Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

The First Post and The National Enquirer on Palin

They are both established news sources so their articles on Palin can be cited. Here is the one from The First Post.--Sum (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "established". The National Enquirer is not a reliable source as Wikipedia defines the term, and it's certainly not a suitable source for use in a biographical article. Somewhat more reputable sources, like the Post, which are skeptically rehashing Enquirer stories are no more suitable. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. MastCell ^Talk 23:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The Corriere della Sera, the newspaper that sells the most in Italy, covers the news along with other details on Palin's familiar life: [1]. --Sum (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't read Italian, but I can read that this is a reprint of the Enquirer story. As Mast noted, this is not a tabloid. Arzel (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"Established" does not equal reliable and encyclopedic. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The Enquirer may not be a RS, but if cited in other sources and if notable for that reason, the other sources can be used. For example "Newsweek and other media outlets described The Enquirer's blah blah bah, which was rebutted strongly by blah blah blah and threatened with a lawsuit for libel." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we put possibly libelous material in a BLP??--Paul (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

A story like this would have to pass a pretty high threshold before it could get into this article:

1. It must be reported by multiple, independent reliable sources.
2. It must be germane to the article in some tangible way (a mere allegation of an affair, even if widely reported, would still not be relevant enough to Palin's bio to outweigh the due care we must show to the subject of a BLP)
3. It must impact, or be perceived to impact her career in a lasting way (in this case, I hardly think there would be much interest in repeating these rumors were Palin not the VP candidate)

So far, none of these criteria are even close to being met. Ronnotel (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

@Paul h. Absolutely not, that was not my point. Read again. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi's comment is in congruence with WP:BLP's discussion of when Wikipedia should include media discussion of a rumor of a politician having an affair. Some seek to set too high a bar. like forensic examination of the bedsheets, rather than a rumor spreading from the blogosphere to reliable sources as WP:BLP demands. I personally like to see a reporter ask the politician about it and they deny it. A politician having an affair is, in the post-Clinton era, quite germane to an article about the politician. Edison (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say it is less germane since Bill Clinton. He has made it a non-issue. Much different climate now then when say Gary Hart was caught with his pants down, so to speak. Not sure if your analogy is a good one here, as IMO if the situation is analogous to an affair of a politician, it's a non-issue.Die4Dixie (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Pardon my extreme skepticism. Arjuna (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say to create the Sarah Palin personal life article, espanding from the current section, and quote there what just the reliable sources report, carefully attributing everything.--Sum (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That would likely be a content fork. The Enquirer is a rag, and just because they accidentally get something right once in awhile doesn't qualify them as a reliable source. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

How reliable is the National Enquirer?--Rosebud999 (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

32 years as a Pentecostal

It is sourced; it is factually accurate; it is notable. Please do not delete factual, notable and well sourced information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No need to be uncivil. It may be factual, but that does not mean that it needs to be in the article. So, how is the number of years (versus the currently stated history, that includes the years) necessary to the clarity of that section? Atom (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, on this. John McCain's article also mentions his own conversion to Baptism, so this seems not a big deal to include. rootology (C)(T) 16:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jossi, sorry but I reverted before posting in here. The dates given in the article makes it appear that she was there for closer to 34 years? Can you please post a link to the citation that says she attended that church for 32 years. I read the citations in the article but didn't see that fact, maybe I missed it. Thank you, --Tom 16:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The sources provided have the number of years and I do not see why is being kept deleted. It is factual, and it is undisputed, so what's the deal? Why should the length in years a person worshiped in a church be "uncivil"? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems that people keep deleting or shifting the sources around. I have changed as per Newsweek reporting, page 15 issue Sept 15, 2008: "Palin was raised a devout Christian, attending an Assembly of God church from the age of 4 until the age of 38." Hope that settles this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jossi. --Tom 19:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

She's still in the "assembly of God", otherwise known as the Republican Party, a.k.a "God's Own Party". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Also - speaking in tongues - makes her different from other politicians how? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

She is a member of a Pentecostal church. That is a point of pride. Include it--Rosebud999 (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference in Time Magazine

I noticed on top of this talk page about this article being referenced in various media outlets. One that you might add is Nathan Thornburgh, "Call Of the Wild: Plucked from obscurity by John McCain, Sarah Palin has scrambled the presidential race," TIME 172.11 (September 15, 2008): 27, which states: "Everyone can agree that Palin is no beltway creature, but in less than a week, the country has uncovered at least half a dozen new Palin personas that are competing to share top billing on her Wikipedia entry." --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 04:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh - actually Rudy Giuliani mentioned Wikipedia in an interview about Palin tonight, though I think he was talking about the Bush Doctrine article. Kelly ^hi! 05:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have noted that on the talk page of "Bush Doctrine" as it was discussed on Countdown with Keith Olbermann on Friday night. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 04:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of factually accurate material

This is the third day that I see factually accurate material [2]that is well sourced being deleted from this article. Please discuss such deletions and provide a substantive rationale for these deletions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jossi, factually accurate material that is well sourced does not mean that material has to be included in any article. The rationale should be why this material should be included, my opinion of course :). I actually liked how Palin's religious beliefs read before you reverted, but I am a minimal/deletionist so go figure. I won't revert this since I have reverted other parts of the article. Thank you, --Tom 15:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be included because (a) it is factually accurate; (b) it is notable; (c) it describes facts that are published in reliable sources. Let's avoid using this article to promote a specific political viewpoint: the facts speaks for themselves and let the readers make their own opinions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Not every fact that is factually accurate and backed up by sources needs to be included in this article. The basics belong in this article; everything else belongs in the subarticles. Otherwise we end up with an incomprehensible article. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What will make the article incomprehensible? Stating that Palin was a Pentecostal for 38 years is most certainly a notable aspect (if not the notable aspect) of her religious formation/convictions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tom and Julian above. Kelly ^hi! 16:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry to jump in here. There are many things about her that are doubtless irrelevant. But biographies should be tied to what people will find relevant about a person. Why include so much about music in Bach's biography? Because most people who are interested in Bach are so because of music. Since Palin is a candidate for vice president, since so much of her party's support comes from religious people, and since she was an appropriate running mate for McCain precisely because they are working to establish a regime based on faith, it seems to me that her religious background is one of the most relevant possible pieces of information to most readers. Isn't it? --fugue137

(outdent) Jossi, I really hope the comment about promoting a specific political viewpoint wasn't directed at me, since I to don't want that to happen either. My point was that the religious material had seemed to be getting out of hand as far as how specific it was reading and appeared muddled, while the reverted version was pretty consise and presented the material accurately. Again, this perticular section and material doesn't really rub me the wrong way either way. --Tom 16:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Another problem with that section is "Although initial press reports described her as Pentecostal..." ... if the press reports were mistaken, why include that line? Kelly ^hi! 16:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The article should say what she was and is, not what some news reports mistakenly thought she was or is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, --Tom 17:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be a useful change. But deletion of the other material is not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The National Catholic Reporter describes her as a "post-denominational" Christian. Is this incorrect? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see this previous section of this talk page, where it was discussed that the journal of one religion is not an adequate source regarding the religious views of a person of another religion.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with jossi here, at least as far as saying that she attended the Wasilla Assembly of God for a significant amount of time, shall we say "for over 30 years" since there seems to be some uncertainty. I also think the information that she and her children were baptised at this church is a significant life event. The fact that she declared herself to be "saved" here is even more relevant. I'm sure it will be a deciding factor for many Americans of who they will vote for in this election. I don't see why it was removed by User:Atomaton here. I will be restoring that information.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and beat you to it.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You did. Do we have a solid cite on how many years she attended the church?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed one of the two footnotes for that section. Does that solve the problem?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how her baptism, her childrens baptism, and where they were baptized, has any relevance to the article or section. Of course if she is a Christian, then she was saved. The part about baptism and being saved is non-notable. The section mentions her religious background in detail already. Also, who cares if she was a member of a pentocastal church for more than 30 years? She was a Catholic, and then a Pentocostal, and now she is non-denomonational. Does someone have some vested interest in indicating that she was Pentocostal for longer than she was Catholic, or non-denominational. Is that somehow notable in some way that I am missing? Atom (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You may not see that as important, but others disagree with you. Why are you deleting material without discussion, Atomaton?[3] Where is the compromise, and how this is "unimportant text" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It takes consensus for it to be in the article, removing what people don't have consensus for is not "deleting material without discussion". I respect that you don't agree. That's why we are trying to reach consensus. Atom (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

who cares if she was a member of a pentocastal[sic] church for more than 30 years - Our readers, Atom, our readers. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What I said was who cares that it was for 30 years. She isn't pentacostal now. I didn't say that we should not put what religion, or what sect, or even what church she has gone to -- I just pointed out that trying to dilineate that she was a Catholic for four years, a Pentcaostal for 34 years, and non-denominational for three years is not really relevant to this section -- more detail than needed -- nit picking -- may POV pushing. It smacks of someone trying to spin the view that she is basically Pentecostal in philosophy and not really one of those Catholics. Do we have quotes of her saying "I'm proud that I was Pentacostal for 34 years!" No. Why should we try to say something that she is not interested in saying. What is the hidden agendum here? Atom (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems our "readers" don't care about Black_liberation_theology or Liberation_theology though in relationship to bio's on politicians and how long they've been associated with it? Theosis4u (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what you refer to, as this is a biography of a person that has no black liberation theology past. It is a fact that the person was a Pentecostal for 30 years, and that is indeed notable. Also, is there any thing wrong in being a Pentecostal? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Or a Catholic????--Buster7 (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Disingenuous and invalidates assumption of good faith [your edit history shows as much]. The other referenced "theology" is also "Pentecostal" in it's belief - the "other" bio is free of the confession of "bein born again" and the implied references to the belief of "speaking in tongues" because of their church being "Pentecostal". Theosis4u (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

[refuse to engage in discussions not related to the edit in question] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

BTW, the current version "Palin was born into a Catholic family.[171] When she was 4 years old, her family joined the Wasilla Assembly of God, affiliated with the fundamentalist Pentecostal movement; Palin attended the Wasilla Assembly of God until age 38. When in Juneau, she attends the Juneau Christian Center.[172] Her current home church is the Wasilla Bible Church, an independent congregation.[173]Palin described herself in an interview as a "Bible-believing" Christian.[171]" IUs something I could live with, it is a good edit, whoever did it. Atom (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

affiliated with the fundamentalist Pentecostal movement is factually incorrect. I have corrected and provided source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Baptisms and "Getting Saved"

So Atom removed the reference to baptisms and being saved again, twice, here and here. I'm sort of amazed at this since Palin identifies so strongly as a Christian, It seems to me it should be helpful information to determining what kind of Christian she is, but maybe that's just me. First, I suggest getting a consensus on whether the following events that took place at Wasilla Assembly of God should be included in this article:(1) Palin's baptism, (2) Palin's children being baptised (3) Palin being saved.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

1. I am in favor of (1), (2) and (3) being included for the above reason stated, and also because Palin recently on June 8, 2008 appeared to make a political point out of it when she gave a speech at the church in her capacity as governor. See video here and feel free to ignore opinion article.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No need, the discussion has moved beyond that, see the rest of the talk page below. I won't detail it all over again, but in a nutshell, the personal section is not the place for her religious background, beliefs and such. It is intended for high-level, low detail background about her marriage, hobbies, religion and church, etc -- not details on any of those. There is a need for that information, and there is a new section specifically for discussing her religious history, background, opinions expressed and such. (See Sarah_Palin#Religious_perspective Her baptism and the baptism of her children are religious issues, not general (low detail) information about her background, as intended by the personal section. The new section, currently "Religious perspective" (although talk of renaming it, perhaps to "Religion" is the place for that kind of detailed information. Please see extensive discussionms below (Talk:Sarah_Palin#Palin_and_Religion for details. It was not my intent to try to block mentioning details of her religious experience, but to say that the 'personal section is not the right place for that. Atom (talk) 06:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

So I take it you are also in favor of including the information in the article (whether it's in the personal history section or the religious views section doesn't matter to me). Since you've been the one repeatedly removing the information Atom, perhaps you wouldn't mind replacing it and moving it to whichever section you see fit.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 06:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I already have actually. I am sure that it needs much polishing. Please feel free to do that. Atom (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Undue Weight

Sarah Palin is one of the most popular governors in Alaskan or U.S. history having a popularity rating of over 90% in her first year, and 80% for the majority of her second year. She campaigned on fiscal responsibility, ethics reform, getting a getting a pipeline deal passed, and reforming the taxes paid by big oil companies. She got the ethics bill passed with a big bi-partisan majority. She dumped the state jet airplane and vetoed over $750M from the budget. She got a new pipeline negotiated and approved. And, she reformed the tax system for big oil.

However, the Governor section in our article spends about 600 words on her promises and actual performance as a governor, and almost 800 words on things like Troopergate, the Bridge to Nowhere, and how much she charges on her expense account. This is not a well-balanced article.--Paul (talk) 02:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

So why don't you propose what you have in mind regarding your concerns in specifics (here on the talk page) so we can make changes to this issue(s) w/consensus? Just an advise: Be careful about things like "She got a new pipeline negotiated and approved", since it might backfire and making it less appealing to you than you intended. Check on sources first ;). --Floridianed (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Consider the fact that she is popular in Alaska does not mean her positions will be popular outside of Alaska.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well stated. There is no WP:UNDUE issue here -- she doesn't "belong" just to Alaska anymore. (Alas! some might say.) Arjuna (talk) 03:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There certainly is a problem of undue weight here.

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.

The emphasis on opposition talking points over substantial narrative is obvious. If you can count words, or measure column inches it jumps out. If other political articles were written like this one, the majority of John F. Kennedy's article would speculate on his affairs; the majority of Ronald Reagan's article would be devoted to Irangate, and most of Dwight Eisenhower's article would consist of comments on his garbled syntax at press conferences and speculation whether or not he had an affair with his army chauffeur. Saying she doesn't "belong" just to Alaska anymore does not justify completely reversing what the wikipedia policy of undue weight means.--Paul (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, one way to measure "weight" is to count the words. Another way, a better way, is to read the words. Do the words make sentences that are ref by credible sources? Do the sentences make ref. to significate, notable, important point? This is not a baseball game, with each side getting 9 at bats. If you have objections to the content, state them. If you have your own content, add it. 98.234.65.214 (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of sourced info

This was removed, and I restored it: "The London Times has called attention to her pastor's apocalyptic religious perspective, and cited a recent sermon attended by Palin in which the Jews for Jesus head "suggested that terrorism in Israel was God’s judgment against the Jews for failing to accept Christ as the Messiah;" the McCain campaign responded that Palin “would not have been sitting in the pews of the church if those remarks were remotely typical”, although Palin's pastor has already invited Jews for Jesus' founder to return. In October of 2007, she signed the "Christian Heritage Week" Proclamation which exalts the role that Christianity has played shaping the United States heritage. After the RNC, the McCain campaign told CNN that Palin "doesn't consider herself Pentecostal," raising questions in the media about the reasons for downplaying her faith." Insertion of new sourced info does not have to be run by everyone - deletion of sourced facts does. If you do not like the way things are phrased, or feel it is unbalanced, feel free to edit in additional countering info or to tone down language, so long as you do not delete relevant facts that cite sources such as the Times, one of the most reputable papers on earth. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

That's very good that you've come to the talk page to discuss your proposal to insert additional material. Wikipedia works by consensus, and it is especially important in a biography of a living person to not insert stuff that is unsupported by consensus. Edit-warring is not helpful.

I find that your proposed material advances a particular point of view, which is contrary to Wikipedia neutrality principles. You know very well that the London Times did not call "attention to her pastor's apocalyptic religious perspective", don't you? You must realize that the person in question has not been her pastor for many years, right? And you must know that sometimes people go to church not knowing exactly what they are going to hear, and that her spokesperson has said that she “would not have been sitting in the pews of the church if those remarks were remotely typical”. Why have you tried to paint such a slanted picture?

The edit includes the McCain campaign response, don't know if you noticed.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Times article is headed: "Sarah Palin, the pastor and the prophecy: judgment day is not far away" I would say that draws attention to an apocalyptic perspective.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

LamaLoLeshLa, can you please tell me the last name of her current pastor? Is it Kalnins (the subject of the article you cite) or Kroons?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You say that she signed a document "which exalts the role [of] Christianity" but why do you choose such a description? The cited source used the word "reminds" instead of "exalts". I must say that I do not agree with your proposed material for this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't write "exalts." Someone else edited it that way. Actually, I wrote that the organization "Argues that the United States should be recognized as a Christian nation" since when you google "America's Christian Heritage Week", that's what the subheading to www.achw.org says.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

yes, you did.[4]Ferrylodge (talk) 04:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You have officially stepped into accusation territory. I was copy-pasting something someone else wrote.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Ah, I see that you have now created an entire subsection titled "Palin and Religion", within the "Political positions" section. You really should try to build consensus here at the talk page. This will save you the trouble of being reverted.

Creating such a subsection is unacceptable, because it implies that the apocalyptic views of her long-ago pastor are identical with her own present political views. But you know that, right? You're just spinning your wheels trying to make this into an anti-Palin screed. Please, please, save us all some time and trouble, and read WP:NPOV. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

LamaLoLeshla, would you please kindly stop posting comments in the middle of my comments? It makes it very difficult for other people to understand who said what. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, on other pages, that is quite common. But if you would prefer I not respond point for point, I will cordially comply:) As far as the creation of a new subsection, this was actually suggested by an editor below, and I agreed with his/her rationale that the info does not as much belong in the personal section as elsewhere. As far as POV-pushing - we are talking about a potential national leader, and every bit of information dealing with such fundamental matters as separation of church and state is highly relevant. Also, as a Jew, I think I do represent a major portion of the non-Christian American citizenry/readership of wikipedia who are very interested in knowing about her approach to religious questions. As far as wheel-spinning - nope, more like changing a tire. Finally, your point about her previous versus present pastor is well-taken, I made the necessary edits. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, as one Jew to another, I urge you to respect the religious freedom of others, and not try to imply that other people's religious views make them unacceptable as political leaders. The same intolerance that you show toward other religions may some day be shown to you. Thanks. Even if those are your views, you ought not try to jam them into a Wikipedia article. Incidentally, I still hope you will tell me the last name of her current pastor. Is it Kalnins (the subject of the article you cite) or Kroons?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no issue with Palin as a born-again Christian. Some of my best friends are born-again Christians (not kidding). I think it is vital that no politician mix religion with politics, and this is what she has been doing. The information I have added has dealt explicitly with Palin's politics-religion mish-mashing, not judged her as a believer. I know these issues get very emotional at times, but please avoid making character judgments, such as that I am showing "intolerance to other religions." This is a personal comment, and no one here should have to contest such accusations, I am sure you are aware. Thanks.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I did suggest a new section. I think the section he has created isa good idea as it can be a landing place for religious perspective, views, criticism, rather than other unrelated sections. Now, the content of the new section is the more difficult part. NPOV does not mean that the section should be neutral, but that is must be balanced with the spectrum of views. Also, the text still needs to be cited from reliable sources. There will probably be some controversy until editors work out what kinds of things are well within BLP. Atom (talk) 04:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I very much disagree with devoting a special section to her religious views, and certainly not a subsection like that in the political positions section. Is there any other biography of a politician on Wikipedia that gives such weight to personal religious views?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure how notable the views of her controversial pastor are. I think that the text should remain focused on citations where Palin has expressed her viewpoints. Even saying that she was "heavily influenced" during her 28 years at the church by pastor (name), whose viewpoints and preaching has been controversial, might not be appropriate unless she can be quoted as having said that this person "heavily influenced" her views, etc. Atom (talk) 04:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I took a look, and I think this has to go: "The London Times has called attention to her former pastor's apocalyptic religious perspective, and cited a recent sermon attended by Palin in which the Jews for Jesus head "suggested that terrorism in Israel was God’s judgment against the Jews for failing to accept Christ as the Messiah;" the McCain campaign responded that Palin “would not have been sitting in the pews of the church if those remarks were remotely typical”, although Palin's current pastor has already invited Jews for Jesus' founder to return." As it discusses the controversy of her former pastor, and nothing about her personal viewpoints. Atom (talk) 04:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The whole subsection is bogus. It starts from the premise that her religious views are fair game in the political arena, because "Questions have been raised in the media regarding Palin's views on the separation of church and state, given ... her comments that soldiers in the Iraq war are 'out on a task that is from God.'" But she did not say that. What she actually said was: "Pray our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country — that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God...." What the heck is wrong with that? And how does that justify turning her personal religious views into a target for a Wikipedia attack?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Update the quote so that it is accurate then. Discussing viewpoints she has expressed, and opinions or statements she has made (if cited from reliable sources) is fair game. Citations to where people criticize her, or ponder what her viewpoint and beliefs may be is not fair game. Atom (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

So, you're saying it's fine to have a huge part of the Political Positions section detail her religious views? This does not belong in that section, much less in the article as a whole. I am moving it out of that section. We could write 10,000 accurate words about her religious beliefs, but that does not mean they would belong in this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a section on her religious views is appropriate, I'm not an advocate of it being in the secton on her political views. Atom (talk) 05:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I quoted the Christian Heritage week exactly, rather than paraphrasing using exalted. Atom (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I think "After the RNC, the McCain campaign told CNN that Palin "doesn't consider herself Pentecostal," raising questions in the media about the reasons for downplaying her faith" should be in the Mcain article. I don't see anything in the article that quoted Palin, or her position. Atom (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as what the Mccain campaign says of her - I am sure that they run their statements by her. They are her spokespeople. Thus that info is highly relevant here.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, to clarify, the section does not deal with her religious views. It deals with her religious-political views.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as whether or not she said these things, see, the CBS interview, in which Gibson corners her and and she acts confused but does not deny that these are her verbatim words.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of added text to Personal Section -- Christian Heritage Week, Mcain says She is not Pentacostal

We should discuss this newly added text to the personal section. There has been alot of debate over two of the elemtns in that section already (Eloped, Pentacostalism detail) to get to a consensus, and now this new text is pushed into the section and disrupts the balance and consensus.

Text reads:

The London Times has called attention to her pastor's apocalyptic religious perspective, and cited a recent sermon attended by Palin in which the Jews for Jesus head "suggested that terrorism in Israel was God’s judgment against the Jews for failing to accept Christ as the Messiah." In October of 2007, she signed the "Christian Heritage Week" Proclamation which exalts the role that Christianity has played shaping the United States heritage. After the RNC, the McCain campaign told CNN that Palin "doesn't consider herself Pentecostal," raising questions in the media about the reasons for downplaying her faith.

This section, personal, has been about personal life detail of Governor Palin. The text added seems controversial to me, and some kind if effort to push a religious view into this section, not an appropriate place -- as it is not directly related to her personal information (marriage, family, church, etc). A different section called "religious views of Palin" or "religious perspective" might be more appropriate than in this section.

This new para distracts from the section, and if included should be in a different section. Just mentioning the churches she has attended should not open the door for a detailed list of her past and present religious views, accomplishments, issues, and whatever. It should remain focused on the basics of her "public" personal life. Atom (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I created a "Palin on religion" section and moved the info there. I put it under "political positions" because of the questions raised about her views on separation of church and state, although it could also stand on its own. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

For the reasons that I described above, I disagree with adding that material. Also, it gives WP:Undue weight to her personal religious views.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't thing this has anything to to do with WP:UNDUE. The religious beliefs of this person are notable and a summary of her views, presented in a neutral manner, is needed. I have restored the previous version, which believe (no pun intended) to be factually accurate and neutral. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Error discovered and fixed

Wasilla is a city, not a town. See http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=82 In contrast, Clarksville, Indiana is a town. See http://town.clarksville.in.us/ BLP requires accuracy about living people. BLP requires that editors be blocked for BLP violations. Please, let's all be accurate! 903M (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

'Town' vs. 'city'

Interesting, Clarksville has 22,000 residents, while Wasilla only has 7-9,000. Yet Wasilla is a city and Clarksville is a town?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the US census, villages in Alaska of 43 people are designated cities; the definition is merely: "Incorporated place." I think we can all agree that a locale of 6,000 is a town, not a city, and a locale of 43 is a village, not a city, by media and encyclopedia and academic standards. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry...The US census refers to Wasilla as "Wasilla city" (lower case "c" intentional). Also, to 903M, it is not civil to jump into a discussion threatening to block fellow good faith editors. ASSUME GOOD FAITH, please!--Buster7 (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Your link doesn't work. Could you fix it, please? Thanks.

If it's true we would have to work on this [5](and source it). And yes, always assume good faith! --Floridianed (talk) 04:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

God that's annoying - don't know what happened to the link but I just spent a really long time trying to find it for the third time. You should be able to download the excel chart by scrolling down to "Places in Alaska listed alphabetically". If you feel like it, go to the Montana official website and you'll see that they do distinguish between cities and towns. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That works now and indeed the "City" is in lower cases. Got to get further into that.... when I have time. --Floridianed (talk) 05:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

PS: I'm with you on that and I don't think I'll change my mind. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 05:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Heading cleanup and misc

This page needs a heading clean up. First, the main information on her life should be standardized. Put the biographical information under one second level header (called Biography, preferably), which includes education and personal life. Second, 3.1.1 Police matters, 3.1.2 Library matters, and 3.1.3 Taxes and spending do not warrant their own subheadings and should be combined into one larger section (3.1 Election and first term). "Palin and religion" does not warrant its own subheading as such. If it is political, then it should be integrated as political. If it is not, it should be separated from the section. The phrase "Questions have been raised in the media regarding Palin's views on the separation of church and state, given her support for the injection of religion into public education" is not encyclopedic. I recommend - "Reporters have questioned Palin over her views on the separation of church and state: (insert view here)".

Also, the "Johnson, Kaylene (2008), Sarah:How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down, Epicenter Press, ISBN 0979047080 ." has faulty harvnb templates related to it and should be corrected. This one (" (Johnson 2008, p. 65)") lacks a Harvnb template. Question - What is "http://www.haysresearch.com/" linking to? There is nothing on the main page to suggest this information. This link should be corrected. Did "Newsweek, commenting on Palin's "astonishing pivot,"" Did Newsweek say this, or was it really, as the final page says, "written by Jeffrey Bartholet and Breslau"? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as the 'Palin and religion' section, go ahead and make whatever edits you think would make the info more encyclopedic, so long as you retain factual information. As far as the 'police matters' and 'library matters' section - I agree that these headings are quite silly. Before, it read 'reorganization' and 'free speech matters', both much more relevant headings than 'library matters and police matters'. The censorship issue has got to be addressed here, and highlighted, yes. It is not in the same category as local Alaskan roadbuilding, or even cuts to museum funding, etc. This has to do with the Constitution. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin and Religion

The "Palin and religion" section is bluntly partisan and full of double-speak and weasel words. It must be made NPOV. TuckerResearch (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Unfortunately, there are editors who believe that material can be jammed into this biography of a living person, regardless of whether there is consensus. This edit seems particularly misguided to me. A section is entitled "Palin and Religion" despite that the entire article is about Palin, and therefore "Palin" should not be in any of the section headers. A more appropriate heading would be "religious background" as in the Mitt Romney article. And to top it off, this edit moves religion material out of this new section on "Palin and religion", and into another section. We may as well sprinkle some religious stuff in all the section of this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Now I see that we have a "Religious viewpoints" section, which is a somewhat improved title, except that the section is placed before we are informed what her religion is.[6]Ferrylodge (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the previous format/formulation, that is closer to the sources and neutral. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I see you got reverted. It seems that two editors are determined to insert a separate section on religious views, regardless of the objections of several other editors, while also including religious stuff in the "Personal life" section.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

See below, and previous discussions about this. Religious viewpoints don't go in the personal section. I ask you to work towards consensus. Just because you and Jossi did not participate in previous discussions does not mean that "two editors are determined to insert a separate section". We discussed it, as the religious stuff he wanted to add (as well as other people) don't go in the personal section. Atom (talk) 05:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

See earlier discussions working through building that new section, including on talk pages. We need a general landing place for her religious viewpoints and issues. The personal section should be short, tight and talk about the basics of her "public" personal life, such as marriage, family, hobbies, churches she attends. Discussion of her church is not meant to open that section to detail about the history of the churches, religious viewpoints she has, etc. but should be kept on topic. Discussion related to other topics should go into other sections, including religious viewpoints and expressions (such as the Christian Heritage proclamation") in appropriate sections. The new, appropriate section for that is "Religious viewpoints", although a similar title could be more suitable. You seemed earlier to weant to discuss the nature of her Fundamentalism as well as her Pentacostalism. These don't belong in the personal section. The new section is appropriate for you to talk about those topics. Atom (talk) 05:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I moved the personal section upward, so that discussion of her religion preceded the viewpoints section. Atom (talk) 05:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You said: "You seemed earlier to want to discuss the nature of her Fundamentalism as well as her Pentacostalism. These don't belong in the personal section." That puizzles me. I would think that alleged religious fundamentalism and Pentacostalism are personal religious viewpoints, no? And even if they were not, it is far from clear that she is either fundamentalist or Pentacostal.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, look, this is the way I see it. There are alot of people whit a range of views who want to talk about Palin and her religion. This includes the churches she went to, how long she went there, why she changed, what the pastor may or may not have said, etc. Also, what are her current viewpoints, and how does that affect her capability to be VP? OR and discussion is not on topic, of course, but we needed a general landing pad for religious issues. Religion keeps popping up in other sections in the article, especially in the "personal" section, since many people took the brief reference to her attending church and establishing what religion she was to be an invitation to write other things about her religion in that section. We want to keep other sections on topic, and not discussing other things, such as religion. A landing pad such as this new section gives people a chance to express these things appropriately. Sure, uncited opinion will end up ther, and be reverted, but in time it will fill out to express cited reliable sources for what her religious background, opinions and perspectives (as expressed) have been in the past, and are determined as time goes forward. Without this section, continued attempts to express those things will keep popping up in other sections creating controversy. That's how I see it. Atom (talk) 06:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not see that you've given any persuausive reason to have details about her religious views in two separate sections of this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't tried to. If you read what I said, we need to have a section for her religious views. The personal section is not for details of her religious views. So, no one has suggested having two sections. The confuson is exactly what you indicate -- People are confused and think that because the personal section mentions her religion, and the church she goes to, that it is also for her religious views. It isn't. We also mention her hobbies there, but it is not a section for going into details about her hobbies either. I just want to keep the personal section short, tight, on topic, and not have it diverge off into unrelated information. The details you have previously wanted to add to the personal section, which were removed, were removed because they were not about her personal life, but were attempts at detailing her religious background and viewpoints -- not on topic. The religious section is a section for you to do just that. Atom (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Atom took pains to make clear that in the personal section, the discussion is not of her views, it is more logistical in a way, details of her church membership. A religious perspective section would not deal with her private religious life, but rather, her public life. Atomaton - what do you think about "Religious perspective: Public matters" or something that expresses that distinction more eloquently?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus for these insertions of extra section and excessive detail in the personal life section and these additions should be reverted as such. Hobartimus (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I am open to a different title. My main thoguht is that it needs to be able to fit a wide range of perspective about her religion. Perhaps her past history, or t:he churches she has attended in more detail, or opinions she has given regarding religion, etc. So -- the title needs to be general enough to still provide a landing pad for any religious based discussion. That keeps that information out of other sections in the article. So, the more specific the title is, the less flexible it is for that purpose. Your suggested title is more specific. "Religion" would be a good title, IMO. Atom (talk) 06:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure other editors will weigh in tomorrow. However, my opinion remains that creating a section like you're suggesting conveys a POV that her peculiar religious views will somehow control her public policy positions, and conveys a POV that she does not know how to keep her personal religious views out of her public decisionmaking. If you're looking for a landing place for this kind of POV, there are a lot of Wikipedia articles about Sarah Palin besides this one. Having her religion covered in two separate sections of this article seems very excessive. Good night.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Omitting this conveys a POV that her peculiar religious views about church in school, god's role in expanding the oil industry in Alaska, etc., will not somehow control her public policy positions.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see above discussion seeking consensus regarding inclusion of info on baptisms and "getting saved" here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 06:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

second religion section

I move the first part of that to personal life. It is basically a reasonable summary of her religious upbringing, which is part of her biography. What's below has major POV and NOTNEWS problems: Kaisershatner (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

In October of 2007, she signed the "Christian Heritage Week" Proclamation which "reminds Alaskans of the role Christianity has played in our rich heritage." She also declared the week of November 18-25, 2007 as Bible Week in Alaska.

Questions have been raised by some in the media regarding Palin's views on the separation of church and state, given her support for the inclusion of creationism into public education, and an address to graduating ministry students at her former church where she urged them to pray "that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God", and in the same remarks, her assertion that "God's will" was responsible for the Alaskan national gas pipeline project. Left-wing bloggers have characterized her remarks as having "painted the current war in Iraq as a messianic affair" or reported that she told the students "that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a 'task that is from God.'"

Problems include the passive "questions have been raised" - by whom? Also NB the very same cited source includes Palin's statement ""I won't have religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism," Palin said." Also, "left wing bloggers" are not a WP:RS. Kaisershatner (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see the footnotes for the answer to your question, "raised by who." Utne Reader, Salon, Huffington Post, Anchorage Daily News, Times, etc. The phrase "left-wing bloggers" is from the Huntington Post, not a wiki editor.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Kaisershatner, I WP:AGF but if you read previous sections a number of editos worked through a consensus on that section. Ir probably does need some copyediting, and some of the materrial no doubt will be discussed by other editors. The sections purpose is to act as a landing pad for religious issues. We specifically are trying to keep all of that out of the personal section. The personal section is mean't to be high-level, tight and informative about various aspects of her private life, and not details about those things. I suspect the religious section will have some controversy until it gets stabilized, but that is the point, ther is a place to put that material and work it out, rather than having disruptions in other sections of the article every time religion is mentioned in some small way. Atom (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Atomaton, thanks for AGF. My interest is in improving the article. I do disagree with your view above that her views on religion should not go into the "Personal life" section. I'm not sure I understand why her philosophy and religion should be seen differently. And it isn't clear to me that there is a firm consensus on having a second section at all. I'm sure at minimum we can agree on the copyediting. Why her biography has to address the concerns of "left wing bloggers" is beyond my understanding, for one thing. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Hi, also, checked the Barack Obama article - there is no separate section about his religious views. I ask in complete good faith and with genuine curiosity if you think there should be such a section there, perhaps it will help me see what the differences are in why you think there should be one here - Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Atom argued at length that it should go into the personal life section, for hours, yesterday, so it's somewhat ironic that you say that. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

And again, not one single left-wing blogger here - please check the citations, they are all for ABC, Utne Reader, the Times, etc.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Atom, do you support inclusion of three sources for "69% of voters did not know her views about Creationism?" What is this doing in the bio article? Lama, please add your comments at the end of the section, it makes the chronology very confusing when you reply in between other people's comments. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the "questions have been raised" part and the POV tag - best not to use POV tags as a tool on either side of any simple content dispute and folks, please do try to work together. If there are issues with the separation of church and state that is a distinct issue from her views on teaching creationism even if the two are related. That would need some direct sourcing and ought to be discussed for what it is. If it's merely an inference that is implicit in favoring teaching creationism then it's merely a criticism and doesn't add anything to the article. Wikidemon (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Population of Wasilla

LamaLoLeshLa, I see that you have edited the article to say that Wasilla is the fourth largest city in Alaska.[7] The cited source (which discusses Palin) says: "Wasilla is the fifth-largest city in Alaska."[8] On the other hand, you have not cited any source. If you want to make changes to Wikipedia articles, it really is highly preferable to cite reliable sources, and to also look at what the existing cited sources say before you contradict them.

The Wikipedia article about Wasilla says that a "census estimate makes Wasilla the fourth largest city in Alaska, after Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau, but the city's own figure would put it sixth, after the these three and Sitka and Ketchikan." So, we have three different figures: 4, 5, and 6. Can we please just go with 5, since it's in a cited source that addresses Palin? Otherwise, we run into original research. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Already done. --Floridianed (talk) 05:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Section for deposit of controversial religious issues that have been deleted

• "The London Times has called attention to her pastor's apocalyptic religious perspective, and cited a recent sermon attended by Palin in which the Jews for Jesus head "suggested that terrorism in Israel was God’s judgment against the Jews for failing to accept Christ as the Messiah;" the McCain campaign responded that Palin “would not have been sitting in the pews of the church if those remarks were remotely typical”, although Palin's pastor has already invited Jews for Jesus' founder to return.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• After the RNC, the McCain campaign told CNN that Palin "doesn't consider herself Pentecostal," raising questions in the media about the reasons for downplaying her faith. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Much of this info was deleted but has now been restored and will stick as it represents a significant debate: "After the RNC, Palin's religious views came under increasing scrutiny in the media. A widely-circulated widely-circulated opinion piece calls Palin a theocrat and says that her values "more resemble those of Muslim fundamentalists than they do those of the Founding Fathers." Palin spoke to a group of graduating ministry students at her former church, where she urged them to pray "that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God", and in the same remarks asserted that "God's will" was responsible for the Alaskan national gas pipeline project. In light of these comments, a Washington Post Monthly opinion piece asked, "Palin, given her public comments, should answer a few reasonable questions: Does she believe in the separation of church and state? Is she comfortable with a government that remains entirely neutral on matters of faith?"" LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Political possitions edit

Instead of rephrasing you can also add on in her favor. No problem with that from my side. --Floridianed (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Separation of church and state

"Questions have been raised by some in the media regarding Palin's views on the separation of church and state, given her support for the inclusion of creationism into public education,[180] and an address to graduating ministry students at her former church where she urged them to pray "that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God",[181] and in the same remarks, her assertion that "God's will" was responsible for the Alaskan national gas pipeline project.[182][183] Left-wing bloggers have characterized her remarks as having "painted the current war in Iraq as a messianic affair"[184] or reported that she told the students "that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a 'task that is from God."

Why are opinions of left-wing bloggers considered facts worth adding to Palin's page? Instead, why isn't there any mention of the blatant witchhunt the mainstream has subjected her to? Enough of the liberal bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.173.46 (talk) 09:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this section of the article is a complete disgrace and reflects nothing more than POV-pushers continual attempts to paint Palin as a religious loony. For example, "her support for inclusion of creationism into public education" is intentionally misleading; her record shows she never attempted to do so from her position of authority. The selective snippets from her discussion of the Iraq war *to a theology class at her church* are taken entirely out-of-context and have never been affirmed either by her words or her actions. In fact, she clarified that statement as analogous to Lincoln's position during the interview with Gibson, and that fact is intentionally omitted. The last line about left-wing bloggers painting her as a zealot leading a holy war (and cited to Huffington Post!) is intended purely to embarrass her. Frankly, if WP allows this POV to stand without question simply because the most persistent editors refuse to recognize their own bias, it only reflects very poorly on the credibility of the community process that supports WP itself. Personally, I've given up on this... utter waste of time. Fcreid (talk) 10:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Sarah_Palin#Palin and Religion Kaisershatner (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The Times of London, ABC News, etc.- left-wing bloggers? You're stretching things, a lot. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Lama, I'm not saying the times is a left wing blog, thanks, just pointing out the text of the article asserts "left wing bloggers." See the difference? Kaisershatner (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and if you could cite a reliable source talking about your 'blatant witch-hunt', go ahead and insert it. By the way, this is wikipedia, not the Sarah Palin support club, or the Mccain campaign website. That means that the good and the bad will be represented here. Get used to it. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lama, are your above remarks directed at me? I have no idea what you mean by "witch hunt," and the personal attacks are not really helpful. I objected to the fact that the article anonymously sourced questions about Palin's view of church and state to "left wing bloggers." I feel I am on pretty sold ground there, stating that the article shouldn't read that way. FWIW I have worked productively with GreekParadise on the bridge section, which is hardly favorable to Palin. Please desist with your personal attacks. Thanks. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

NO. S/he wasn't talking about you. See IP comment above: "...of the blatant witchhunt..."! --Floridianed (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Publication of her signature, is it fair?

Do you think that publicating the signature is legal, fair, and do you have permission from Sarah Palin to do that? If not then you should immediately remove that! I'm just can't imagine this, because the signature is something that can be used to verify lots of things, and this is also regarded as a proof on juries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.41.33 (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Trig's birth / Proposed edit

Section 3.2 above contains my proposed edit.

I am asking for comments from more experienced WP editors. I am not asking for political commentary.

I am referencing my proposal because I want to open about my intent and wish to avoid an edit war.--Dstern1 (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Religion/Personal Life

This sentences in the religious perspective section are about her uprbringing, parents, family life. How is this not "personal life?":

Palin was baptized in the Catholic church as an infant. Palin's family joined the Pentecostal Wasilla Assembly of God when she was 4 years of age, a church where Palin attended for 34 years.[170][171] In a speech before the church, she described herself as having been saved and baptized at that church.[172] Palin's children were also baptized at that church.[173] When she is in Juneau, she attends the Juneau Christian Center,[174] another Assemblies of God church. Her current home church is now the Wasilla Bible Church, an independent congregation.[175] Palin describes herself as a "Bible-believing" Christian.[148]

Kaisershatner (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Republican Party Platform

Starting a new section: I disagree w/inclusion of the Republican Party platform unless it is linked by citation to Palin. Yes, I realize she is likely to support the RPP and the plank itself regarding creationism - but I think adding this fact doesn't add to her biography, which already explicitly makes the point that she supports adding creationism discussion in schools. (Thanks User:Atomation for opening debate on this.) Kaisershatner (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"I can see both views. One the one hand it seems that currently the McCain campaign is trying to distance itself from her earlier viewpoints on some things, including this. In November of 2006, she would have wanted to emphasize this aspect, not de-emphasize it. As she was part of the party, helped develop the platform, and ran and won on that platform, it seems strange to hear someone suggest at this point that the two are non-sequituir's (one wholly unrelated to the other). Just this discussion indicates the desire to spin her viewpoint one way or the other. We should (here in Wikipedia) focus on citeable and verifiable facts, and not speculation for a number of reasons. I think that ideal would be to stick to reliable sources that have quoted her. The statement about the Alaskan Replublican Party does not strictly stick to that, I agree.

"A point I tried to make on your talk page is that her views on Creationism, consistent with the Alaskan Republican Party, should not be viewed as negative as large numbers of people (like the voters who elected her in Alaska) would view that positively.

"The section would be rather dry if we only allowed quotations from Palin. Other sections enhance the edit by suggesting how or why she has a particular position, and within tight limits, we should try to do that here to make it readable. Atom (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Atom, thanks. I agree with you about NPOV - we should report her view on Creationism neutrally, let the reader decide if that is a positive or negative. I'm totally fine with that, objectively, her view is what her view is, right? I just think this can be established with direct citations: "Palin thinks X about Creationism." and without indirect ones, which IMO are nonsequiturs: "the Alaska Republican Party thinks X about Creationism." The latter is unnecessary if the former is present. Kaisershatner (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it, I'm not totally against, "Palin thinks X about Creationism"(cite), which is consistent with the views of the ARP Platform (cite), even though I still think it is an un-needed addition. Would that be ok? Kaisershatner (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like that could work. Atom (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Religious perspective on public and private life

This is a good way of separating her personal life aspects and her perspectives on religion. It needs additional material, which is abundantly available. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The first half of this section is "personal life", her upbringing and history of church membership. The second half is "political views" such as her view on the iraq war and her view on teaching creationism in schools. I think this section should be moved into the main article. Kaisershatner (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW Jossi, does this paragraph have to appear twice in this article, under personal life and religious background? Kaisershatner (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin was born into a Catholic family.[147] When she was 4 years old, her family joined the Wasilla Assembly of God, which belongs to a Protestant, Pentecostal association of churches.[148] ; Palin attended the Wasilla Assembly of God until age 38. When in Juneau, she attends the Juneau Christian Center.[149] Her current home church is the Wasilla Bible Church, an independent congregation.[150] Palin described herself in an interview as a "Bible-believing" Christian.[147] In October of 2007, she signed the "Christian Heritage Week" Proclamation[151] which exalts the role that Christianity has played shaping the United States heritage.[152] After the RNC, the McCain campaign told CNN that Palin "doesn't consider herself Pentecostal," raising questions in the media about the reasons for downplaying her faith.[153][154]

As far as the repetition of the above paragraph, I am sure that was a mistake, feel free to remove the duplicate. I don't want to muddle matters, but I actually originally put the political religion info under 'politics,' and was happy to see the personal religion info under 'personal'. I would be satisfied with a sub-section under political positions readiing "Religious perspective on public life". LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I think we should be able to agree that this article should not turn into a billboard that says "Palin is a religious fanatic". Can we agree about that? If so, then perhaps we can also agree that her personal religious background should not be repeated twice (AS IT IS NOW!) in two different sections of the article, and her religion-related positions on things like creationism should not be repeated twice (AS THEY ARE NOW!) in two different sections of the article. Can we agree about this, please?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Agree.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean you agree with the proposal to create a section called "Religious perspective on public life" under "political positions"? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, we need to present the facts. People can decide for themselves. It is not our job to spin the facts so keep people from getitng the impression that she is not a religious fanatic. Trying to say that no, she does not support teaching Creationism in the schools (when in fact she campaigned for governor on that platform) and no she is not a fundamentalist Christian (when she is), are just not factual. Atom (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is that we should not duplicate religion material. As far as the possible influence of religion on her political positions, I do not understand why that cannot be handled one issue at a time, rather than pre-judging the outcome by stating that religion does influence her political positions, which is what creation of such a subsection would imply.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Because we all know from out own lives that our values 'do influence the decisions we make. By accurately detailing that she believes in creationism and the teaching of creationism we let people decide for themselves. Some view that politively, and some negatively. Editors and readers want to know what she believes, not so that they can "pre-judge" her actions, but so that they can determine if she has values more like theirs, or different from theirs. Allowing only the mention in the political views section that she supports teasching of creationism in the schools doesn't give a complete picture. Haivng a section on religious views allows a more in depth look at what she really believes instead of a one sentence reference. Atom (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the duplicated para - I left it in personal life, otherwise that section is about 3 sentences. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

===Private background===

Palin was born to Catholic parents. She received the sacrament of baptism while an infant, but her parents left the Church shortly thereafter. Palin's family joined the Pentecostal Wasilla Assembly of God when she was 4 years of age, a church Palin attended for 34 years. In a speech before the church, she described herself as having been saved and baptized at that church at age 13. Palin's children were also baptized at that church. When she is in Juneau, the State Capital, she attends the Juneau Christian Center[9], another Assemblies of God church. Her current home church is now the Wasilla Bible Church, an independent congregation. Palin describes herself as a "Bible-believing" Christian. Although the Juneau Christian Center does not endorse any candidate for any office, they do say "We do believe that she is a woman of integrity - a strong leader with the heart of a servant. "[10]

Given that Gibson misquoted Palin about her remarks on the war in Iraq I have removed that section. She at no time said that the war was a "Task from God". In addition the YouTube video is being used for OR. Now, I don't know the best way to proceed with this section, but we must be careful to not put soo much opinion into this section when the opinion is from a purely political point of view. Arzel (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

He did not misquote her. He cited her words on Anchorage radio. Please stop removing this. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It was a blatant misquote - the first part of her statement was cut off, so as to change the context. Kelly ^hi! 18:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This does not exist in George_W._Bush , Biden , Mccain , Obama. And I'm sure they all had talk pages debating the issue as well. I would just recommend everyone take a deep breath and start referencing the other related bio pages for comparatives. This should give use guidance on material that should be here and stands the test of time. I know my patience is wore thin and I'm on the edge of taking the action of turning the tables and applying the standards of the Palin page elsewhere. Theosis4u (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, the other articles contain useful guidance. I'll try to integrate this stuff into the political positions section, where some of it is already mentioned.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the Jeremiah_Wright_controversy was/is irrelevant to Obama's political career and if you use that story and how removed it is from the actual Obama page I think that will guide how these matters can be handle. That was a huge story and one that has been reported on for years. Sometimes, it seems we are trying to get every little bit of information on the Palin page without a consideration if the tidbit, rumor, trivia will stand the test of time for relevance [most fail the 24hr news cycle]. Theosis4u (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted to provide a neutral summary. See the new quotes from Steven Waldman that I put at the end of the "Political positions" section.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There was a process by which relevant info got added, culled, deleted, and yes, tested by time. And by the way, the controversy is in the article, summarized briefly; and it was about what his preacher said, not what he said. These cited facts, just removed by Ferry, who has now violated 3RRR, are about what Palin herself said. As a side this was a very very very very very sloppy edit please fix it. I'll be back, don;t think this will stand.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

LLLL, please don't go away. Let's discuss it. I asked above whether people really wanted information to be repeated twice in two sections of the article, such as the creationism stuff. You didn't say that you wanted to duplicate it, so I removed the duplicative stuff. I removed other duplicative stuff too. What's wrong with that? And what do you think of the Waldman quotes?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Good summary and quotes. Kelly ^hi! 19:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The_Golden_Rule , that's all I'm saying. Theosis4u (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't want informatin repeated twice. We do want a section for more detailed discussion of religious issues. This means that it is sometimes necessary to mention an issue, say in the political views section, briefly, and then go into detail in the religious section. The political views section, or the personal section are not places for the detail, but the high level. The solution is good editing to make them not appear idential, but to discuss the same issues. Removing the section after hours of people negotiating to deal with the problems previouslt was not appropriate in my opinion. What we need to do is clean up and reformat the religious section so that it stands better on its own. I believe that as other religious issues surface, rather than being placed insome other section inappropriately, they will find a landing pad in the religious section. Atom (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

That said, the "opinion" stuff should be removed. Kelly ^hi! 19:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Atom, while I was happy to work on the language in the interim, I am among the users who think an additional section on religious beliefs/perspectives/whatever is superfluous (with all due respect). You have proposed it as a "landing area" or catch-all area above, for discussion of Palin's religious beliefs. I have disagreed and continue to disagree with this: I think religious items are very likely to be divisible into personal life (ie, what church she attends, where she was baptised), and political positions or views (ie, that she is pro-life [due to her religious views], or pro-Iraq war [with her religion leading her to pray "that that plan is God's plan"]. I think a separate section that culls items into "religious perspective" artifically separates those items from her personal life and political views. Kaisershatner (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) We have some very determined POV-pushers here. Automaton, I see that you are now in a revert war.[11] You say, “religious section has previously found consensus, discussion by two editors is not consensus to remove.”

The idea that there was previous consensus for inserting this stuff is incorrect. Today alone, TuckerResearch, Hobartumius, Kaisershatner, Fcreid, 66.214.173.46, Ferrylodge, and Kelly have all objected to this new section of yours. I can give you diffs if you want.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This is where it gets tough. You took my apparent willingness to see compromise and see a heading called 'religious positions' under 'political positions' as an excuse to delete almost all the content I've added, and did not insert the heading 'religious positions' under 'political positions', which was my condition for compromising on the move. The process is getting a little contorted at this point. I'm sorry for Atom that he's been put in this position. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, try to add that material into any of the sections now and see what the result it. Thge reason it got removed by me or others (and will again) is not because of the section it is in but because those bashed Palin indirectly, without stating her position, but what someone else said. WIthout any incluence from me, go add that to the personal section now and see how long it stays there before someone else removes it. The portions that you added that had good citations, and directly addressed things she said remained in that section. Atom (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Atom, maybe you misunderstood? that comment was intended for ferry. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I should add that, as far as POV-pushing, I'm happy to see pro-Palin info of substance added in. I have not removed anything which speaks well of her in concrete terms (about her positions or her actions), and will never do so. The same cannot be said for the info which I have been trying to insert which rounds out the picture of this woman who does indeed cross the line between private and public religious rights.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I am all for a neutral POV also, lbalancing her views. People should see an accurate picture of who she is, including her religious views that could influence decisions she makes in the future, and judge for themselves if that affects them positively or negatively. These attempt so remove any material that is not completely and enirely faorable (and in alignment with the curent Mccain platform) is outrageous. Atom (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss it in more detail -- but I discussed it with many editors early this morning and got what I consider to be a consensus, even if you don't. I apologize if I have not kept up with the conversation. I was working on it until 2am this morning. People keep wanting to add material about her religious perspectives. It keeps creeping into other sections, such as the personal section and the political views section. Instead of repeatedly telling them that details about her baptism, and details of her views on creationism are not appropriate, it is better to give a section that discussed her religious views. Are her religious viewpoints notable? I believe they are, and the people who have wanted to put the aforementioned information in the have said they believe that as well. If there is a section on religion, it allows for those people to put those views. Sure, some controversial stuff will end up there -- which means there is not controversy elsewhere in the article. And in the wash, the non-notable and non-cited stuff will get removed and eventually a stable section with cited and verifiable information that satisfies the editors, and the readers desires to know what she has said about her religious perspective. The alternative to that is to continue to revert every religious oriented edit that someone tries to add (as I have had to do numerous times in the personal section) telling them that it is not notable, ot not relevant to the topic of that section.

I understand that there was some repetition caused by that and I had began, and completed a number of edits making the sections distinct. We need more editors working on improving the section so that it is distinctly about citable and notable religious aspects of the candidate. Atom (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me --- and correct if I'm wrong --- that you're happy to talk more at this talk page, but unwilling to undo this revert of yours. If that is correct, then it seems to me that your position is "my way or the highway". Many other editors have explained at this talk page TODAY that they disagree with what you have done and/or agree that the separate section on religious perspective is inappropriate. See TuckerResearch,[12] Hobartimus,[13] Kaisershatner, [14] Fcreid,[15] 66.214.173.46,[16] Kelly,[17] and myself. I really am offended by the massive amount of time that you are consuming by your evasion of consensus. Some people have weekends, and lives to lead, but you are tying things up by refusing to abide by consensus, not to mention 3RR, NPOV, and a host of other guidelines and policies. Additionally, including duplicative paragraphs in separate sections of this article on creationism is plainly an outrage, and something that has been repeatedly mentioned on this talk page. But you just keep on jamming it in. Will you go for triplicate next? Ferrylodge (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your comment on creationism. I am not sure what you mean. I think that having it mentioned (as it is now) in the political views section briefly is fair game. (I did not place that there BTW, my only edit to it has been to clarify, per the quote, that she does not feel that teaching it should be required, only that it should be allowed if the discussion comes up.) The second place, in the religious section, is where the full detail of what her current view is can be expressed. The political views section should only mention, in brief, her position. I think we should completely and accurately state what her view is, quoting her with reliable citations, not trying to spin it one way or the other. It should be as neutral and accurate as possible. Atom (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I respect your opinion. Strangely, I am offended that given the clear and detailed discussions that took place before you got here supporting a different section, that you are wasting massive amounts of mine and others times also, and trying to make me look like I, personally am the obstacle. 3RR btw is when someone reverts three times. I made two edits to returnb the section previously established by consensus to undo the two seperate pieces that you reverted. (removing the section entirely, edited by a number of people), and then secondly to take out the duplicated stuff from you adding stuff back in to the personal section. TWO distinct and different edits to reverse a previosly standing consensus is not what I consider to be 3RR. NPOV is when someone tries to enforece one POV, and not allow mutiple POV's. Given my edit history that would be hard to do, my editing has been very balanced. So, I take your suggestion that I have violated those, and a "host of guidelines and policies" as a lack of good faith. Obviously you and I see this issue differently. But, removing hours worth of work after I worked to get a consensus was not the way to do it. Those were good edits, ones that kept the personal section clean and concise, while allowing people with religious views on both sides of the issue to express the detail that they wanted.

Maybe if would be good if you were to express some reasoning as to why people should not document Palin's religious experience, or her religious viewpoints? It seems to me that providing for allowing that pserpective is NPOV, and trying to limit and reject showing her viewpoints on those issues would not be NPOV. Atom (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Because of the same absence of such nonsense in other related bio's. These are POV pushes to build religious correlations and hopefully political causations for the readers. It would be the same if someone pushed Obama > Obama#Cultural_and_political_image > Cultural_and_political_image_of_Barack_Obama > Cultural_and_political_image_of_Barack_Obama#Religion > Jeremiah_Wright_controversy > Jeremiah_Wright > Black_liberation_theology > Liberation_Theology > Marxism correlations into one off pages from Obama. It's a long road to get to the grounding of the theology that Obama has been participating in the last 20+ years and I'm on better ground to show his theology equals political realties [ though I don't really believe it by his personal motives - though we could interject "community organizer" here ]. Theosis4u (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I propose that we leave the religious section for the short range, to allow people with religious perspective to express that, and make a survey that asks the editors to sumamrize their viewpoints on this. If there is a consensus to remove the section and reverse the previous consensus to have a seperate section, I will abide by that consensus. We could have (given the nature of this article changing so much) 48 hours to close the survey?? Does that sound fair? Atom (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

NO, it does not sound fair. The vast majority of editors have objected to it. Please take it out. It contains redundnat material. The creationsim stuff is already covered in political positions, and the last paragraph of political positions already summarizes (see Waldman quotes). Why not try putting the material that you like into the political positions sub-article? I'm not an editor of that sub-article, and I express no opinion about whether the material would be appropriate there, but that would probably be the best place for you to try to put it.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second. You claim that a majority of editors object to it. So, why not take a poll and ask? I don't think you are being objective. Is the time period too long? We can adjust that. I am seekign overall consensus, not discord. How is asking people an issue? Atom (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Again about creationism. The political viewpoint only allows for a very small and limited (possibly innacurate) mention of her view on creationism. If we tried to put two paragraphs on that topic, it would be cut as off topic on that section. Atom (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me spell this out as clearly as possible. The inclusion of the additional religion section has been discussed at this talk page for many hours. Many editors have already weighed in against it. I have provided diffs above. Please read this carefully: "the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material."[18] I am not participating in any further poll or further discussion about this, until the disputed material is removed as required by BLP guidelines, and I advise other editors to do the same.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me spell it out. I respect your view, and I don't get the feeling you respect mine. A variety of editors discussed adding the section and came to a consensus. A new consensus, such as that the section should not be there, needs to be formed to remove that. We have already gone through the phase of adding, disputing, discussion and forming a consensus. I resent your attitude to not work towards a consensus, and instead insist on your own way. I have been very patient and accomodating with you. If you don't like a 48 hour, we could try 36. or 34 to gather opinions. It isn't like we are in some huge hurry to work this out. The article will be here a week, a mint, a year, ten years from now. Is 24-48 hours in order to clarify, rather than two editors with opposite perspectives, that much time? Atom (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I invite you to list all of the members of that alleged "consensus" in the following section.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as the fact that Obama and McCain and Biden do not have a religious section does not matter here. The reason that they do not is that they have not made controversial religious statements or crossed the private-public line. Bush, on the other hand, should have such a section - the fact that his entry does not have a religious perspective sectio reflects badly on the Bush entry, not well on efforts to omit relevant info about Palin's views on the religious rights in the private versus public sphere.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

A few things - first of all, Ferry, I realize you are frustrated but you're not alone (on either side) in that. Specifically, Atom has proved at least to me that he is editing in good faith. Try to tone it down a bit, we can all work together, and this is unlike many far worse arguments on politics pages here. Most of the active editors here have shown willingness to compromise and collaborate. Let's work on areas where there is agreement. Atom, I agree with your points - you have left in material that is well-sourced AND that describes Palin's views in her own words. Lama, the fact that you expressly state you don't object to sourced pro-Palin information being added is a good and welcome thing to hear. Truly, I think everyone at least believes they are trying to write the best Palin bio article, while we may differ on the road to get there. Atom - consensus changes, I can appreciate how much work you put into your section but there are many today who feel it is superfluous. And Lama, I hope to have time to reply more at length, but basically, I just disagree that Palin is a special case because of her views - my succinct view is that her bio article should resemble those of other governors/politicians. Kaisershatner (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

remove bio

remove all related information from all related pages at this time and recommend editors and admin review other related bio's so we don't reinvent the wheel about this topical issue. Within a week, some of these items very well might build into a legitimate story that has legs, but right now I don't see that. I believe we are just witnessing media in general throwing "stuff" on the wall to see what sticks. Theosis4u (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The following have already supported removal: TuckerResearch,[19] Hobartimus,[20] Kaisershatner, [21] Fcreid,[22] 66.214.173.46,[23] Kelly,[24] and myself.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - It's not a topical issue - it all relates to a speech she gave at her former church years ago. I might as well add that Sarah Palin herself is a topical issue though - who cared about her before, unless it had to do with oil-drilling, none of this affected the rest of us before. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove per nom. WTucker (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Washington Monthly

I read this citation just now. It is a blog/opinion columnist at the Washington Monthly, not their editorial opinion. If this is to be included at all, can it be changed to reflect that? Kaisershatner (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

done. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! NB I think this should be removed totally on the grounds of insignificance, but I appreciate you making it factually accurate at least. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Family photo

I have come across some nice family photos from the Anchorage newspaper for the personal life section. What do I need to do to add the photo? I am new to editing.--Rosebud999 (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that if they're copyrighted we can't use them here - see WP:NFC. Kelly ^hi! 18:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

We can only accept photos here that have been donated by the owner to the public for whatever use the public desires (see Wikipedia:PD). There are some rare exceptions (called "fair use"), but generally speaking you would have to get permission from the owner of the photos. The permission would have to use some technical legal language.[25]Ferrylodge (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of paragraph and calls it a "slight reword" in edit summary

This was deleted, and the edit summary said, "slight reword": "Palin is on the record saying "I'm not one...who would attribute it to being man-made," after saying that global warming would affect Alaska more than any other state. Salon notes that in her interview on ABC, she said, "Show me where I have ever said that there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect or no effect on climate change. I have not said that."" I will be restoring it in 24 hours, though I would prefer someone else would do so. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Chill out please. It was a mistake delete, and I restored it. Grsz^talk 19:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Sorry if my tone was frustrating.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Fake Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin's recent fame as Republican Vice Presidential nominee has spurred a number of Fake Sarah Palin material on the Internet. [26]

Most notably:

Whatssarahthinking blog [27] Palindrome blog [28] FakeSarahPalin on Twitter [29] Sarah_Palin on Twitter [30]

(Lamarguerite (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC))

You're not proposing to include this "crab", or do you? Just wondering why you point it out here w/o further comment. --Floridianed (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandwiching of text

Per this recent edit, text at the top of the article is now sandwiched between the Table of Contents (TOC) and the Infobox. Anyone have any thoughts about it? The sandwiching looks kind of strange to me, and I don't recall other Wikipedia articles where text is sandwiched between a TOC and Infobox. Looks kind of weird, IMHO. BTW, sandwiching of text between images is deprecated, according to MOS:IMAGES.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Changed it back. --Floridianed (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks pal.  :-) Ferrylodge (talk) 00:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Track has deployed

Just wanted to point out that the following needs to be updated, and I'm not comfortable editing it myself.

"Track Palin enlisted in the U.S. Army on September 11, 2007,[183] and subsequently was assigned to an infantry brigade. He and his unit are to be deployed to Iraq in September 2008, for 12 months.[184]"

Track deployed on Sept. 11.[31]

Best regards. FangedFaerie (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I changed that, --Tom 01:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Rape kits -- victims made to pay for them in Wasilla

Today brings a new scandal--Rapegate. Basically, as Mayor of Wasilla, the town was the only city in Alaska that made rape victims pay for their own rape exams, which led the state legislature to pass a bill outlawing the practice which was signed into law by the former governor. Obviously, such an important scandal will need to be mentioned somewhere in this Wikipedia entry as the news begins to circulate and as it becomes widely-known public knowledge. Here is a link to one of the references, Critics: Under Palin, Wasilla charged rape victims for exam. USA Today is also reporting it now. Palin's town used to bill victims for rape kits. If anyone can come up with more links to articles about it or some sort of a cite of Palin saying something to the effect that she thinks women bring rape upon themselves (perhaps by dressing provocatively or by encouraging men by talking to them and being friendly or inviting them on dates) please post it here.

Here is my proposed entry:

Under Pailn, Wasilla was the only town in Alaska to make rape victims pay for their own rape exams, which led the state legislature to pass a bill signed by the previous governor banning the practice statewide.WhipperSnapper (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As Bobble said when he/she rightly excised the text, 'minor issue so far'. Nothing ties this policy directly to Palin, no indication she was even aware of it. Tone it down please. Ronnotel (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I unconditionally oppose addition, unless a reliable source indicates that she publicly supported the policy and/or opposed the legislation banning it. I also object to the unfounded insinuation that there is any evidence she thinks women bring rape upon themselves. I'm tempted to remove your entire post as a WP:BLP violation. --Elliskev 20:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've had to re-remove this from the article. It had looked like there was some pretty clear agenda-pushing behind it (the term "Rapegate" is not in the original source), but seeing the way the argument is being framed here by this contributor, I now think this whole topic could be removed for BLP violation. » S0CO ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's see how the story develops in the next couple of days. Right now it's still breaking news that hasn't been thoroughly investigated yet by the national media. Note that a credible national news source is reporting this--USA Today--and that according to that article I linked to, the Wasilla policy even contributed to national legislation on the subject. Here on this discussion page I didn't mean to insinuate that Palin thinks that women bring rape upon themselves, just that if anyone finds a credible source for that to please post it here on the discussion page. Note that that viewpoint, while very unpopular, is still common today and was at one time very common, so it is possible that she might harbor it. My apologies to those who are bothered by the term "Rapegate", but in our national political discourse, very often scandals take on the "-gate" name tag. At various political discussion forums people are referring to the librarian scandal as "Librariangate" and the state trooper scandal as "Troopergate", hence the term "Rapegate". Why do you have such a huge problem with that term? WhipperSnapper (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Your neologism is troubling because Wikipedia should not be in the business of inventing scandals or names for them. If reliable sources call it that, then so be it. Until then, let's stick to the facts. Coemgenus 21:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Blogs and forums are not reliable sources, we don't use them or care what they are saying. GRBerry 21:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-10-rape-exams_N.htm says

Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella said in an e-mail that the governor "does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test."

Comella would not answer other questions, including when Palin learned of Wasilla's policy or whether she tried to change it.

It also says that Wasilla was not the only town in Alaska with that policy.

Given the amount of space given to bookburngate ;-) I think that this is worth a _very_ carefully worded mention. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The rape kits are mentioned in the sub-article Mayoralty of Sarah Palin, and that is plenty. Not everything in the sub-article needs to be covered here. See WP:Summary style.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I was suggesting it be in "Political positions", not in Mayoralty. But I agree, she ought to be given a chance to say that she didn't know before we go using it as evidence of her attitudes to rape. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Not relevant to the article unless it can be demonstrated that she supported it, in which case it would be especially helpful to know why she supported it. That could qualify as a "political position". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Much of this is using the Talk page to show personal political bias. No connection between the policies of the Police Chief and the Mayor has been shown. The "charging rape victims" is still found in North Carolina, and was also in Illinois until at least 2004. http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/archive/2008/09/vetting_sarah.shtml?refid=0 and http://www.mountainx.com/news/2008/080308making_noise_about_a_silent_crime among others. Collect (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Here are some sources some-what close to the issue:

http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt http://progressillinois.com/node/3032 (a second-hand report of what the police chief said) http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/52266.html (Knowles's response) http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1118416&srvc=2008campaign&position=9 (Boston Herald on Knowles and on an attempt to get a Palin response)

@ Collect...The following is from your first source...According to a 2004 summary by the group, in Illinois, Obama's state, there is "no charge to a victim who is ineligible for services under Illinois Public Aid Code and who has no insurance." Obama filed legislation to change state law so that the victims don't pay. It was signed by the governor of Illinois in 2001. The following is from your second source...This summer, the North Carolina General Assembly approved more than $1 million for a program that covers both the cost of the exam and an initial visit to a mental-health provider.. The charging of rape victims is no longer found in North Carolina (as of this Summer) and "no charge to rape victims" has been law in Illinois since 2001. Unfortunately, your sources contradict you--Buster7 (talk) 03:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Alas -- the charging of insurance companies is still done in Illinois. As was the case in Alaska until that practice was barred. Obama's legislation, as you clearly note, allowed for that practice. If you will note your own insurance, most insurance plans have what is known as a "co-pay" of some sort. By the way, there has been no confirmation that Wasilla did anything different from the practice in Illinois -- billing insurance companies if practible. So much for premature claims that sources contradict what is written in them. Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Collect's charge of "personal political bias" is unjustified. As to whether there's a "connection" between the policy and Palin herself, her spokeswoman had a chance to clarify that, but refused to do so. According to the cited story in USA Today: "Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella ... would not answer other questions, including when Palin learned of Wasilla's policy or whether she tried to change it."

Asking people to prove a negative is a teensy bit difficult. And I daresay few spokespersons have omniscience about issues. When one is found, I shall hire him or her. Collect (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

At this point, we don't know whether the Palin defense is that (a) she thinks charging the rape victims for their own examinations was a good idea, or (b) she had no idea this was occurring on her watch. I suppose her handlers are trying to decide which confession would be less politically damaging. In the meantime, I don't think she can, simply by stonewalling, preclude us from presenting the available facts on this issue. If Collect is concerned about the "connection" issue, we can include the report that Palin's spokeswoman would not address that issue. JamesMLane t c 18:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't be rediculous. That is like asking "when did you stop beating your kids." Arzel (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have a source for saying "That Palin's spokeswoman would not address that issue" fine. Otherwise we run the risk of getting into NPOV issues. Is that a wise course? Collect (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear or Nucular???

Bold text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.82.241 (talk) 02:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Tomato or Tomahto? Kelly ^hi! 03:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The apparently-true story is that they phonetically spelled the word on her teleprompter. Better to get it right than to sound like some kind of ignoranimous - not to name any names, of course. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

And who really cares? Only a snob, I suppose. —Mike 05:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Or someone who doesn't like the President sounding like an idiot. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I find this whole discussion totally irrelevant and think it should be deleted. Especially considering the other VP candidate, the supposed foreign policy expert on the Democratic ticket, doesn't know the difference between a brigade and a batallion. Not to mention his repeated gaffes showing grotesque racial, sexual and infirmity based insensitity. Grow up. (Wallamoose (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

It is neither snobbery or irrelevant to expect that the on deck leader of the free world should have a basic command of the English language, nor is a reach to conclude that since she does not, that she may be similarly deficient in other areas as well What is irrelevant, is references to gaffs or errors by others, since this article does not concern them. It should also be noted that there is a distinction between misspeaking or semantical errors, and what is clearly a disconnect to grade school level vocabulary Cosand (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Phonetic spelling is commonly used for Teleprompters. http://michellemalkin.com/2007/09/26/the-stoo-pid-ih-tee-of-the-white-house-press-corps/ "It’s routine for teleprompter scripts to phoneticize proper names and locations." http://minx.cc/?post=272405 "Shill blows my mind and tells me I'm wrong, and that actually teleprompters usually spell out words phonetically." http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/09/more_of_the_sam.html "As someone who has worked with Boston politicians as a communications consultant, what you saw is nothing new. This phonetic spelling is done all the time regardless of political affiliation." In short -- of importance only to folks who do not know common practice for Teleprompters. Collect (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

International experience

Does she have any? Has she ever travelled outside the United States? It would be useful to those of us in the rest of the world if the article answered these questions. So far as I can see, she bases her world view on the Book of Revelation, which is pretty terrifying. Honbicot (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"In 2007 Palin obtained a passport and traveled for the first time outside of North America to Kuwait and Germany to visit with members of the Alaska National Guard." She also had traveled to Mexico and Canada when a passport was not required to do so.--Appraiser (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• She traveled once overseas to Kuwait to visit Alaska troops. In her return trip to America, she stopped in Germany to see troops at the hospital base, and a refueling (like that counts as experience) in Ireland. Her first Passport was issued in 2007. She also claims to have made a personal road trip across Alaskan border to Canada, woohoo. And hey, if you live "close to Russia", you must know everything about Putin, eh? /sarcasm Duuude007 (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit: doh, you beat be. Duuude007 (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• I believe she also touts negotiations with Canadian officials and industry heads as international experience, when she was trying to catalyze the Alaska Gas Pipeline[32]--Appraiser (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Drseagrass (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Trip in June 2007 to Canada appears to have been on official business, to Whitehorse, capital of the YukonAppraiser (talk)

Please remember this page is for discussions about the improvement of the article, and not personal opinions. Grsz^talk 21:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's time we lock this page - there are too many Palin fanatics and haters around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VivinNath (talk • contribs) 02:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Lock the page? There's a novel idea. Oh, wait... it was locked, for an entire week. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Free speech

The heading “Free speech matters” is problematic. According to the cited source, the librarian Emmons did not object to challenges to books, and did not object to removal of books, if her preferred procedure is followed. Instead, she merely suspected that Palin had a different procedure in mind, which Palin denied. Any chance we could select an NPOV heading that doesn’t suggest free speech was in jeopardy here? Like maybe the heading in the sub-article? See WP:SS. Also, the heading "Free speech matters" has a double-meaning, and so has additional POV problems (one meaning is "free speech is important" and the other meaning is "free speech issues").Ferrylodge (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• I updated the subarticle in a way that is hopefully clearer and more neutral. Pls let me know if it works. Duuude007 (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

My reading on the source is entirely different. Emmons explicitly defined what Palin was asking as a request to censor the library's selection of books and she expressed absolute objected to any such form of censorship. Censorship is a "free speech matter," period, no bones about it. If you want a more specific heading, you can revert it to the heading I originally added, "censorship matters". LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 01:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

your reading on the matter is not considering that "matters" means both "means something to people" and "subject of". It can be easily misinterpreted. That is why I proposed "On the topic of the Freedom of Speech". Duuude007 (talk) 02:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not just change it to "Issues" or "Controversy"? --Kickstart70-T-C 02:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

LamaLoLeshLa has changed it to "Library Matters". Does that convey the right message? There is a Freedom of Speech controversy even if "rhetorical" as the Wasilla news quote says, why cover it up? The citations clearly say that she requested at least 3 times what the process of banning books would be. Duuude007 (talk) 03:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to "Library Matters" which matches the subsection title in the daughter article. "Free Speech" does not convey a neutral point of view. Besides, these library matters, if they weren't just a personality clash between two people, were about freedom of the press, not freedom of speech.--Paul (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Library matters" is okay, if there must be all these subsubheadings. Ironically, the only free speech issue was whether Palin was free to open her mouth and ask a legitimate question about what the library's censorship policies were.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The following has appeared under her City Council years: "According to Laura Chase, Palin's campaign manager during her first run for mayor in 1996, as city councilwoman, Palin stated in 1995 that the book Daddy's Roommate should be removed from the shelves of the local library although she had not read the book." This particular charge is basically a "single source" one, and seems to be on the order of a hearsay anecdote. Comments? Collect (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This edit complies with Wikipedia policies - see: Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. The source, as her former campaign manager, is notable and it is published by a notable source, the New York Times. -Classicfilms (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

With no contemporaneous articles, and only a single article citing one person, the entire addition does not pass the smell test. Nor does Ms. Chase even assert she actually heard the conversation in question. Most of article is based otherwise on anonymous sources. Collect (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Approval rating over 80%

It says in the article that Sarah Palin "has maintained a high approval rating throughout her term (as Governor of Alaska)". According to this video (0.34) her approval rating is "over 80%"... and that "it is videly seen as something of a phenomena". If that is true, I'd suggest the percentage figure also be included in the article. --Hapsala (talk) 03:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Go right ahead.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Youtube videos are not considered a reliable source but if you'd like to include it you can find reliable sources. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 04:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The part seems to be from a CBS News show, and that should be rather reliable. The question is from where CBS News got the statistics. --Hapsala (talk) 04:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again: Youtube is not considered a reliable source! You need to back it up with a (reliable) 3rd party source to incl. a video as add on, otherwise it is WP:OR. --Floridianed (talk) 04:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The Population Density for the State of Alaska is 1.1%. For All of the U.S. it is 79.6% (which, of course, includes the low Alaskan figure). Also, her approval rating her first term was 90%...so, it declined 12%. You might reconsider your effort to include.--Buster7 (talk) 04:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

What does population density have to do with anything? Are you suggesting a sentence like: Palin has maintained a remarkable popularity with the electorate, over 90% in her first year and 80% for most of her second year as governor, but there aren't as many people in Alaska as Manhattan so it really doesn't matter? Further, are you suggesting that a favorable percentage of 80% means she isn't popular because it is down from 92%?--Paul (talk) 12:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Surely population density is measured in people/area. How do you get 1.1%? Percent of what? I looked at population density and there are no percentages there. Thehalfone (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

First, I never suggested using the Youtube video as a source. Second, I have no "efforts" to include anything in the article. But approval ratings of 80-90% seem notable enough to be included. If the ratings are true, it shouldn't be hard to could come up with relevant sources. --Hapsala (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Here is another section of this Talk page advocating inclusion of these facts: Talk:Sarah Palin#High Approval Ratings. It includes a citation resource.--Paul (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Approval ratings over 80% are usually not heard of outside countries such as North Korea. So I think Sarah's approval rating of up to 90% (?) is very notable and should be mentioned with a couple of proper sources. --Polipopo (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Why The Removal Of Energy Subsection & Confirmed Lawsuit Info?

Dear all,

Forgive me if I'm doing this wrong. I've never written anything in a Wikipedia discussion before. I'm just curious as to why the Energy subsection of the Wikipedia article on Sarah Palin was altogether removed, along with any text reference to the very public decision by Palin to file a lawsuit re: the polar bear listing. I saved the original text, here it is:

"In May 2008, Palin objected to the decision of Dirk Kempthorne, the Republican United States Secretary of the Interior, to list polar bears as an endangered species. She filed a lawsuit to stop the listing amid fears that it would hurt oil and gas development in the bears' habitat off Alaska's northern and northwestern coasts.

Palin is considered to have similar policy positions to John McCain in some respects. One exception is drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), which Palin strongly supports. Another exception is her belief that global warming is not caused by humans."

The above text is now completely missing from the Wikipedia article on Sarah Palin, though a little bit of it seems to have survived, albeit it appears to have been re-edited in a biased, heavily censored form that is now much shorter than the original.

If there is a legitimate reason why the above text has been removed & should not be included in the Wikipedia article on Sarah Palin, in this form, I would appreciate someone stating why in this discussion thread. It is a matter of unbiased public record that Palin filed the suit, and it is certainly newsworthy. Tag number 163 and 165 (currently) are both citations for the text that I presented here in italics.

Sincerely,

SolesGirlRachel

SolesGirlRachel (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)09:13AM, 13 September 2008

Hi, I imagine it was removed as too detailed for a summary section on her views. You will find a lot more detail here: Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Endangered_species. Kaisershatner (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kaisershatner, thank you for the response & please edit the formatting of this if it's out of order somehow, I'm still a total noob at Wikipedia-discussions etc.

I looked at the section of the article you directed me to, which was not the main Sarah Palin article. It's worth nothing that there is a Political Positions subsection in the main Sarah Palin article as well, and that in this subsection of the main article, there is a deliberately omissive reference to her position on the ANWR, as follows:

"She has opposed federal listing of the polar bear as an endangered species, warning that it would adversely affect energy development in Alaska."

This carefully re-worded statement omits the unbiased fact that Palin did indeed file the lawsuit against the Bush administration re: the listing of the polar bears as an endangered species. The main Wikipedia article on Sarah Palin currently contains no mention of the lawsuit. And the alternate Wikipedia article that you referred me to, Kaisershatner, merely states that "Palin threatened to sue", omitting the fact that she did sue. The alternate article is therefore, unnecessarily misleading by omission.

My original question re: the two paragraphs I included in italics from an earlier version of the main Wikipedia article on Sarah Palin are therefore still valid, I believe. I hope that someone will either answer my question, or re-include that information in the appropriate area of the main Wikipedia article on Palin. Thank you.

SolesGirlRachel (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)10:15AM, 13 September 2008

The following link is yet another relevant citation regarding the lawsuit (along with Tag 163 and 165 that are already currently included in the main Wikipedia article on Sarah Palin):

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5689165&page=1

SolesGirlRachel (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)10:26AM, 13 September 2008

Hi - if there is a factual error in the subarticle, feel free to correct it with an appopriate citation (see WP:BOLD) since you are new (and welcome to WP). If you're looking for my opinion on the other stuff, I'm not sure I would agree that the info about the lawsuit must necessarily be mentioned in a summary section on her political views but I would welcome further discussion. Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason I can think of for the removal of the info. Please put it back in, slightly more concise and with less details, if you haven't already. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear all,

The information I intially asked about above (i.e. why was it removed at all, since it was a non-biased matter of public record, of fact) has been placed in an alternate Wikipedia article regarding Palin's positions. It is currently in the Polar Bears subsection.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin

I still believe however, that the deliberate omission of this information from the main Wikipedia article on Sarah Palin here is inappropriate. There is still currently no mention of the ongoing lawsuit's existence whatsoever here in this article, despite numerous undisputed citations to back it up. Since I am relatively new to Wikipedia, I do not have the authority to edit the article, since it currently remains locked under Semi-Protected status. I would appreciate someone with the proper authority looking at the text I have presented here, as well as the amended text in the alternate article, and then re-adding this relevant, factual information to the main Wikipedia article on Sarah Palin (i.e. that she has already filed a lawsuit against the federal government of the United States in direct protest of the Republican Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne's May 14th, 2008 decision to grant Endangered Species act listing & protection to polar bears).

This information has not been challenged or removed on the alternate Wikipedia article. In light of this, and in light of the factual significance of the information, it should therefore immediately be added to this article also, please. Thank you.

SolesGirlRachel (talk) 08:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)4:11am, 14 September 2008

Addition: (Had to say this bit more; this is entirely on topic regarding the accuracy of this article.) I mean really, if no one here thinks that the first ever vice-presidential running-mate to sue her own party's currently elected government during her run for the office of vice-president is not a fact of historical, necessary note about Palin, then I don't know what is. The only conceivable reason to object to this information's inclusion in this article would be a desire to willfully mislead the readers of this article via such a noteworthy omission.

SolesGirlRachel (talk) 08:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)4:26am, 14 September 2008

Bridges to Nowhere - Redux

Well, we've done pretty good. The version that's there has stood, with minor stylistic changes, for almost a week now. Every now and then when someone deletes content, I bring it here to the talk page and the consensus is that the original version should stand. So for the, I dunno, seventh time? eighth? I ask you please do NOT delete content from the Bridges to Nowhere section unless you come to the talk page and give a reason why. The reason the Congressional earmark and reversal in 2005 is there is because it's relevant and notable and gives important history to explain the pre-history of the bridge. Further, there's no POV there, just fact. Why would anyone remove it? The reason why Newsweek quote is there is because it explains the criticism. It is only one quote, a compromise between the anti-Palins who wanted several newspapers quoted (and then at least just their names mentioned) and the pro-Palins who wanted no mention of the criticism at all. If you disagree with the consensus, come to the talk page and try to get your own consensus before willy-nilly deleting content that, thus far, has stood the test of time. Thank you.GreekParadise (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the change of this sentence:

In 2005, Congress earmarked $442 million to build the two bridges but later reversed itself under strong criticism and gave the transportation money to Alaska with no strings attached.[90]

to this one (modified a short time ago):

In 2005, Congress passed the 2006 National Department of Transportation appropriations bill 93 to 1 [95] which included $442 million earmarks to build the two bridges, but later removed the earmarks under strong criticism tied to Ted Stevens' strong disapproval of the Coburn Amendment, which gave the earmarks national media exposure.[96][97] Congress still sent the money to the state for other transportation projects. Sarah Palin supported this transaction and agreed to it.[98]

Usually, I like detail, but I'm not sure what this one adds. That Congress made the earmark and reversed it is relevant to the story of Palin and the Bridge, but the details of why Congress reversed it and the adding of an unexplained detail (what the heck is the Coburn Amendment?, asks the reader) raises more questions than it answers. Obviously this belongs in an article on the Gravina Bridge, possibly one on earmarks, or even on Stevens, but I don't think it belongs in an article on Palin. So I will revert back. I know if I don't then someone's going to again complain this section is too long. Please let me know if you support or oppose this decision. And if opposition is strong, then obviously, put it back in.GreekParadise (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Apologies for not including citation for the amendment, it has since been added. This is simply a brief summary of the extensive information listed in the Gravina Island Bridge topic. If the information about the reason of the earmarks being removed isnt detailed, you are providing undue weight against congress, when the situation primarily was tied to Stevens and the coburn amendment, which was designed to strike the development of the bridges alltogether. It is still brief and it tells the whole story, without distorting the facts, why would we not want it like this? Duuude007 (talk) 10:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about it and won't fight with you any longer on it. While I still think it's unnecessary, as I said before, adding unnecessary (but accurate) detail bothers me far, far less than taking out necessary detail. But I'll tell you this: if someone else starts cutting this section mercilessly -- as has happened several times and may happen again -- I will argue that if brevity is what people want, these additions should go first. But if no one bugs us about the section arguing it's too long, I'm willing to let sleeping dogs lie.GreekParadise (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

New Issue: Bridge or Bridges or Bridge(s)

"Bridge to Nowhere" almost always refers to the Gravina Bridge. "Bridges to Nowhere" almost always refers to the Gravina Bridge and Don Young's Way. "Bridges to Nowhere" has been used tens of thousands of times (according to Google). "Bridge to Nowhere" has been used hundreds of thousands of times (according to Google). These are the facts. Still, I think it's confusing to have a heading "Bridge to Nowhere" and to then discuss two bridges. I don't want to change the content, which we've worked hard on, but I do have a question about the title, ever since a wikipedian removed my original

"Bridge(s) to Nowhere"

and replaced it with

"Bridge to Nowhere"

I don't like either "Bridges to Nowhere" or "Bridge to Nowhere" in the title, because I think either title is confusing and doesn't tell the full story.

I propose the following solutions in the title:

"Bridge(s) to Nowhere" -- This is how I put it originally and I still like it best. But there are other options:

"Bridge/Bridges to Nowhere"

"Bridge to Nowhere/Bridges to Nowhere"

What do other editors think?GreekParadise (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)