mentioned that it was legal under state law and there was a comparison to Bill Clinton. She wasn't just talking about getting high in her personal life in general, it was being framed politically. Switzpaw (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The marijuana thing has been corrected now. Her use is no longer mentioned in the positions section; thanks for pointing this out everyone.--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned in Obama's sub-page Early life and career of Barack Obama. Palin should have a sub like this. I think we should work out a comprehensive "early life" sub and move it there where it belongs. --Floridianed (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like "cocaine" is now back in the Obama article. I don't mind mentioning pot use once in this article, but twice was overkill.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakerking04 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC) 

Abuse of Power investigation

Sarah Palin is currently under investigation for possible abuse of power in the controversial firing of an Alaskan state trooper. This information is very important and should be in the beginning paragraphs because it carries the possibility that she may be impeached. This is found in Sen Steven's article, and I know she hasn't yet been indicted, but this information was already found in Senator Steven's article even before he was indicted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.19.245 (talk) 01:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you please link to the news article about possible impeachment? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link I found regarding the investigation: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/CNBC_McCain_picks_Alaska_governor_as_0829.html

W@ntonsoup (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

They won't. Kelly ^hi! 01:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It was discussed yesterday (see Archive 1) and people seemed to come to the conclusion that the impeachment thing was just political talk by an opposition state senator and hasn't been brought up anywhere as a real possibility. GatorOne (talk) 02:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well no matter how political and un-political it might appear, they is a chance she may be impeached if found of any wrong doing, and it's likely considering the personal nature of the entire dismissal affair. If's it possible that she may be indicted and impeached, i think it's serious enough to put into the beginning paragraphs. That's what I think. Lakerking04 (talk) 02:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks GatorOne. W@ntonsoup, the best news link for this is a Wall Street Journal article: "'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.' The allegations against Ms. Palin are less serious than -- and entirely separate from -- those that have been leveled against a number of Alaska's most prominent politicians since 2006, when a Federal Bureau of Investigation probe into influence peddling by oil-field contractor VECO Corp. came to light."

So, I agree with the consensus yesterday that the impeachment thing was just political talk by an opposition state senator. Even if he had been a GOP state senator, still it violates WP:Crystal ball because the quote is merely referring to one of many future scenarios. And the WSJ article goes on to explain that the controversy is less serious than other controversies.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. A kidnapping is less serious than a murder, but that doesn't mean a kidnapping isn't serious. The fact still remains that she may be indicted and impeached for possible abuse of power in the controversial firing of her brother in law, who also happened to be divorcing her sister when he was fired.Lakerking04 (talk) 02:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"May be" is not encyclopedic. It is editorializing. This is inappropriate anywhere in this article and especially in the lead.--Paul (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Any politician "may be" impeached. IMO, until there is anything suggesting that it's a serious possibility it would be very irresponsible and misleading to mention it - let alone lead with it. GatorOne (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the conversation at this talk page from yesterday on this subject. Lakerking04, also please see WP:Crystal ball. You're correct that Palin may be impeached, but she may also go on a shooting rampage, in a worst case scenario.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, it's again one of those "guilty till proven not-guilty". We *#%$* [excuse my French] have to wait before blowing this up to a bigger issue than it already is. It's just the same smear (by the media) that's going on at Obama articles (and in part at John McCain's articles, where I give (user) Wasted Time R and some others credit preventing this as much as they can). --Floridianed (talk) 02:20, 1 September 2008(UTC)

I am not suggesting that we put into the paragraph that she "may be" impeached. I made that point to shine light on the serious nature of the matter, now known as "troopergate". The Controversy even has its own article.Lakerking04 (talk) 02:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it might or possibly is serious but that's not for us to decide. --Floridianed (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's serious enough to get to impeached, then I believe it's deserving of being mentioned in the opening paragraphs. This was the same procedure followed in the Stevens, and Mike Vick articles.Lakerking04 (talk) 02:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The nature of the matter is about as "serious" as the common cold. If firing bad cops, or bureaucrats who protect bad cops, is a scandal, then we should have more scandals. Please show some sources that state impeachment is any kind of a possibility. Kelly ^hi! 02:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The whole thing is ridiculous. Everyone agrees that Wooten is a bad cop, who should have been fired. Had Palin actually pressured her commissioner to fire him, she'd have been 100% justified. Had I been her, I would have insisted that Wooten be fired, and if necessary I'd have done it myself. So if she didn't do so then she was bending over backwards to be super-honest, and the inquiry is just a witch-hunt. -- Zsero (talk) 02:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly not "everyone" agrees that "Wooten was a bad cop who should have been fired." Palin reportedly claims that she was unaware that her staff made over 24 phone calls, some invoking her and her husband's names, to try and get her ex-brother in law fired. That is what has been judged newsworthy. Like the attempts to establish deniability in the Nixon and Bush administrations. Edison2 (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, everyone does agree he's a bad cop. Does anyone dispute that he tased his stepson, or that he made death threats against the governor and her father? How is that not a bad cop? If his sister-in-law hadn't been the governor, would he still be wearing a badge? -- Zsero (talk) 09:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You are not "everyone." Some people disagree with you. Please read about what Wikipedia considers original research, such as your opinion of who is a "bad cop" and who is a "good cop." Edison2 (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The answer to your last question is absolutely clear. Wooten was charged with certain infractions, there was an investigation, a punishment was imposed, and the matter was closed. All that had happened by the end of 2006. Then his sister-in-law became Governor. Soon after her inauguration, Todd Palin called Monegan into the Governor's office and pressed him to look into the matter. Thereafter Palin also raised it with him (according to Monegan, although I think Palin may be denying this point). So, yes, if his sister-in-law hadn't been Governor, he would still be on the force. JamesMLane t c 10:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I said this before at an Obama related page: If they find a "smoking gun" that proofs the allegation we can include this. W/o proof we would violate WP:BLP guidelines and others. That means, we can't Include possible consequences at least for now. FACT! --Floridianed (talk) 02:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What should the PSC-dismissal-controversy section say?

(note: just moved this subsection down from above, it is relevant here.)

I think that it is a good idea to talk here about what are the basic facts that need summarizing. In my opinion, the following are the facts of the case, and we should not be spending more than about 10-15 words on any of them, and generally less. (Go ahead and add comments in between the following, but please use a colon to indent your comments so my original list is visible). Note that the emphasis in the following is on events and actions that are tied to, or close to, Palin. Homunq (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

1. She fired Monegan. Her right to do so is not in dispute.

2. Monegan alleges that it may have had to do with him not firing Wooten.

3. Wooten is her estranged ex-brother in law.

4. Wooten had a history of disciplinary problems.

5. She or her staff had contacted Monegan or his staff >24 times re: Wooten.

6. In one of those calls, her staff (Bailey? Paley?) [is on tape] mentioned the family connection. She claims no prior knowledge and disciplined him later. [when she found out about the tape.]

7. I think that the issue of the alleged sexual harassment by Kopp, Monegan's replacement (which she at the time thought was "cleared" by investigation) is borderline for inclusion. If included, it should be just one short sentence, which mentions the fact that she thought he was cleared.

8. There is an ongoing investigation. (This was the info whose removal I called a "whitewash". I have left a note on the offending user's page, they have a history of removing information on pages which carry an ideological charge in American politics.)

(I think that the possibility of impeachment clearly does NOT belong in this section, under WP:CB, and even less so elsewhere in the article)

If anybody has an argument for why any of that does NOT belong, or why we should spend more than one sentence on any one item, please make it. Homunq (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

These are my sources: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26458400/ http://www.newsone.com/elections/article/sarah-palins-troopergate http://www.adn.com/monegan/story/492077.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakerking04 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that Palin herself released the tape of her aide making the phone call, without a subpoena, and that she placed him on administrative leave after she found out what he did. Kelly ^hi! 02:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I did mention that she disciplined him. Fair point about releasing it voluntarily, and that can definitely go in. But it takes 2 words: "Palin released...", stuff like "without a subpoena" is POV. Homunq (talk) 02:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all your points above, user:Homunq. It might take more than one sentence and it has to be written in a NPOV that avoids any guilt on either side. --Floridianed (talk) 02:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it should say what is says now and no more. We have a link to the full article with details and that should suffice. Should new evidence come to light, maybe it can be weighted more in the future. Zredsox (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Zredsox. Homunq, would you please identify the one single thing that is most lacking in the section. That way we could focus on your main concern. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the section as it currently stands (or at least, stood when I started typing this text - it is almost surely different as you read me) is good. I started this talk page subtopic not because I think it is bad, but because I have seen this section with both too much and too little info, and at the rate this page is being edited just trusting the current state of things is like writing on water. That's why I think it helps to work out a consensus, and all necessary compromises, here, rather than just edit warring on the page itself. Homunq (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It is appropriate to include her initial false statement that no one from her administration had contacted Monegan on firing Wooten ([9]), although it is of course also proper to include her explanation that her statement resulted from ignorance rather than mendacity. In addition, if we are including her charge against Monegan about filling vacancies, then we must include his refutation of that charge. JamesMLane t c 07:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Article needs to mention that Wooten used a police issued taser on his his 10 year old step son. It is relevant. That section right now spins it to the left. This is relevant since a taser killed a 40 year old man 3 times the size of the child in Vancouver just this year. It demonstrates the serious of the Policmans violations, and demonstrates the total inappropriateness of the light discipline he received... the policeman was protected by the commissioner.

That's point 3. I think everyone agrees that Wooten is a shady character. The point is, even if he were an axe murderer, is it appropriate for the governor to be exerting pressure?

If you mention the taser, you have to mention the fact that the son asked for it (doesn't let him off the hook, but it does change things.) If you mention both of those, you are close to giving undue weight to Wooten - this article is not about Wooten. How about something like "who, among other disciplinary problems, had endangered his son using police resources", and let people get details from the sub-article if they're curious. 216.106.170.103 (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

NY Times article

The NYT has an article about us, dated September 1, titled "Don’t Like Palin’s Wikipedia Story? Change It". I'm sure this will help reduce the number of people flocking here to make edits!Ferrylodge (talk) 02:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Lool, heard that! :) Maybe we should semi-protect this page.Testmasterflex (talk) 02:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh - New York Times - more like "yesterday's Democratic talking points today". But Ferrylodge, you're a celebrity! Kelly ^hi! 02:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Deja vu, eh? The silliest thing about the New York Times article is that they actually believe that a "Retired" template means someone will stop editing. MastCell ^Talk 03:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

My buddy!  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that from the point of view of some editors, Fox News or The Weekly Standard are "fair and Balanced" non-point of view sources, but the New York Times just prints whatever the Democratic National Committee tells them to. Pretty amazing. Edison2 (talk) 04:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't someone saying WP:NOTFORUM just recently? —KCinDC (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Activity from 2004 to 2006

The article doesn't address Palin's activity from 2004 to 2006. I tried to include (it got deleted) a sentence and reference to ABC News source which had FEC records that she referred to herself as "homemaker" and "housewife" in June and July of 2004. Also, this article does not clearly say WHEN she resigned from the Commission in 2004. 68.238.17.164 (talk) 03:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it because it seemed pointless to say she didn't hold public office (this is clearly implied) and irrelevant to say she listed her profession as "homemaker" on FEC paperwork. I have no problem with it ebing introduced if others feel it is relevant, however. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems pointless to me also. It's not important.--Paul (talk) 03:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Understand. Consensus can decide if it should it should come back. My vote is to be explicit with information (when sources are clear) rather than implicit. What she called herself is less important (but still relevant in my opinion). But would it hurt to have a sentence that said she didn't hold office from 2004 to December 2006? Seems relevant to the current political discourse that compares her recent history to Obama's.68.238.17.164 (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"she didn't hold office from 2004 to December 2006". Tell me/us more about it (and if possible with some sources), please. I'm not in the mood to go to the history of this fast changing article, (as mentioned before) to get this information and am neither willing to google at this time since it's getting late in my time zone. Thanks, --Floridianed (talk) 04:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Here:

• Archive of Fairbanks Daily News-Miner (Associated Press) [10] says "Palin steps down from commission. January 20, 2004"
• ABC News [11] says Palin called herself "Housewife" and "Homemaker" in June and July 2004 (in FEC records of small contributions to Republican candidates).
• Los Angeles Times [12] reports that in 2005 and 2006 Palin was raising funds for gubernatorial campaign. She entered office December 2006.

68.238.17.164 (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Bringing back a summary of the reaction section

Readers are looking for information on this so a summary of the information must be incorporated into the article. Hobartimus (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to write one :-p Seriously though, no more than 2-3 sentences would be justified, in my opinion. (Several people above felt there should be any) --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Readers should look on their favorite blogs or CNN, or some other news or opinion source, OR the campaign article. Why should they expect to find op ed material in a biography article??--Paul (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would we write an op ed piece there are polls qoutes attributable to people etc. For fear of being biased we can't deny information to the readers and also this is hardly the only section of the article that can have problems. Just think about the family section... Hobartimus (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What people thought of the pick, positive or negative, simply isn't biographical in nature. I think it belongs on the campaign website where it is now. GatorOne (talk) 03:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article is full of non-encyclopedic material. Why don't spend our time weeding it out instead of using those problems as a reason to introduce more problems? --Paul (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So wholesale deletion of sections would be the answer? Which section should go next? Early life? Governorship? Hobartimus (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Other than the Sarah Palin#2008 vice-presidential campaign section, I don't think there is a need for any other wholesale deletions, but in the Family section, I'd take out this:

"Though she announced that she was pregnant only during the start of her third trimester and one month before Trig was born, her pregnancy is reported to have surprised Alaskans, including her staff.[103] After her water broke, on the day of Trig's delivery, Palin delivered a keynote address in Texas and then flew 8 hours to Alaska. She and her husband drove a further 50 minutes to Mat-Su Valley Regional Medical Center, where she gave birth seven hours later.[104] Palin returned to office quickly, just three days after giving birth to Trig.[26][105] Palin's decision to have the baby has been applauded by the pro-life community.[106][107]"

It's too much detail and the "applauded by the pro-life community" is unnecessary editorializing.--Paul (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO at least the reaction section was the main one which was not biographical. To me everything else is just stating facts about her and her political career, where as the reaction information was about the campaign. There appeared to be a consensus to move it out earlier, and with all due respect that still seems to be the overwhelming opinion. GatorOne (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Article

This article from the New York Times is very good and I think could help improve the Sarah Palin page: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/851orcjq.asp?pg=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pissed off starfishh (talk • contribs) 03:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Duh, the "Weekly Standard" is very far from the "New York Times." Edison2 (talk) 04:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Supports Contraception?

The references for the quote:

"Palin does support contraception,[83] and is a prominent member of Feminists for Life, which takes no position on that issue.[84]"

do not support either statement. This statement should be removed, especially in light of evidence[13] that is contrary to this statement.

~~dexteroo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dexteroo11 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

From Reference 83: "Palin said last month that no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child. She is pro-contraception and said she's a member of a pro-woman but anti-abortion group called Feminists for Life." Reference 84 on the other hand does seem to be somewhat useless and from a POV source though if someone wants to look at that. GatorOne (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Pilot?

I removed the information in the personal section that she is a pilot. There is not reliable sourcing, and the Landings Aviation Database does not include her, thought it does have her husband. Please feel free to re-add if reliable sourcing is found. — ERcheck (talk) 04:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the FAA directory, Todd Palin was issued a Private Pilot Certificate (single engine land) on 4/12/2004 and currently holds a third class medical certificate issued 7/2006. There is no record of a Sarah Palin or Sarah Heath. - auburnpilot talk 05:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Voting4Life

Hi Kelly,

The endorsement from Voting4Life.org would be an appropriate and helpful link. I don’t think prominent Pro-Life sites are overly concerned with Wikipedia effects on page ranking, notwithstanding that external links not altering search engine rankings in Wikipedia has been a given for a long time.

“Unfortunately some of the pages you edited have collected a bunch of inappropriate links” – You are referring to links substantiating that the 1962 Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani document was drafted to cover-up pedophile Priests and excommunicate child victims, most people would not consider that inappropriate.

History2008 (talk) 04:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like self-promotion to me. "Voting4Life" gets only 10 Google hits, most of which seem to be in long lists of links, and no Google News hits. Does the organization even actually exist? An endorsement of a known politician by an unknown organization helps the organization a lot more than the politician. Is there any reason not to delete the link? —KCinDC (talk) 04:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it should be removed per WP:EL. I've done so a couple of times previously. Kelly ^hi! 04:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Voting4Life is a link site, dedicated to providing information to Pro-Life Voters. It’s affiliated with the NRLC, Pro-Life Action and ThereOughtToBeALaw.net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by History2008 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Voting4Life is also endorsed by AdvancedChristianity.com History2008 (talk) 05:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Voting4Life also has incoming links from Catholic-Voter.com, MariaValtortaWebRing.com and the ProLifeWebring. History2008 (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In other words it's part of a group of sites that link to each other in order to increase their traffic and page rank (and apparently try to get links on to Wikipedia). It's not clear why Sarah Palin would want an endorsement from your group, and somehow I doubt she's even aware of your existence. Also, make sure you read 3RR if you want to avoid being blocked. —KCinDC (talk) 05:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Consider archiving

This talk page is 195 kb. That is all. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we need some bot archiving here, but I don't know how to set it up. Kelly ^hi! 04:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This should have the bot come by and automatically archive discussions that go 3 days without comment. If you think it should be longer/shorter, just change the (3d) to however many days you think are appropriate to wait. - auburnpilot talk 05:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I changed it to "2d" for the time being.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

marijuana usage

Why is this section repeated twice verbatim in the article? Once is enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.165.124.110 (talk) 04:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I see only one line under "Political positions". Refresh the page; you may have an old version. Antandrus (talk) 04:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This page gets so many edits per half-a-second, it's hard to keep up. It's beginning to make my head hurt...→ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.189.35.93 (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Editing Patterns of this article in NY Times Today

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/technology/01link.html?ref=politics

So what?

To the extent that the article was made better, we should be glad. The puffery got edited out and Wikipedia didn't get caught linking a stub about a now-important public figure from the front page. A.J.A. (talk) 05:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's already linked in a box at the top of this page. - auburnpilot talk 05:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

STOP deleting other people's comments on the talk page

Both of my posts were deleted and one is unresolved, while the other is for reference. Please stop. Lajolla2009 (talk) 05:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly photos revisited

In reference to discussions in Archive 2, again, the user Kelly continues to be hell bent on including their military photos of Palin. While it is deemed appropriate to include these photos per usage of the media, they have since varied from previous photos used and even more irrelevant ones have been chosen. And even so, the photo quality has diminished (while Kelly had touted photo quality as a reasoning for including them). For example both the flight simulator and "visiting soldiers" photos have over-flash. The flight simulator photo over emphasizes the flight simulator and not the subject of the biography, that is Palin. The "visiting soliders" photo is misleading because its merely a closeup of her at a table and we are not sure who she is talking to. The previous photos of her over a soldier's bed and others were of far better quality even if I feel they are still irrelevant to her article. Why the change? Again I would like to ensure the photo of her and Don Young is included if you were to say "quality" well there is no difference there AND it is a relevant photo to the text. Am I crazy? .:davumaya:. 06:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not put the current photos in the article - other editors did. (Sorry for the bolding, I have been repeatedly accused of this.) Kelly ^hi! 06:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, except that I don't think Kelly is to blame. And my objection is not "because they have military people in them" or because I "didn't know that the military photos were her visiting her own Alaskan national guard" (see previous discussions). It's simply that more than one military photo in the article is disproportionate (unless maybe there are 20 photos total in the article). I'm not asking for military personnel to be cropped out of photos. I'm suggesting that the proportion of photos that are military-related should have some resemblance to the proportion of the article devoted to Palin's military-related duties, and that photos should be relevant to the article topics. I'm not sure why they keep proliferating. And the photo of her with Don Young surely wouldn't have been removed if Young weren't having legal problems. —KCinDC (talk) 06:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If you do a Google search for "pictures", Google will recommend "Palin pictures". Try it. A.J.A. (talk) 07:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

thumb|left|Sarah Palin and family.

The image above is almost certainly a copyvio at the Flickr source. I've nominated it for deletion at Commons. Kelly ^hi! 07:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The images downloaded from Don Young's website are not Public Domain images. The webmaster was asked about them and his response indicates that they are not PD. Wikipedia editors need to take copyright issues seriously.--Appraiser (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Process takes time, it will be deleted in due time. BJ^Talk 15:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually the article needs a couple more photos to be half-decent. Hobartimus (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Fabulous, at least I know what is happening. Sorry Kelly for the accusation, although we did feud a few days ago over the photos which is what I was referring to. After reading posts about how difficult it is to manage the text itself, I can see where the photos are just as chaotic. I'm not going to be worried about this until we have the text under control. .:davumaya:. 17:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all here

It's been a really crazy weekend with this article, but I think it's shaping up really nicely - neutral, concise, and well-sourced. The images for the article still need some work but I'm sure more free photos will turn up as she makes more campaign appearances. I think everyone who participated here deserves a pat on the back. Kelly ^hi! 08:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I also wanted to extend my thanks to you and everyone else who worked so hard this article during the weekend, Kelly. Like a good part of the world, I followed the developing Palin article closely to learn more about this surprising VP nominee. The performance of this entire team clearly illustrates that which makes WP one of the Internet's most valuable resources. Fcreid (talk) 10:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

1988 - 1992?

The article at current seems to have only two sentences dealing with her life between when she got married and when she ran for City Council. (And that's counting the sentence implying she must have had 3 children during that period.) Was she working? Was she a homemaker? Either way that's fine by me, but I'd like it to be clearer about it one way or another. Has anyone encountered material discussing her pre-city council days? Dragons flight (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• New mom, forget about it. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Pledge of Allegience

In 2006, Sarah Palin commented that the Pledge of Allegience was created by the Founding Fathers [14] (in fact it was created a century later.) Do you think that this is worth listing on her article, or if it isn't newsworthy enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seleucus (talk • contribs) 13:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I vote no. Trivial. 216.106.170.103 (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Trivial indeed. If we put every mistake a candidate ever made in public on their article pages, they'd be too big to load. --Coemgenus 13:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This is very minor as far as gaffes by politicians go, and it's not even funny. (I seem to recall something about a "potatoe".) It might be relevant if she was applying for a job as a history teacher, but she isn't. Pingku (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Just an aside, but the "Potatoe" incident is included on the Dan Quayle page, not that I am advocating that this be included unless it becomes a major talking point in the MSM. Zredsox (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

She might possibly become the next vice president and doesn't even understand the origins of the Pledge of allegiance? Definately notable. We need to either:

1. Create a trivia section for all the gaffes she's made 2. Include it in her personal sectionLakerking04 (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No, don't think so - we don't include every mistake or misstatement that a political candidate makes. If we did, Barack Obama or George W. Bush would be ten times the length they are now. Kelly ^hi! 17:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Kopp being appointed to replace Monegan

I think these detail is too trivial to include in the summary and is being included only because it potentially embarrasses Palin. I sight as evidence that it is: 1) not related to why the matter is important; 2) It is covered in one short paragragh in the main article; 3) Kopp's name is not mentioned in the vast majority of the MSM articles covering the story. (All of which are longer than our summary); Other opinions? --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that the detail you are speaking of is included to show a chain of events, not a POV. Zredsox (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Good use of evidence. My personal bias is anti-Palin, but I think your point 3 decides the issue.216.106.170.103 (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Suppose there had never been a Troopergate re Monegan -- he uneventfully retired for health reasons, for example. The Governor appointed a new Public Safety Commissioner who, after two weeks, resigned under circumstances like these (i.e., criticism based on prior events that were available on any minimal background check, $10k severance payment). Would such an event be notable in reporting on the administration of a governor? Of course it would be. Your point 3 arises only because the circumstances of Monegan's departure were even more notable, so naturally there were some stories written about Monegan that didn't mention Kopp. There was lots of stuff about Palin's administration that wasn't in those MSM stories, because they were focused on the issue of Palin's dismissal of Monegan. The bigger story (about Monegan) creates a subsection in our article that's the most obvious place for reporting on Kopp, but if there were no Monegan story, we'd still have to find a home for a short (two sentences) description of the high-profile resignation of a cabinet member. JamesMLane t c 19:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Moose

Why all the mentions of moose? Is this some subliminal PETA strategy? I think mention of moose burgers in personal life is undue weight. In fact, we should review this article using the same standards that obstructionist editors on the various Obama pages have used to keep cited material out, spinning out separate articles for everything from personal life to political positions. Enough to say she is pro life here, and the rest can go in a sub-article, just like the Obama ones do.Die4Dixie (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is a good policy to "seek revenge" in the stylings of a given article because of what was said in another. That being said, I think Sarah Palin is very proud of living in Alaska and Moose are a big part of the identity of where she is Governor. I get the impression that if she was reading this right now she would probably be least concerned with that reference.Zredsox (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Should I just give up on this article?

People keep pulling big chunks of information out of this article -- and especially after today's article in the New York Times, we know people will come here to find out as much as they can.

However, I don't want to get into trouble, since I'm not a "regular." Should I just give up and let more important Wikipedia editors edit this and just leave it alone?

Thanks, BTR, 14:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding well-sourced information, in an NPOV way, is fine. But it's not a good idea to source information to the Daily Kos, Home of the Wacky Conspiracy Theory. Kelly ^hi! 14:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

...or the National Review, Redstate.com, Fox News, The Onion et al which are all home to some great laughs but don't make for good references in an encyclopedic article.Zredsox (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This is I believe the most widely read and frequently edited part of Wikipedia at the moment. Even completely neutral and harmless edits can get reverted in the fray (I've twice linked Point guard and Anchorage because someone presumed that everyone who read the article would know what they mean in this context). But there are also various rumours on the Internet and people trying to use Wikipedia to make them mainstream, and various editors reverting anything that isn't properly sourced in accordance with WP:BLP, so don't give up, but be sure you stick to the policy and use reliable sources. ϢereSpielChequers 14:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to lump Fox News in with that list, Zredsox, you might as well include CNN and MSNBC as well. —Travis^talk 15:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not so much, but this is not the place for that conversation.Zredsox (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I logged on to edit the Palin article, just out of curiosity - to see if I (a totally ignorant, who has nothing to contribute) could do so. It said that the article is now "semi-protected". I did not make any edits; just signed the summary "Just curious". I think the article should be VERY well protected, from now on.Fvlcrvm (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the online encyclopedia that anybody can edit. I'm surprised that you expected to find something different. Movingboxes (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi -- it's BTR again -- I appreciate all the quick feedback. The thing is, the AIP has the YouTube video of Palin addressing their 2008 convention on their website, so it seemed to me that this was a reasonable source in this case (meaning that it's not just soem random person's blog with a homemade video). Does that make it more reasonable?

Thanks Again, BTR(talk), 16:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think her association with a group that advocates for Alaska's secession from the United States is a notable point indeed. However, there has been no primary reporting from a reliable source as of yet that would allow for inclusion into the article.Zredsox (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And now we have people scrubbing the discussion page. You may be on to something,BTR.Professor Backwards (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"succession from the United States" I assume you mean cessation. Somehow I don't think people can control everything that everyone they "associate" with advocates. Not notable.Fvlcrvm (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you mean "secession" -- "cessation" would be to end the U.S., "secession" would be to leave it. The fact that the vice chair of the party stated publicly that she was a member, and that a prominent member of the AIP (and former governor) campaigned for her gubernatorial campaign, in her own commercials is notable. — Mustang_DVS (talk | contribs) 17:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Updated, thanks. BTW: She was a member which is more then "associating" and when a reliable source picks up the story I am sure it will find a valid home in this biography. Zredsox (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't video of the party's vice-chair stating, in public, that she was a member and part of a campaign intended to infiltrate a major political party be a primary source? — Mustang_DVS (talk | contribs) 17:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew succession was the wrong word, went to Word Thesaurus to find the right word but you're right. I still think the interpretation of the facts is problematic. Fvlcrvm (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Reality has a well-known liberal bias, eh? — Mustang_DVS (talk | contribs) 20:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Political Positions on Advanced Medical Technology & Healthcare

9/1/08 - It would be helpful if someone could please post Governor Palin's positions on Biotechnologies, Stem Cell Research and other scientific developments in Genomics.

Also, being that Alaska borders Canada, what is Palin's record supporting or opposing the importation of pharmaceutials into her State? 76.206.233.205 (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Potential confirmation on pregnancy of oldest daughter

FYI, see http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/palin-confirms-daughters-pregnancy-915378.html Orchew (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Position on listing polar bear as Endangered Species misconstrued

Upon reading the Anchorage Daily article it appears that Palin has a "fear" that listing the polar bear on the list "will cripple oil and gas development." However, her argument for removing the polar bear from the list says that "there is not enough evidence to support a listing" citing evidence that the "population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation." Hence the article should be changed to reflect that her opposition originates from evidence detailing the polar bear population and not from "interference with oil and gas extraction" (as the article currently reads).

Uhhh, what you're saying makes no sense. You give a cite for what you want removed, but nothing for what you want it changed to. And please sign using four tildes. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 16:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

She may hold both positions. She can want to prevent the impact on oil and gas operations, which may be her primary reason to challenge the listing, but also recognize that the only way to prevent a listing is challenge the logic of the listing itself and not the consequences. Dragons flight (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That may be true. However according to the cited article, the only reasons she gives to oppose the listing of the polar bear is her belief that "their is not enough evidence" and then cites evidence that the "population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation." Lenschulwitz (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a bit of a logic problem going on in her thought process, I think. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits to family

I've tried to do a little cleanup of the Family section. Also removed "disputed" from trig on the list of children. I'll note that I'm absolutely convinced by all the rumors, but until something is set out a little more reliably, the article needs to stay NPOV and objective as possible. --nemonoman (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

See above. The rumor of Trig being Sarah Palin's daughter child is refuted by the daughter being five months pregnant. WP:BLP is the policy for biographies of living persons, and no unsubstantiated rumor like that may appear in the article. It may also be removed from talk pages. Edison2 (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't actually refute it - the same sort of paranoid person who spread the original rumour could claim that she's really only four months pregnant, and got that way shortly after giving birth. And the photo of "pregnant Bristol" that was bandied about by the rumour-mongers, but which was from 2006, doesn't refute anything either, because perhaps she's had three pregnancies! There's no end to this sort of thing. -- Zsero (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

We do not allow rumors to appear, per the policy WP:BLP. If the mainstream press or TV news channels start discussing a rumor, and reporters ask the candidate about it and get a response, only then could it start to wedge itself in. Edison2 (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I see enough explicit discussion of the rumor as the reason for the announcement in the mainstream press that the WP:BLP requirements appear to be satisfied. Edison2 (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Which I think might render it not a rumour, yes? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

From the point of view of reliable sources so far, the Bristol pregnancy has put the Trig rumors to bed. No source I've seen has claimed that both babies are Bristol's or anything else of the sort. There's no reason to say "disputed" or anything of the sort. Oren0 (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

her parents' names

FYI: I have read in several places that her mom's name is Sally, not Sarah...and her dad goes by "Chuck". Please verify and update. Thanks. Mrskeith (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sally is short for Sarah. -- Zsero (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Last line/paragraph in 'Daughter's Pregnancy' redundant.

Please view and access. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.87.199 (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

How can I add this cited detail?

While I don't dispute that YouTube videos are not great for citations, this video is not just someone's hacked together home project. It's a video from the AIP convention, where the Vice Chairman states that Palin is a former member of this secessionist party. I'd rather not include an uncited reference, so suggest an alternative that won't get deleted? (referring to this) --Kickstart70-T-C 17:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That's all very well, but how is the VP of a fringe group a reliable source for the underlying allegation? And if you're only citing it for the fact that the allegation was made, how is it notable? All sorts of people will be making all sorts of claims about Palin, but without evidence it's just claims. Pat Buchanan has been claiming that Palin was involved in his presidential run, which is almost certainly untrue. -- 17:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Youtube videos are tough because the uploads aren't editorially moderated, which means audio and other aspects can be altered, making the videos unreliable. If someone has publicly said Palin is a former member of a secessionist party, there should be a reliable source elsewhere to support it. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I'd look for another citation from a reliable media source. If it's true that she was a member of that party, I'm sure someone will publish it fairly soon, given all the media attention on her and her career. Kelly ^hi! 17:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is relevant, but it will get reported SOMEWHERE in the coming days. For now, the problem is not just YouTube; it is the fact that the vice chairman himself is not a WP:RS on this matter. Without media reporting on the matter, there is no way that is not WP:OR to decide if he's as wacky as LaRouche or as credible as... whoever you count as credible. 216.106.170.103 (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia: Reliable source examples#Are IRC, MySpace, and YouTube reliable sources?. Oren0 (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

3 women currently running for VP in 2008

Palin is one of three women running for the office of VP. This is also the 77th time a woman has run for that office. Question - Is Palin is set to be the third woman in history to recieve electoral votes? --98.243.129.181 (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What sort of question is that? Unless you're suggesting that Obama will sweep all 50 states plus DC, and that none of his electors will defect, of course Palin will receive electoral votes. The only question is how many, and will she be the first to win. -- Zsero (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If elected she will be the first female Vice President in history ,correct? Hobartimus (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but whether elected or not she will be the third woman to receive votes in the electoral college. But that's too trivial to mention in the article. -- Zsero (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

From earlier comments, the IP is trying to get in a mention of the 1972 Libertarian Party VP candidate, who got 1 electoral vote because of a faithless elector even though the ticket got less than 3,000 popular votes nationwide that year. There's no reason to mention that sort of trivia in this article. —KCinDC (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a faithless elector's single vote for a little noted candidate is not sufficient to claim that Palin is the third rather than second woman to run as Vice President on a major party's ticket. Trivial, misleading, and undue weight. Edison2 (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Newspaper editoral should be removed

The Alaskan newspaper editorial comments should be removed from the "2008 vice-presidential campaign" section. Editorials are simply opinions of the writer. Theosis4u (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Editorial comments have a place in articles about politicians in the sections relating to reactions and opinions. They may be opinions, but they have behind them the editorial board of a newspaper, so they are far more encyclopedic than a similar opinion held by, say, a mere Wikipedia editor. Edison2 (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. This is a biography of a living person, not an article about the 2008 Presidential race. Besides that, if we start letting folks add editorial opinion, where will it end? There are always contrary opinions, it could go on forever.--Paul (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think it will end with the earth imploding from furious edit wars. No biggie. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this paragraph "Two major Alaska newspapers have questioned Palin’s competency..." is included. These are op-ed pieces and have no place in a biography. If so, you open the door for any counter-balancing opinions from other "major" newspapers and, thus, the biography becomes a debate by proxy. No place in here IMO. Fcreid (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Alaska Budget in comparison to other states - Larger than 10 other states

• http://washingtonpolicyblog.typepad.com/washington_policy_center_/2008/08/state-budget-in.html

In might be note worthy to reflect the state budget of Alaska in comparison to other states. If this was included in State wiki's, then it wouldn't be noteworthy in Palin's section. But until then, I think it is. The above url is what I've found so far - anyone know of a better source? Should be references in Governor > Budget section. Theosis4u (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Author speculation

"in a response to unsubstantiated internet rumors that Trig Palin was actually Bristol's son" This phrase indicates that the author believes he knows that Sarah had an alternative motive. How can an author know motives of Mrs.Palin and how can that be NPOV of us to repeat it? --98.243.129.181 (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The press release stated as as much. This has been discussed extensively above. I could rephrase to "partially in response too" if desired, but that seems awkward to me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Here's a list of thousands of Wikipedia articles with Controversies sections.[15] Is there a policy against Controversies sections? They're quite useful. 72.244.207.149 (talk) 07:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Biased writing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biased Editing of So-Called Biased Article

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

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

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

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

NOTE TO NEW EDITORS: This section is not regarding the 9/1/08 fact of Bristol Palin's pregnancy, but an (earlier) unfounded internet rumor Proofreader77 (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
For those wanting to add anything about Sarah Palin being pregnant, unless you can provide reliable, verifiable sources via WP:RS, they will be deleted per WP:BLP. --kizzle (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The Times Online mentioned it but also called it "totally unfounded".[16] So unless they want to write that she's the victim of a totally unfounded rumor spread by them (which she is), they're still out of luck. A.J.A. (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Firstly, her daughter is not a public figure. Her daughter is also a minor. Due to these two aspects we should respect her privacy, and edit with conservatism in mind. Unless this becomes a major news story we shouldn't mention it. Sleeping frog (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

For now, I won't add anything, but the Daily Kos article compiled on the subject gives plenty of solid evidence worth looking into, and I'm sure someone in the MSM will pick up on this soon enough.--MegaKN (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Please stop removing this section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Badly Cited Biography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is the name of the book he cited. [17] --Coemgenus 21:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Also here: [18] --Coemgenus 21:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Father of Bristol's Baby - Levi Johnston

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

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

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

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

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

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

Precise Birthdays for the Kiddies Children.

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

Todd Palin: Abt. 1965. Dillingham, Alaska.

Todd and Sarah eloped on August 29, 1988,

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

Above copy pasted from about.com

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

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

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

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

That article reports the birth date of his son Leo, who was born to a nationally known political leader and reported in newspapers around the world: The Observer printed the exact time and date of birth [19]. So did the Boston Globe [20] , the Washington Post [21] , and the Chicago Sun Times [22] among others. You can't really unring a bell, and that child's birth date will be always easily retreivable whether Wikipedia prints it or not. Edison2 (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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