Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Terminology discussion - "earmarks" vs "federal funding"

I'd like to open up some general discussion of the terminology we use on Palin's requests for federal funding for both Wasilla and the state of Alaska, the fact of which occurred is agreed by all. I think we have a POV problem, though, in the use of the term "earmark" for all of these requests. Technically speaking, mayors, governors etc. request federal funding from their Congressional delegations. The Congresscritters can either put in a general budgetary request, or direct the funds in the form of an earmark. Our article Earmark (politics) explains the process relatively well. The mayor or governor who makes the request really doesn't control how the money is appropriated, if it is. How do we address this in our article? Should we only use the term "earmark" if the source says that's the form in which the money was disbursed? Should we simply use the term "federal funding" throughout? Should we attempt to address the point that the Congressional delegation actually were responsible for using the earmark process, as some of our sources say? But I think it's a mistake to use the generic term "earmark" for all federal funding, this is technically incorrect. Thoughts welcome. Kelly ^hi! 00:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree precisely. The use of "earmark" as a term for just about every appropriation request is misleading in the extreme. Collect (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If reliable sources use the term "earmark", then we should. If they use other terminology, then we can mirror them. Let's not get into the business of editorially deciding what is and is not an "earmark" versus a "request for money". MastCell ^Talk 05:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

By the same token we shouldn't conflate the two concepts by putting sentences about the two different processes side-by-side thus implying a connection.--Paul (talk) 08:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Birth Of Trig Palin

I propose an addition of information regarding the controversial birth of Trig Palin. I tentatively propose the following text following the report of the child's down syndrome: "Headlines were made after Sarah Palin reported that she entered labor and her water broke with Trig while she was in Texas. She then flew 11 hours to Anchorage and drove an additional hour to Wasilla, AK to give birth at a local hospital. Some healthcare professionals had criticism of the risk she reports taking; while her own physician reported supporting her decision."[1] This account is well documented in press reports and more specifically by Sarah Palin herself. I believe that it is relevant to the personal life section. I have also been careful to attribute to her directly to avoid concerns over the account having been doubted in blogs.--Dstern1 (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. This has been discussed here before, and always rejected. We don't try to synthesize some POV about her judgment via some misogynistic speculation about the operations of her reproductive system. Kelly ^hi! 01:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

While I would respectfully disagree about the misogyny, I do believe that it is relevant. Perhaps, it may be better to exclude the references to controversy? I am seeking opinions. I shall look through the archives for previous discussion; unless someone could point me to that discussion. --Dstern1 (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I welcome response from someone who is not partisan. A fan of Palin is not a valid responder to my questions (nor is one of her hater's for that matter).--Dstern1 (talk) 02:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

For having begun to build their tower of Babel without us, they will end, of course, with cannibalism. But then the beast will crawl to us and lick our feet and spatter them with tears of blood. And we shall sit upon the beast and raise the cup, and on it will be written, "Mystery."

Excuse me, pard, but who is not a partisan? Sarah Palin was selected, irresponsibly IMO, precisely because the Rovian strategy to which John McCain subscribed to ten days ago is to run a polarizing figure such that members of the electorate neatly partition themselves into people that love the polarizer and people who hate her.

This makes the job of a political-consultant-ho bag like Rove easier even in the mathematical sense! Political consultants need political intelligence inversely to the way in which they destroy, like coal companies destroying mountains, voter intelligence, and the response to the polarizing figure contains less "dark matter" in the form of the undecided voters produced by the more nuanced politician.

Predictability, control, and stage management are what the political hos want.

Anybody who pretends to be "objective" about Palin (which is NOT the same thing as writing NPOV) has crawled out from a trailer or from under a rock, works in a convenience store, handles snakes on Sunday, and is aliterate and dyslexic. Of course, many wikipedia editors fit this description to a "T". But, as soon as they bone up on that mad bitch, they will like her because she represents the large and growing ignorant dirtbag element in American culture and life, an element that has long since taken wikipedia over.

You can be, and the wikipedia guidelines on NPOV affirm, partisan in your political views and still WRITE npov. NPOV is (or was) NOT a pretense to a pseudo-scientific ignorance which is by definition impossible if you're an editor reading a text with editorial attentiveness, or a writer writing with his brain turned on, it is a writing style which gives due weight to fact, and opinions (considered as the fact that they are held by certain people) and especially lies when in fact they are lies.

A "fan" of Palin can be "a good responder" in your clumsy phrasing. See the NPOV guidelines. Your "reasoning" has destroyed good journalism because while pretending to be used against the right-wing "fan", its substance is the attempt to disempower progressive politics on the left on behalf of wealthy private media owners.

"Liberal" reporters on balance and even in America probably produce far more good and NPOV copy for respected organs all the time. Hell, there's even some conservatives can do that, and who don't have to wangle a promotion to the op-ed page. Whether or not the "responder", your correspondent, the contributor (god your scrap of writing makes me ill) is or is not a "fan" or enemy of Palin is not material, does not apply, and is fucking moot.

Your foolish statement is precisely wrong, and precisely the sort of personalization/daemonization that is driving real contributors out, but not before ruining reputations in meatspace. It's an invitation to a witch-hunt in which a cybernetic mob hunts out people with "bias" as opposed to the very different, and to the ignorant just boring, issue of a text.

And the fact is that in dirtbag online culture, consisting as it does of academic failures and out and out criminals because of anonymity, simple tests indicate "bias" in a person.

Any gentleness or solidarity is "bias" of the left-wing sort. The ability to write a complex thought is "bias". These people are then hounded and harassed as having "agendas" by people whose only claim to freedom from an agenda is their ignorance, an ignorance that having been "soured by true miseries and maddened by false promises" in C. S. Lewis' phrasing, a brutalized ignorance, comprises the shock troops of Fascism, and biases this and many other articles to the bonehead boneyard right wing.

It's much, much harder to demonstrate right-wing bias. Your prose in fact has to drag its knuckles on the floor.

You can take the Dosteoevsky quote as read, pard. Wikipedia is a latter-day tower of Babel, and today resembles the concentration camp barracks being built in Schindler's list, right down to the engineer who's shot for criticising the foundations, whose suggestions are then adopted. Wikipedia was started as a form of legal fraud to steal content, and is now crawling with aliterate "editors" bearing stupid barnstars whose purpose is to privatise the content and make Jimmy Wales rich by driving out genuine contributors on flimsy and ridiculous charges.

The Sarah Palin page went right to a lock because trailer trash, including today's wikipedia editors, are trying to use their witless reading of NPOV to make this similar in REAL objectivity to the article about Joe Stalin in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia.

Edward G. "spinoza1111" Nilges

p.s.: you're an editor, and you can't even form a plural from a two-syllable verb? Hater apostrophe s?

pp.s.: People who pretend to be above politics are usually people who are completely uninformed.

I appreciate your sentiments though I would not have been quite so blunt. At this point, any sincere feedback is appreciated. I would like to include the information and I wish I knew how to achieve consensus on inclusion. It seems that any mention of the information despite the fact that it is solely from her own reports gets me threatened with being banned; and I was banned for 24 hours because I stood firm. I was accused with defamation by repeating her own account of the events. Again, thanks for the feedback.--Dstern1 (talk) 23:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked through the Archives and see that Archive #12 previously had discussion of this topic. I see much support for inclusion. So far the only opposition seems to be from a cheerleader for Palin. But I shall certainly wait until tomorrow to hear more opinions before I make an edit. The topic is obviously sensitive.--Dstern1 (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There are many examples of this being discussed in the archives and the consensus has always been to exclude. Take a look at archive #8 for instance. There are others.--Paul (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have looked over the archives including #8 and #12. I am proposing inclusion of an astonishing report of her personal life as she reports it. I contend that her own report of the events is relevant as stated. Can conjecture develop from this issue? Perhaps, and it has. Am I proposing report of that conjecture? No. Is any of that conjecture relevant to this article? Not at this time, in opinion; at least not unless that conjecture can ever be sourced as fact. I am proposing inclusion of information which is relevant and well-sourced.--Dstern1 (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I like Palin and I say include it.--Rosebud999 (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I am making the edit. If anybody disagrees, please say so here; I would like to discuss it. Please do not just reverse my edit. --Dstern1 (talk) 05:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If it is kept, I suggest a little different wording: "Palin's youngest child, Trig, was diagnosed prenatally with Down syndrome. A month before his due date, while Palin was in Texas for a conference, her amniotic fluid began leaking. She went on to give the keynote address for the conference, then flew to Anchorage and drove an additional hour to Wasilla, AK to give birth at a regional hospital. She consulted her doctor during the trip, and though Palin did not get explicit permission to fly, she later stated that she was not in active labor. Her doctor supported her decision to return home, but some healthcare professionals criticized Palin for not going immediately to the nearest hospital." FangedFaerie (talk) 05:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I have been careful to keep it to her own reports. Many have questioned those reports and I do not wish to start a battle over accuracy; thus I phrased the reports to indicate it is her own reports.--Dstern1 (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Understood. It's just kinda awkward phrasing.FangedFaerie (talk) 06:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

A vandal deleted my edit. I just reversed it. If anyone has concerns, lets discuss it.--Dstern1 (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a vandal. Get consensus for controversial material before including it. This information has been previously rejected, more than once, as mentioned above. Kelly ^hi! 14:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

yes, vandal. I reviewed the archives. Please discuss your concerns before reversing my edits.--Dstern1 (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Dstern1, please stop with the personal attacks, that doesn't help. Why is the material you want to add relevant? How does it improve the article? It seems to give undue weight compared to the rest of the family section. Also, who are the health care providers that are critical of her? I left a note on your talk page as well. Thank you, --Tom 14:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, my edits were reversed. I am asking that they remain until someone can show why they need to be changed. Thank you.--Dstern1 (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The onus is on the one proposing new material to prove why it should be included in the article. Review the advice that several editors have given you in this thread, including directly above your comment. If you continue to edit war, I will block you. GlassCobra 15:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Not if I get to the block button first. This topic has been discussed extensively since Palin was named as VP nominee. Consensus has been against inclusion. You need to change consensus before edit warring over the content. Ronnotel (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Dstern1, the citation quotes one California doctor as saying "If your water breaks, go to the hospital". Again, whom are critical of her travel plans before giving birth, but more importantly, why is this relevant and what is the point for inclusion. Why is so important that this be included. You are going to be blocked because 3-4 different editors have reverted you but you continue to edit war?? --Tom 15:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• I put this content back in because I find it properly sourced, relevant, MUCH-discussed by the media, and I add myself to the developing consensus that it should remain in the article. To assert consensus when there is none is against the precepts of Wikipedia. This appears to be a matter of record, to be a matter that is true, to be multiply sourced. To remove it from the article is only to purge inconvenient truth that one group of partisans wishes to suppress, and that is anathema to what we do here. This article should contain whatever the sources indicate, good or bad. It is not a PR piece for the candidate or a PR piece for the candidate's opposition. NPOV demands that if there is valid information that it be in the article whether or not somebody can spin it as negative. --BenBurch (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

What inconvenient truth that one group of partisans wishes to suppress are we talking about? The artilcle should NOT contain whatever the sources indicate, good or bad. The article should include relevant, notable, balanced, well sourced, consensus reached, common sense material. This "issue" broke very early into the Palin arrival and has turned up what exactly? --Tom 15:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read the revert in question? All it contained was Palin's OWN story that her waters broke in TX and she flew home in labor, and a mention that many have expressed alarm that she would take that risk. SHE brought this story out or we would never even know of it. --BenBurch (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why "do not insert controversial information without gaining consensus first" isn't getting through. This has been discussed several times. None of those discussions resulted in the information being included. In BLPs, we don't put content in and then gain consensus to take it out. Quite the opposite. One editor has already been blocked for edit warring over this. Unless you're inclined to join him, don't revert it back in. It's undue weight. Just because it's discussed in the media doesn't mean it is encyclopedic. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 16:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see it as controversial. YES, the interpretation of it clearly is, but the event is acknowledged by all sides in the matter. How can an acknowledged fact with no controversy about whether it happened or not, the interpretation of which has been central to much of the public discourse about the subject of this article, be controversial for its very inclusion here? The answer is that is is not, and to insist otherwise is an attempt to whitewash this article. If it is on everybody's lips, how can it be undue weight? Is that what Wikipedia stands for? Or are we to include what is referenced, verifiable, and relevant to the subject? Answer THAT question please? And please do not threaten to block me over a good faith edit made for reasons that are entirely coherent with the rules here. That was uncalled for. --BenBurch (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we discussing why people shouldn't edit war to insert disputed content on one of Wikipedia's most important articles? If so, you can infer that it is controversial by the fact that so many well-established editors oppose it. Whether you agree with them or not, that more or less proves that the matter is in dispute and requires consensus. Or is this discussion yet another try to reach consensus on something that so far has not had consensus? In the latter case I would say that the bodily details of how a woman goes about delivering her fourth child are simply not a suitable or relevant topic for her biography. To the extent they are an attempt to show she is irresponsible or caused her child's Down's Syndrome, or that the child is not really hers, that is either a WP:BLP violation or if you are of the school that she is too WP:WELLKNOWN about this issue, still a significant WP:WEIGHT, WP:SYNTH, and/or WP:NPOV problem. Although there are some sources, I do not believe there are sufficient sources to show that these particular details are a significant issue in her life. There are hundreds of thousands of newspaper articles about her now. It takes more than a few to show that an event is notable. Wikidemon (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Wikidemon and Jennavecia. Also agree that the material that was attempted to be added here was not suitable for the main article. Hobartimus (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that the general theme of Trig's birth is notable. However, speculation and third opinions aren't. If/when she speaks about her feelings and perspective on Trig's birth, we should quote that accurately. Until then we should do no more than discuss well known facts (When and where he was born, etc). The previous entry was certainly controversial, which is why it was reverted by several different people. Atom (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Speculation about Track's birth also fit into this category, and should only be allowed if we are citing something she (or her husband says) and not other peoples opinions. Atom (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Atom, you hit the nail on the head here. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 23:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked over the proposed edit and I really cannot see any objection to it. It does not speculate. It does not defame anybody. I like the way it was worded to show it was Sarah Palin's own report. I am tempted to restore it myself as a step towards gaining some consensus (I read about being bold and then discussing with those that object). I am as much a supporter of Palin as anybody. I am in FFL. I usually vote Republican. I tend to favor inclusion of as much relevant information as possible. Lets discuss it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahsposse (talk • contribs) 18:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm an Obama supporter, donor and campaign worker. I think it should not be included, it reeks of opinion, synthesis and coloring with an agenda. 76.238.24.49 (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

How is it any of those things? It is a well sourced anecdote from her remarkable life. Where is the agenda or the opinion? Certainly no synthesis. It is all taken directly from a secondary source, as the instructions indicate is preferred.Sarahsposse (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 76.238.24.49. Most Wikipedia biographical articles involve someone who was born after a mother's water broke. And none of those thousands of Wikipedia articles mention it, for the very good reason that it's not sufficiently notable. Let's move along.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I meantioned my politics solely because it looked like some were saying the account reflected poorly on Sarah Palin. My point was to say I disagreed. The account is significant and appropriate for inclusion because it is extraordinary. Thus I say include it.--Sarahsposse (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

How is it exraordinary? Also, welcome. --Tom 19:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think others may have put it better above. However, it is extraordinary that a woman could tolerate giving a speech, and then flying 11 hrs. in labor to make it to a small town hospital. I can understand need to have trust in your personal physician. I think she said something about needing to give birth in Alaska out of pride. At minimum it proves her extraordinary stamina. Mostly, it is an interesting story about her. Humanizes her (if that's the right word). I also believed that the edit has become a battle between her supporters and opposition; her supporters calling it defamatory. It is not defamatory. It is her own story! Someone called it "opinion, synthesis and coloring with an agenda;" I could not disagree more. Regardless of politics. It is her story. BTW, thanks for the welcome. --Sarahsposse (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. Maybe there is hope for consensus. I think you made a good argument. Even though we come from different perspectives, we came to similar conclusions.--Dstern1 (talk) 23:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is about to go to the archives and the issue is not resolved. I do not believe that there is consensus against inclusion; nor is there yet consensus for inclusion. This is the proposed addition:

Headlines were made after Palin reported that she entered labor and her water broke with Trig while she was in Texas; approximately 1 month earlier than expected. She said that she then flew 11 hours to Anchorage and drove an additional hour to Wasilla, AK to give birth at a local hospital. Some healthcare professionals had criticism of the risk she reports taking; while her own physician reported supporting her decision.

I would like to hear opinions for and against. I am trying to build consensus for inclusion. I am also capable of being convinced otherwise. Please note this report is well supported by the noted newspaper article and it is solely as reported by Sarah PAlin. Someone accused me of being defamatory before; I contend that it cannot be defamatory because it is what she had reported herself. I will note upfront that this account has caused a certain amount of speculation; none of that speculation is reported here. A couple of her supporters have so far told me that they would like it included (see above); a few Obama supporters have also agreed. I note one person identified as an Obama supporter has asked for exclusion and several Palin supporters have objected as well. But that is before. Lets hear some opinions. Please.--Dstern1 (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please merge this with the discussion above rather than forking the discussion all over the place, thanks. The discussion will not be archived while it is ongoing. Kelly ^hi! 01:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected and will do as you suggest.--Dstern1 (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Dstern1, the topic you propose to cover hardly seems either relevant or particularly notable. As per eMedicine, "PPROM (leaking amniotic fluid) complicates 3% of all pregnancies and occurs in approximately 150,000 pregnancies yearly in the United States." And you think this is extraordinary because. . .? Ronnotel (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I cannot discuss your medical citation until I can review it. I added my edit and it was reversed almost immediately. I made the edit to get the discussion moving. I contend that it is a notable event in the life of Sarah Palin. Again, I am presenting it in as neutral form as I can identify. If someone has more neutral language, I want to listen.--Dstern1 (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for slowing down. Yes, getting on a plane while leaking amniotic fluid might seem odd at first. However, from the available information we simply don't know if that was unusual for her. Were her other four births similarly complicated? She was in a much better position than anyone else to weigh the risks of getting on a plane and being delivered by her regular doctor or taking a chance on a unknown doctor and strange hospital. I just don't see this as particularly extraordinary so that it warrants a mention in her bio. We'd have to research all of her other births and/or medical procedures for a standard to judge it by. Ronnotel (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Dstein, simply repeating the same argument over and over until other people get tired of repeating theirs is not "consensus". You have yet to substantively address the concerns that have been raised over and over here. We should no more be discussing the childbirth process for female candidates than we should be discussing the penis size of male candidates. (Sorry for any unintended mental imagery caused by my comment.) Kelly ^hi! 03:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

First, let me implore people to stop making phony claims of "consensus". I've heard this claim advanced on multiple contested issues. "I made an argument and no one stated a refutation that convinced me" does not translate to "there was consensus".

Ferrylodge writes, "Most Wikipedia biographical articles involve someone who was born after a mother's water broke." Very funny! But I'll put aside the snarkiness and address Ronnotel's question about why this is extraordinary. As has been pointed out, most women don't go through such an experience -- giving a speech and undertaking a long plane ride -- after their waters broke. It was reported on in some detail in the Anchorge Daily News at the time of Trig's birth. As another example, look at the entire birth report on Alaska Public Radio Network -- three sentences, two of them devoted to the unusual circumstances that some editors want to omit from our article. Furthermore, the episode has been mentioned since then by Palin partisans as a demonstration of how "tough" she is. The subject receives several paragraphs of coverage in this recent AP story (scroll down about halfway, to the heading "From Texas to Alaska before delivery").

The version suggested earlier in this thread mentions the medical issues raised. That gets into criticism of Palin -- criticism advanced by prominent spokespersons, and so worth being considered for inclusion, but, simply because it's criticism, it generates problems in the minds of some editors. For starters, we might omit that part and simply recount the unusual timeline of the birth. Here's another version that was in our article at one point:

Palin's announcement in March 2008 that she was seven months pregnant generated publicity and surprise, as did the circumstances of Trig's birth. More than a month before the baby was due, she was in Texas to deliver the keynote address at a conference. At about 4:00 a.m. local time, she began leaking amniotic fluid. She remained in Texas to deliver the speech before taking the eight-hour flight back to Alaska. She landed in Anchorage at 10:30 p.m. and arrived at the Mat-Su Valley Regional Medical Center an hour later. She gave birth at 6:30 a.m. the next day after her physician induced labor. Palin returned to work three days later.

This information was originally expunged at a time of Internet speculation that Trig was actually born to Bristol. I agreed with excluding that speculation from the article, and I thought it wasn't surprising that some people reacted viscerally to any discussion of the circumstances of the birth. With that speculation apparently dead, however, we can now take note of the news judgment of such sources as the Anchorage Daily News, Alaska Public Radio Network, and the Associated Press, and include some undisputed facts. JamesMLane t c 07:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Many women have some unusual experience during childbirth. We don't need to include the "interesting" birth stories of all mothers who have Wikipedia articles, even if they made headlines at the time. The fact that she had to be induced 26 hours after the leaking started suggests her and her doctor's assessment of the situation was an unnotable judgment call. --agr (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Well, based on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dstern1, it appears that Rosebud999 and Sarahsposse were socks of Dstern1. It's actually kind of hilarious that they were conversing with each other. Kelly ^hi! 04:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if Sarah and Hillary can converse on SNL....Ferrylodge (talk) 05:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying that Sarah and Hillary are sockpuppets? Now that I think about it, I've never actually seen them in the same place at the same time... Kelly ^hi! 05:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And if you had, it was probably a body double! Jennavecia ^(Talk) 05:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The Truth about Earmarks

I have removed the lined-out sentence from the budgets section of the article:

While initially supporting $223 million in federal funding for the "Bridge to Nowhere", Palin backed off when Alaska's share of the cost increased. In February 2008, Palin's office sent a 70-page memo to Ted Stevens' office, outlining $200 million in funding requests for Alaska.

First, this sentence is an orphan, and has no context in it's current place in the article.

Second, it was undoubtedly intended to providing a counterpoint to the Palin/McCain objection to the current system of earmarks. Earmarks are federal expenditures that are placed into appropriation bills that "earmark" funds for particular projects without those appropriations ever going through a debate and a vote. Politicians who argue against earmarks (including McCain and Palin) want to reform this process. They do not want to stop spending federal money in the states. No one wants to do that, because that is how government works today. The federal government collects personal and corporate income taxes and then all of the senators and representatives try to get some of it back for their states and districts.

The fact that the Palin administration wrote a 70-page memo to their senior Senator is completely non-notable. Every state government works with their congressional delegation to get the maximum amount of dollars out of Washington to support state programs. The issue at debate in this election is the reform of the earmark system. A governor cannot request an earmark. A governor can only request funds. It is up to the congressional representative to decide if they will get that funding through an appropriation bill that spells out what is being funded with a vote, or if they will try to get money by stuffing it into an appropriation bill as an earmark. That fact that the Palin asked Stevens to work for $200 million of funding for projects in Alaska, has no bearing whatsoever on the argument over the Bridge to Nowhere or the reform of the congressional earmark system. Accordingly, I have deleted that sentence as a non-sequitur.--Paul (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, good edit. I was trying to think of how to approach that with my question above, but your approach was the correct one. Kelly ^hi! 01:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

While I have no problem with the edit for its grammatical worth (the sentence does appear to be out of context), the reality is that any request which directs funds to a particular state (location) is, in fact, an earmark OMB Earmark Definition. While you've made an interesting argument about "every state government work[ing] with their congressional delegation to get the maximum amount of dollars out of Washington," that is exactly what I believe that McCain is against. Earmark opponents would suggest that money should be directed to federal agencies without recipients specified and that the executive branch should then distribute funds based upon the merit of proposed endeavors. The statement about her request for $200 million is notable in that an individual might perceive it as working within the existing system or as being committed to it-- having a direct bearing on their impression of Ms. Palin. It is, as I said earlier, not well-placed, though.Iceborer (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that many earmark opponents are against any direction of funds to a particular use, if you do a Lexis search on earmarks, I think you'll see that the current outrage against them is that most are inserted as "report language" after the bill is passed, thus bypassing the debate and vote process of a congressional bill. The desire to prevent circumvention of the Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes is really a Utopian goal that few really argue for. Personally, I'd like to reduce federal taxes and increase local taxes so the states would have money and discretion on how to spend it, but I am aware enough of realities to realize that cutting down the size of the Federal Government to allow a redistribution of taxing and spending to a more local level is never going to happen.--Paul (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I never thought of the OMB as Utopian OMB Earmark Data Collection :)Iceborer (talk) 04:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any specific suggestions? See WP:DUE for why the sentence was removed. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

My concern was that the rationale for the edit was one sentence about context followed by, apologies to Paul, 2 paragraphs of his POV about what earmarks are. The second portion of the rationale given for the edit seems to poorly support it.Iceborer (talk) 04:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"Every state government works with their congressional delegation to get the maximum amount of dollars out of Washington to support state programs." But not every state governor is campaigning on a platform of ending earmarks. Grsz^talk 02:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again, Governors do not ask for earmarks, they ask for funding. There is no conflict between the state government writing a 70-page memo to the congressional delegation outlining the need for funding and being against earmarks. A memo outlining funding requests and needs will necessarily contain information on why the funds should be allocated using a competitive allocation processes. There is no obvious connection between such a memo and the current system of congressional earmarks. If someone is against the current earmark system, that does not mean they forsake all federal funding.--Paul (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well when Ted Stevens got funding for the Bridge to Nowhere, it was (very publicly) in the form of earmarks. She didn't refuse it then. Stevens is known for his pork [2]. And obviously if Palin sent him a list of funding she wanted, she knew how it would come. It goes to show that Palin was certainly not against earmark funding until McCain called. Grsz^talk 02:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"...obviously if Palin sent him a list of funding she wanted, she knew how it would come." This is not obvious. Plain has a reputation as a reformer. Saying that she knew such a list would be funded through earmarks because it was sent to Stevens is close to libeling Stevens and is implying guilt of Palin by association.--Paul (talk) 03:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're bringing a constructive tone to the discussion here. I agree with you that in most situations this would not be notable. In that light, the best place for a detailed conversation about earmarks is probably on the campaign page. Aprock (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying a governor should decline federal funding? Should all of the money the federal government collects be spent in the District of Columbia? Being against the earmarking process is very much different from declining federal funding. Kelly ^hi! 03:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The edit was fine. Let's stick to sources rather than debate the nature of earmarks amongst ourselves. At least some reliable sources have noted an apparent incongruity between current rhetoric and past actions with regard to federal funding. MastCell ^Talk 05:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That is another problem with this sentence, it has a single source: an Obama talking points release.--Paul (talk) 08:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions

The "Political positions" section is supposed to be a neutral summary of the subarticle, but in the current form it is far from that. Tagged accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Good specific critique there, Jossi. :) Any suggestions? Kelly ^hi! 04:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure: Take the main points from each one of the sub-sections in the subarticle and summarize these here. Not easy, but doable. As it stand this is a very poor summary of what is there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Interested to see what you've got in mind. Please post here on the talk page first, that section has been controversial and there's been a lot of back-and-forth. Best to obtain consensus first, I think. Kelly ^hi! 05:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

16 September 2008- Sarah Palin has never entertained the idea of war with Russia. The hypothetical situation discussed by Palin and Charlie Gibson refered to a possible attack from Russia on a NATO member. Nato members are absolutely obliged to defend NATO soil as if it is the soil of their own nation. The United States is obligated to defend militarily in times of an invasion on a NATO member. Palin simply expressed her understanding of NATO policy, not the implications of War between the US and Russia respectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.72.65 (talk) 07:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Since when? Her comments came regarding the invasion of Georgia or another former Soviet nation, most of which are not NATO members. Besides, Wikipedia is to report what she said, not offer lengthy defenses. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 21:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you never bothered to even read her comments, so why are you even commenting, even being so brazen as to assert it's a "defense" when she is clearly being misquoted here? She said "... We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to...It doesn't have to lead to war and it doesn't have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies ..."

Margaret Thatcher and "reception"

I've seen several UK-based and US-based commentators/columnists note an eerie similarity between Palin and Thatcher, such as these articles: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/09/04/do0404.xml and http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122143727571134335.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_mostpop . This should be touched on in the reception section, particulalry in light of the claims the "intense scrutiny" was only a result of Palin being a new political commodity. Obama who was similarly unknown received little to no scrutiny by the mainstream media outside of Fox news. It took them a year to find out about his racist, bigot of a reverend despite Wright's very well known controversial church and speeches and controversial associations, like Farrahkan, and the fact that video evidence of his extremist views were readily available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.29.150 (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Further, I have serious issues with the claims that "only republicans" have seen the attacks on Palin as unfair. Highly notable and visible democrats like Kirsten Powers and Geraldine Ferraro, among many others, have come out condeming the unfair media attacks on Palin.66.190.29.150 (talk) 08:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

militaries

militaries? you mean military's? how do you change that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aashideacon (talk • contribs) 07:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"Thanks, but no thanks" widely questioned

Regarding these sentences: "These claims have been widely questioned or described as misleading across the political spectrum, in the news media .[111][112][113][114] Factcheck.org said "it’s inaccurate to say that she “told the Congress ‘thanks, but no thanks.’”"[115] Newsweek, commenting on Palin's "astonishing pivot," remarked: "Now she talks as if she always opposed the funding."[116]

The Sydney Morning Herald reported that virtually every media group in the US has concluded that Palin exaggerated her claim that she said "Thanks, but no thanks to the Bridge to Nowhere".[109]"

I count 7 references and 3 expounders for the one good statement. Isn't this becoming WP:UNDUE? Can we boil this down to one good statement with a reasonable number of references to make the point and maybe one good expounder? Although I think an expounder is not needed to make the point.WTucker (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried to boil down to one good statement and no expounder, and it was rv'd as vandalism. IMO there should be NO expounders in this article. We need to stick to one statement with a reference for every point. Let's use summary style w/o quotes as well. This will help keep this page NPOV Mytwocents (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If it was restored without consensus (which it clearly was since we are trying to achieve that consensus) and without "significant change" then it is a violation of BLP (see restoring deleted content). Are we not going to enforce this portion of BLP? And calling it vandalism was uncalled for -- a good faith edit should never be called vandalism. I am sorry that that happened to you -- it is an embarrassment to WP.WTucker (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If we wish to assign primary importance to factcheck.org ought we not include http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html . And http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html states "Palin may have said “Thanks, but no thanks” on the Bridge to Nowhere, though not until Congress had pretty much killed it already. " which is not exactly the ringing refutation attributed to factcheck.org. The SMH article, again, is a rehash of American articles and editorials. Using it is like using a precis on a foreign site to iterate cites already made for its sources. Collect (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This is sourced in the article, to WSJ, NYT, AP, and Factcheck. I removed Newsweek and the Sydney Morning Herald. "Thanks but no thanks" is adequately debunked by the first four citations. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Too true. Please see my thread "we need to delete", below. Mytwocents (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Is wikipedia really supposed to be the place to debate the semantics of campain slogans/talking points? Will you argue in the Obama wiki for the inclusion of the questioning of Obama's claims he won't raise taxes on the middle class, when almost any economist will tell you that if you tax businesses, they pass the tax on to the consumers? Or that his claims of "95% of americans will get a tax break" when less than half of americans even pay taxes at all? Those are some pretty misleading bits of rhetoric.66.190.29.150 (talk) 04:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources

At this time, there are 201 sources in the article. It's hard to think some of these sources don't say the same thing. It's probably a good idea to see if we can condense some references together. Grsz^talk 15:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Good luck trying to sift through it all. You are right, there is a ton of information that wasn't there three weeks ago. This article will only get bigger and bigger and it may not be the best time to start condensing citations because the circus isn't over yet. Jojhutton (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

We're just as well off with multiple sources. Some of these links may go dead. With multiple articles cited, the reader may be able to find the same information in a different cited source. JamesMLane t c 16:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You can do a lot of good if you want to be a wikignome on this. For example you can find refs that are incomplete or not in citation style and fill them out.[3] In the process you'll probably find a few broken links, cites out of place, and cites to nowhere to fix. Also, once that's all done you might notice that there are some duplicates that can be consolidated.[4] Do be careful - broken links are best fixed rather than deleted, and even if a link isn't there does not mean the source does not exist (cites without online links are still valid but in an article like this, best supported with a courtesy link or secondary citation). Wikidemon (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"Palin has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her ... "

This comparison [5] shows my edit. I removed several expounders. I want NPOV. It's important that we keep a summary style with citations. But any interjecting of a POV with a mention of the New York Times(or some other paper) does not remeove the fact that it is POV, being parrotted by a news article. Statements on wikipedia must stand on there own wieght, without quotation marks or inflation of their importance with a mention of the "esteemed" news source. In light of that, they should sumarised, or if covered already by another statement, deleted. Mytwocents (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:NPOV. MastCell ^Talk 19:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if I've been here another 3 years I'll learn what NPOV is .............. An editor restored the 2 expounders I deleted with this comment "(these statements need this context. and npov means "neutral point of view")" .... a little snarkey, but I agree! Without the expounder text the statements are a pure hatchet job. But here's a newsflash, theyr'e just as POV with the expounders, just easier to swallow!

"According to a New York Times article, for which reporters interviewed 60 local officials and legislators, Palin has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and blurred the line between government and personal grievance. An article in USA Today states that Palin teamed with Democrats in the Legislature to raise taxes on the oil industry and to pursue a populist agenda that toughened ethics rules, while taking few steps to advance culturally conservative causes."

Here is the text w//o the softening expounders; "Palin has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and blurred the line between government and personal grievance. Palin teamed with Democrats in the Legislature to raise taxes on the oil industry and to pursue a populist agenda that toughened ethics rules, while taking few steps to advance culturally conservative causes. "

Now, if you can condense and summarise these statements in a way that they can stay in in the article, be my guest. But I'm giving you a fools errand. There's no way to make this stuff encyclopedic and neutral, even in contrast to the rest of the section. It needs to go. Mytwocents (talk)

Subject addressed in #36 and Wikidemon archived topic.

Saturday Night Live/Fey parody

10:24, 2008 September 16 SnapCount (Talk | contribs) (92,139 bytes) (Undid revision 238831667 by Loodog (talk) We'll put it in when the spoofs of Obama are mentioned in his bio) (undo)

Fine with me. Some editor who is up on parodies of Obama can insert one over there provided that it is tasteful and on target like Fey's spoof of Palin. But perhaps more appropriately a spoof on Biden could be included to counterbalance mention of the spoof on Palin. McCain too. These spoofs should not form a digression in any article but do deserve mention as comic relief in the campaign, especially spoofs which become news stories in themselves. Richard David Ramsey 16:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because it's all about "being fair." What a crock. Grsz^talk 17:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The SNL skit was quite funny. Has no place here. At all. Keeper ǀ 76 17:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think that's what SnapCount meant. I would consider it relevant for inclusion in Fey's bio, but not Palin's. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 17:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This kind of false equivalency is completely inappropriate. The McCain, Obama, Biden, and Palin articles should all be NPOV, should all include the important information about the subject, etc. If a parody of one is notable enough to be reported, it should be reported, even if there's no similarly prominent parody of any of the others.

Looking just at this article, without the false equivalency, I'm inclined to say that the Fey portrayal shouldn't be mentioned. It attracted more attention than some SNL parodies, chiefly because Fey nailed both a remarkable physical resemblance and a superb imitation of voice and mannerism. Nevertheless, none of that adds up to enough impact to be mentioned here. It should probably go into the Tina Fey article, though. JamesMLane t c 17:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing about Dana Carvey's years of parodying the former president on the George H. W. Bush bio page. I really can't see how Fey's one time parody of Palin is substantial enough at this point to need to be mnetioned here.—Gaff ^ταλκ 22:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's triva really not biographic material. Hobartimus (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}. If you think Carvey notable, make the case at Bush's article. Otherwise, this is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin's $600 million second {other} bridge

htt://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090916/ap_on_el_pr/palin_bridge_to_wasilla

A $600 million bridge and highway project to link Alaska's largest city to Palin's town of 7,000 residents is moving full speed ahead, despite concerns the bridge could worsen some commuting and threaten a population of beluga whales.

--MisterAlbert (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin unqualified to run a major company like HP

...per ex CEO of HP, Republican Carly Fiorina.<:ref>http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/16/palin-s-favorability-ratings-begin-to-falter.aspx Fiorina admits to Palin's inability to run a major company</ref>

• A story in a major newspaper reprinting the comment would be a better source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a major qualifier. Should it be included? She is an avid McCain supporter, so this recording is ironic to say the least. Duuude007 (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there the slightest bit of relevance to this? Collect (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Relevance? Certainly. The problem with it is that, without other opinions on Palin's competence, including it may be undue weight. If substantially all opinions are in accord, we should reflect them - as we do with the criticism of Richard Mentor Johnson. But in the meantime, this is a sourced assertion which may well be notable; removing it from this talkpage, as one editor did, is no help to Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No real relevance. If anyone bothered to actually read the blog, they'd say that a more complete version of Fiorina's comment was "No, I don't. But that's not what she's running for." I.e., Fiorina herself didn't think it was relevant, but she had to answer the interviewer's question. It would be hard to come up with something less relevant, but I have confidence that somebody will. GRBerry 20:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is not worthy of inclusion in our biographical article. Let's try not to get caught up in 24-hour-news-cycle syndrome here. MastCell ^Talk 20:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)Of course that is Fiorina's take (and should be included if anything is, as context). But the fact that Palin is being defended by calling the vice-presidency suitable for Throttlebottoms is itself a non-trivial development. If there is more than one datapoint, we should consider again; that's why this one should stay accessible, even if unincluded. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• More info from FirstRead

In this, she is followed up with questioning, and stands by her statement. Duuude007 (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Fiorina, McCain's campaign co-chair, says Palin is not qualified to run HP but that she is qualified to be Vice President, and that she has more executive experience than Obama. Yes, it is getting coverage in major media as part of the news of the day. However, it is so not notable I have a hard time understanding why the newspapers are bothering to print it much less why it would be here in an article about Palin's life. It's more of a rhetorical trick over what an executive qualification is than a news item. Wikidemon (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Palin running a major company? No. If you would bother to share the rest of the comments, she said that McCain wouldn't be able to run a major company, nor would Obama, or Biden. She said though, that she isn't going to be the CEO of a major company and the comparison is null. Grsz^talk 21:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Is America not the most complex business in the world, with over 1.8 million employees, and where "the buck stops here"? Sounds pretty dang major to me. Duuude007 (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That's what I mean by rhetorical trick. Few vice presidents are qualified to run a day care center, sandwich shop, or scuba dive school either. The qualities of political leadership are clearly different than those of business leadership. Wikidemon (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you not read Grsz's entire entry. Good point. Fiorini also said that Palin has more experience running a govenrment than Obama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.135.56.32 (talk • contribs)

church is assemblies of god

The description of Palin's church as "joined the Wasilla Assembly of God, which belongs to a Pentecostal association of churches" can be improved. It is part of the Assemblies of God. I suggest rewriting this to read something like "…which belongs to the Assemblies of God, a Pentecostal denomination". Dark and stormy knight (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, on the face of it, to wikilink Assemblies of God, if not already done. Keeper ǀ 76 23:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Federal Funding

Palins projects totals are $453M. in federal requests.

From the Wall Street Journal.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122143893857134389.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_mostpop

These projects include more than $130 million in federal funds that would benefit Alaska's fishing industry and an additional $9 million to help Alaska oil companies. She also has sought $4.5 million to upgrade an airport on a Bering Sea island that has a year-round population of less than 100.

her first year in office, she sought $256 million for dozens more projects ranging from research on rockfish and harbor-seal genetics to rural sanitation and obesity prevention. By comparison, her predecessor, Gov. Frank Murkowski, sought more than $350 million in his last year in office. --207.232.97.13 (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)fred

God Made Us Invade Iraq?

She urged students to pray “that our leaders -- that our national leaders -- are sending [soldiers] out on a task that is from God.” [201] [202]

What she actually said "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan". So, the interpretation is disputed. She herself says that she was not saying that God made the US invade Iraq (praying that God should get on our side), but that she was actually saying that they should pray so that US actions will line up with God's will (praying that we are on God's side). See [6] and [7] and [8].

We as Wikipedia editors may very well believe that McCain/Palin is lying through their teeth, but that doesn't matter. We need to fairly represent McCain/Palin's POV so this article is balanced and NPOV. The Squicks (talk) 01:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

So basically, she was saying, "You better hope that God wanted us to invade Iraq, or else we're fucked." Either way, we can't publish your personal analysis of her comments. Also, your sources are all blogs or other unreliable sources. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

She was saying, "You better hope that God wanted us to invade Iraq, or else we're fucked." *Claps softly*

your sources are all blogs or other unreliable sources I didn't post those as sources. I posted those as things to read for background. I apologize that I should have been more clear.

Either way, we can't publish your personal analysis of her comments. It's not my opinion. It's the opinion of Sarah Palin and John McCain. They have both said that the quote was taken out of context. The Squicks (talk) 02:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If this article is going to be NPOV, it needs to=

(a)Mention the actual exact quote, not a paraphrased or edited quote

(b)Mention the specific allegations by the left about it (Like how The Huffington Post described this as Palin "paint(ing) the current war in Iraq as a messianic affair in which the United States could act out the will of the Lord")

(c)Mention McCain's and Palin's response the allegations (Like how a spokesperson referred to "a distortion of what she was saying." And said, "She very clearly was saying that she's praying for military men and women to do what's right... Every religious American prays that what the U.S. is doing in Iraq is something that is a righteous act." And how Palin herself disputed the liberals interpretation on her ABC-Gibson interview.) The Squicks (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I misinterpreted what you were suggesting. I'm all for adding your a,b,c into the article, so long as it is concise and doesn't violate WP:DUE, as this is her biography, not just a summary of her campaign. Why don't you be bold and add it yourself? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think how it is right now is better than adding a bunch of crap from whoever. Right now it's raw quotes - exactly what Palin said, and nothing more. This leaves it to the reader to think for himself, imagine that. Grsz^talk 04:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no... right now it is NOT raw quotes. Right now, the article does not say the full thing that she actually said. It gives a hacked off chop of her quote. The Squicks (talk) 05:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I put in the correct quote, and I added a snippet about the controversy in there. The Squicks (talk) 05:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Photo caption

Shouldn't the caption on the photo of Palin pointing the rifle at the viewer explain the photograph instead of stating policy positions? I think the readers will want to know what she is doing. They will read the text for statements about her positions.WTucker (talk) 02:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The Squicks (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Abstinence only AND contraception education

72.86.7.161 (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC) I'm not authorized to edit, so I'll put it here.

This line contains a mistake.

Palin opposes sex education and endorses the teaching of abstinence-only sex education in schools.

This would be correct:

Palin supports contraception education, and also endorses the teaching of abstinence-only sex education in schools.

Here is the reference:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-sexed6-2008sep06,0,3119305.story

I am not so sure that is a mistake. The current GOP platform, which she has endorsed as a whole, makes clear opposition to teaching about contraception.--Dstern1 (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I would think anything she says on her own overrides anything in the platform. I made this change but retained the current well-source claim that she opposed explicit sex-education in schools.--Paul (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Reading the GOP Platform does not support the claim that it opposes contraception. http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Values.htm "We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. " It does oppose school based _clinics_ which provide abortion and contraception services. Also it opposes schools recommending or requiring psychotropic medications for children. If one were to include the entire GOP platform material on this isse, that would be fine. Making statements which are not 100% accurate is not fine. Collect (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand - it said clearly that she supported contraception (though in a different word order conveying less of a focus on 'support,' 'support', 'support') prior to your edit. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

She made her comment "supporting contraception," which is far from clear, in 2006. Is there anything current which clarifies her position?Jimintheatl (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Do statements have a "sell by" date? Absent contradictory statements from Palin, why would a 2 year old statement be invalid? Surely many of the quotes in this article are far older. Collect (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the "sell by" date is at issue here. What's at issue, to me at any rate, is what the heck she means by "support," specifically. FangedFaerie (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The article now says and she is supportive of "abstinence-only" sex education, although in 2006 said she supported contraception. This is factually incorrect. Palin has never publicy repudiated her statement supporting conceptration being discussed in sex-ed education. The Squicks (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that two very reliable sources-- [9] and [10]-- say that she supports comphrehensive sex education, I changed the article to reflect that. The Squicks (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There are, however, other reliable sources that conflict with those above (see [11]). Perhaps a safer route would be to just remove her stance on this issue until it is more definitively known? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.222.134 (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus edits

I take issue with the recent edits by Hobartimus, some of which seem heavy-handed and involved the removal of large sections of well-cited information. I won't defend all of the material -- some of it needed a major haircut -- but removing all material on her policy positions on foreign policy and the environment, for example, is excessive. (Again I do agree that these sections should be kept trim.) I also argue that the material on her religious views is relevant, but the summary as Hobartimus presented it is probably sufficient. Arjuna (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The religious aspect is discussed above [12] in several threads [13], it involves adding a huge religious section on top of the religion discussed as part of "personal life section" as I read the relevant policy, BLP in light of the above talk discussions especially [14] this should stay out per BLP until consensus for inclusion. I have no extra reservations for any other part of my edit (I did change some smaller other things, feel free tweak/change anything there). My comments were specific to the presence of the religious section.Hobartimus (talk) 10:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

@Hobartimus. It is surprising that you have changed the image which accompanies the lead without any discussion with the many editors that are here (or will be here). Please revert your own edit and open a discussion before you take it upon yourself to make MAJOR changes to THE MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLE AT WIKIPEDIA. Also, regarding your changes to what was the religion section. Since the campaign of John Fitzgerald Kennedy (you remember him), a candidates religion has been of the utmost importance for the general public. There was no consensus to change what was. Editors were asked to give their opinion and there was an even split. No consensus was reached and yet you changed it. I know you have your reasons but my ability to assume good faith is starting to wain. Kennedy's Catholicism was one of the major discussion points in the media and on Main Street America PRIOR to his election. People want to know and we are obligated to give them pertinent information in a format that is obvious...not hidden.--Buster7 (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Buster, her religious beliefs are described very adequately in her own words in the Personal section of the biography. That is as much as we know with respect to Palin. I would be anxious to include manifestations of her beliefs as demonstrated by her personal and professional conduct, but everything thus far as been thinly veiled attempts to categorize her based on religious ideology and not actions. For example, find some reliably sourced information that she proselytized others in her community, spoke in tongues at a local supermarket, etc. Even more informative would be reliably sourced information that she governed based on her beliefs, e.g. she enacted statutes to close liquor stores on Sunday, initiated legislation introducing creationism in schools, etc. In other words, keep the religious crap in context of a person's biographical story. Fcreid (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Religious crap??????--Buster7 (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

FCreid, you are welcome to your opinion. Other people differed, which is why there was a discussion, and an effort to find consensus underway. The section was precisely for what you indicated. Information that was not true to her own words and actions are not allowed by BLP. The section was constantly changing, but several editors were working to keep any material that properly met wikipedia polices remained in the section. It referenced her viewpoints on teaching creationism in her own words. HOw can that be "thinly veiled attempts to categorize her based on religious ideology and not actions"? It refences her actions as Governor to " proclaim "Christian Heritage Week" and "Bible Week" in Alaska. How is that an attempt to categorize her ideology? Some people seem to asume that knowledge of those things would be considered to be negative by the American people, and yet, those opinions and values are what got her elected as Governor. Large numbers of Americans would view those as positive things. They would, in your own words, "be anxious to include manifestations of her beliefs as demonstrated by her personal and professional conduct". Atom (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Atom, all of those things you described are welcome in the article. Include her quoted words on allowing debate between creationism and evolution in the classroom while not desiring it be part of the curriculum and properly referenced material related to this "Bible Week" and whatever in her political history section. Include her decision to bring her Down Syndrome child to term as a manifestation of her anti-abortion beliefs in Personal section. Just resist the urge to include the speculative and intentionally fear-mongering when no evidence exists. Fcreid (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think you are understanding what I have been saying all along. Hobartimus apparently disagrees with you and I. (Could you give me a diff of where I have included any speculative or intentionally fear-mongering content? I am unaware of having done that.) Atom (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've never edited the main article, so I don't know who did what. I can tell you the majority of the new section on religion was gross exaggeration, but I have no idea who added what pieces, and the part about "dispensationalism" that made it into her Personal section yesterday was nonsensical. I don't think there's a consensus for creating a whole section on religion, though. Those salient points above would be better situated in the Personal (re: her Down Syndrome child) or political portions (under accomplishments as governer, mayor, etc.) Simply creating an entire section creates undue weight on the topic. Fcreid (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, people keep adding unsourced opinion all over the article. Just because someone adds an unsourced opinion to the polital views section, we don't decide to delete the whole political views section, some editor just removes the opinion. I don't see how the religious perspective section should have been any different. I respect your opinion that there may not have been a need for a seperate section. I disagree, and discussed it in talk many times as to why it made sense (IMO). Regardless, other people had opinions either way about it too, and were discussing it to find a consensus (See Talk:Sarah_Palin#Brief_Survey_--_Religious_Perspective We were scheduled to end the discussion at midnight, and then would have taken action based on the prevailing consensus. Perhaps your opinion would have been part of that consensus -- Hobartimus interrupted the process and decided for all of us though. Atom (talk)

Hobartimus, why was your opinion more important than the fifteen editors working to find a consensus on the issue? If someone had inserted information in violation of BLP into that section, couldn't you have just deleted the innapropriate material and wait another 16 hours to finish finding consensus on the appropriate material? Or are you saying that anything religious in nature is in violation of BLP? Atom (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I note that the section discussing her political opinions about teaching Creationism in schools seems to be gone from the article now. Even though we had minimized it to a direct quote to avoid bias in any direction as much as possible. Atom (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Let us not leave the photo change in the underbrush of prior discussions. This was a MAJOR change to the article. The picture should not have been changed without discussion. I have made a pledge not to revert anything in the article but I would hope that some other editor can revert.--Buster7 (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the new picture. Fcreid (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Endorse the changes made by Hobartimus. Contentious material in BLPs needs to be removed until there is consensus for inclusion. All the Dominionism garbage was, frankly, apparently some kind of attempt to make her look like the Martin Sheen character in The Dead Zone and needed to go. The editors at Barack Obama have been extremely sensible about applying WP:UNDUE to the theology espoused by some members of Obama's church, and we need to emulate their example. Kelly ^hi! 14:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"@Hobartimus. It is surprising that you have changed the image which accompanies the lead" Yes it's very surprising as I didn't change the photo in the lead at all. It was [user:Zizi-EU] who changed the main photo in this edit [15] he used one of the photos from the body of the article and moved it up. Then Kelly replaced the good old picture that we always had in this edit [16] but we lost that picture from the body of the article this way, since Zizi used it to replace the main. So with all this we have 1 less picture in the article, please reinsert that photo that was lost. Hobartimus (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Explain to me how this violates BLP "Palin supports teaching creationism in public schools. "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum...Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."[173] She has also stated, "I won't have religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism."[154]" or this "In October of 2007, she signed the "Christian Heritage Week" Proclamation[174] which "reminds Alaskans of the role Christianity has played in our rich heritage."[175] in conjunction she declared the week of November 18-25, 2007 as Bible Week in Alaska. "the National Bible Association reminds Alaskans and people of all faiths of the Bible's unique place in American life."[176]" Or anything else that had been in that section. Anything that had been added that violated BLP, had been consistently removed. Atom (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it violations BLP, but it is inaccurate. This section from the political positions article is accurate and neutral:

Palin supports allowing the discussion of creationism in public schools, but says it does not have to be part of the curriculum.[6] She has said: "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum...Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."[7] She has also stated, "I won't have religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism."[7]

Note that it doesn't claim she wants creationism taught in school, as your version does.--Paul (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a version. I did quote the most recent incarnation of that above. I have seen a number of different versions. Whatever ends up in that section should be accurate. The version that I most recently quoted is accurate. The version you quoted, and the one I quoted say "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information." I don't know who characterized her words to mean "teach Creationism in the schools" But I think when she says "teach both" she is advocating allowing the teaching of Creationism, isn't she? Regardless, the next edit could just as easily change that to "advocates allowing teaching of Creationism in the school also" or "advocates allowing both Evolution and Creationism to be taught". Whatever it changes to, it needs to remain true to the citation, and the full context of her words. Atom (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is she's talking out of both sides of her mouth. Either evolution is taught in public schools or not. The sources give conflicting accounts on whether she says it should or should not be, and I think this is from inconsistent and deliberately ambiguous statements so she can have it both ways. If teachers are told they can, or must, teach creationism alongside evolution it is part of the curriculum (and thereby illegal). If they are not, it is not. Perhaps there is someone here who knows more about state education policy than me, but I don't think it means anything to tell a school that they should be allowed to "discuss" something if it comes up. Of course they are. If something comes up in the classroom then of course the teacher may discuss it - saying this obvious fact is not a policy position. Although I had initially supported including the material because it is an important hot-button issue, I simply don't see that we can say anything meaningful about her position based on the sources. If all that we can determine is that she's not really taking a position, that's not notable enough to include. Wikidemon (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Let us ALL listen to one of the Leaders of America,...."You know, don't be afraid of information". I'M OFF TO CHURCH! lol...--Buster7 (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

From WP:BLP "In order to ensure that biographical material of living people is always policy-compliant, written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material." This makes it clear that there must be consensus in order to include highly disputed material into a BLP, after reading the above talk page and threads [17] [18] I determined that there was no consensus for inclusion of a huge religion section and that religion be discussed multiple times (personal life section and other section) and the "burden of proof" demanded by WP:BLP was not met. Thus I removed the material until consensus is reached. Concurerntly BLP makes it quite clear in order to "Restore" or "Undelete" this disputed material you must be able to show valid consensus. If someone "Restores" or "undeletes" this disputed material without showing consensus that's a direct conflict with the above quoted passage from WP:BLP. Hobartimus (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No, editors should respect consensus, and not act unilaterally in the middle of a productive discussion. It's clearly not a BLP issue to state a candidate's political positions. I think WP:WELLKNOWN is the section you're looking for. However, the addition of any disputed content (or deletion of any long-standing comment) needs to be done with consensus. I re-added the creationism and abstinence material, but later self-reverted due to the number of edits I've done today and also a concern that her favoring of teaching creationism in schools (which is well-sourced) is either equivocal and/or does not translate into a policy position (sources do not agree on this). Overall the edits were far too bold and run a bit of roughshod over consensus and orderly editing process. If people delete or add large sections of material at a time the article is going to degrade in format as well as content.Wikidemon (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You should really read the relevant part of BLP. Hobartimus (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Palin waving-RNC-20080903.jpg The image that was LOST after the edit of user:Zizi-EU please reinsert somewhere

Hobartimus -- here is what the section looked like immediatly before you took action to remove it based on WP:BLP[19] It is quite different than when I went to bed last night. It looks like numerous edits have been made to add material, and then have that material removed, etc as well as the section being renamed, moved around, etc. It looks like you are not the only person who did not respect the attempt to build consensus. However, looking at that section as you must have seen it, I see a number of things that concern me as not being appropriate per BLP, or meeting other standards. For instance, "Palin’s former pastor believes that her religious beliefs will affect her political positions, for example by encouraging her to be a caretaker of the environment, but Palin has stated that she would not allow her personal beliefs to dictate public policy" I would have reverted. Other peoples opinions, including her pastors, are not appropriate. Pretty much that whole first paragraph also is not appropriate and I myself would have cut (if I had been given the opportunity). The other sections though, for instance discussing her views on creationism, using her own words, and her actions to proclaim Christan Heritage Week, and Bible week in Alaska. The correct edit would have been to do what myself, or Ferrylodge (who seems to have very different views than my own) would have just removed the sections that had been recently added that violated BLP. The section, as well as the other content, had seemed to be there with consensus for some time.

Now, you know that many editors were discussing this at Talk:Sarah_Palin#Brief_Survey_--_Religious_Perspective IMO the consensus would likely have ended up in determining to not have such a section. The survey would have ended at midnight tonight. You could have merely removed the select material that violated the BLP, and then added your opinion to the consensus, and then (with consensus, instead of discord) taken action upon completion of the consensus. Your action to do that unilaterally rather than waiting a few hours was essentially a slap in the face of all of those people participating, including people who had the same viewpoint on the topic as yourself.

IMO opinion, your rationale that the section was deleted because it violated BLP is specious and lame. Your actions disrupting a process underway involving many editors was disrespectful and uncivil. My recommendation is to, in the future, think first, and then act, rather than taking action -- and then thinking about it. I mean that respectfully, as it is a lesson that I had to learn at one time. Atom (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP is clear. During the discussion material stays out. What if discussion determines that a piece of material is defamatory, libelous or undue? This is why it cannot stay in the article for the duration of the discussion. Once discussion is over you have consensus you put it back, and not before when it's potentially undue or inappropriate. There was no consensus to include it and it was highly disputed, so it had to go per BLP. Hobartimus (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

For the most part it is not a BLP issue. The fact that so many people are objecting, even those who favor deleting the material as you did, ought to tell you something. Please work with other editors rather than waving the BLP flag to justify controversial nonconsensus edits. You can see, from just a few minutes ago, what happens when an editor thinks that their personal viewpoint is more important than consensus.[20][21][22][23][24] - [25]

BLP "In order to ensure that biographical material of living people is always policy-compliant, written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material."

Show me a thread with consensus and I will restore the material. However BLP is clear that you can not undelete or restore controversial material without consensus. Hobartimus (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

We aren't discussing any particular content here. Removing unnaceptable content is fine. You removed a whole section that included acceptable content AND recently added content that might violate BLP. You should have just removed the content that vilated BLP. Atom (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion underway was not about specific material or content. The discussion was related to having a section on Religious Perspective. No one was trying to propose any particulare text or content, just that the section, generally, be a place for appropriate religious perspective. I brought this into talk and found what I believed to be a consensus for that section being included. I included it. The next morning, people who had not participated in the discussion disputed the consensus, and wanted it removed. Rather than giving my opinion again, or removing it against consensus based on two or three other peoples opinion, or arguing about it, I started a survey to add clarity to whether the section should be removed or not. You interrupted that process. Even if there had not been prior consensus, the BLP policy applies to content related to the person that BLP applied to. Using the BLP to limit what section titles were appropriate, an editorial descision, not a content decision, would have been innapropriate use of that policy for something other than the concerns about the reputation of the person involved -- the purpose of BLP.

The section did have prior consensus to be there, and by your words quoting BLP, it met that. I saw some content in the section that had been recently added. You, I or anyone seeing content that violated BLP should have immediately removed that content. Your removal of the section and all of the material in it did NOT meet BLP. The section itself had prior consensus and was being discussed, and anyway, BLP policies do not apply to whether a section should be there or not, only content. (perhaps it would aply to a biased section title). I think you would have a hard time justifying that a section titled "Religious perspective" violated BLP. A majority of the content in that section had been around for some time, did not violate BLP, and had consensus for being in the article. Also, looking through the talk page, I don't see where anyone discussed or was disputing the content in that section (either the content that BLP did apply to, or the content that BLP did not apply to.) Your action to remove the entire section was heavy handed and did NOT meet the standards of BLP. Your BLP concerns (if that had been the motivation) should have been directed at merely removing the content that did not meet BLP, like any other editor would have done, and like other editors had done before you.

Also, I note, should you want to say that you moved the good content elsewhere, that I don't see her viewpoint on teaching of Creationism in the article anymore. Atom (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I qouted the section of BLP that was being violated at least three times now so I will not quote it again, but it's pretty clear what was going on. Many editors felt that a whole section dedicated to religion alone would be grossly undue and would misrepresent Palin to be some sort of religious figure. At the point I edited the religion related material was overwhelming had it been in the article about a Bishop. Editing on BLP articles is set up a different way "In order to ensure that biographical material of living people is always policy-compliant" this does not mean "only BLP policy compliant". BLP articles must be compliant with all other policies and guidelines such as WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:SUMMARY and all the others. Compliance can be ensured with the BLP policy setting the standard of inclusion very high. Those who seek to include massive changes such as an establishment of a whole new section MUST achieve consensus. It's not good enough to jam several pages worth of content into a BLP without consensus and hope it's compliant with WP:UNDUE and all the others. Therefore BLP put the burden of proof on those who wish to include massive changes such as a new massive section on religion. If this burden of proof was not met enforcing BLP demands that the content be removed until consensus is reached. BLP policies apply to the whole article the sections included. A biography of a living person is not the best place for leaving potentially undue, and/or inappropriate material in the article not for days not for hours not for the duration of the discussion. You lost nothing by my edit, no process was "interrupted" as you claim. Once there is consensus the section can be put back in. The only possible harm here is keeping inappropriate material in the article. There is no possible harm from not having controversial and highly disputed material in the article. And once again I must point out that this is for the duration until the religious section gains consensus. Hobartimus (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, and it is important. Other people seem to share your concerns. I certainly share some of them. The addition of a new section was not a massive change, and had already taken place. BLP does not apply to that, that is an editorial discussion. BLP could apply to the content, and you are right to remove the kind of content that you describe that violated BLP. If there was not a section for religion in the article, those people still would have added the innapropriate material -- just someplace else. If your concern was innapropriate content that violated BLP, you should have removed the innapropriate content that violated BLP. That is what I have consistently been doing. The fact is that there is a religious perspective to Sarah Palin, and as a Biography, that is on topic. Her religious upbringing, stated opinions about religious issues that affect us, and actions that are related to religion are an important part of who she is and what she has done. Readers and editors want to know those things, and they are within the purpose and purview of Wikipedia.

What you are essentially trying to enforce is that appropriate and good content that is related to her religious side is being drowned out because of your fear that someone will put something that is not approproate to BLP in that section. Of course anything in that section should meet WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:SUMMARY, and all other policies. No one has suggested otherwise.

The article is not a platform for the 2008 election, it is a biography. It is not our concern about whether information included is favorable to getting her elected, or not. It has to be facts that are cited from reliable sources, and balanced according to NPOV. If someone makes a decision about how to vote based on that she declared a week in November to be "Bible Week" in Alaska, or that she has supported allowing discussion of Creationism in the schools, then so be it. Given thay she was elected to Governor based on some of those positions, I think there are large numbers of people that would look on that as favorable, not unfavorable. Regardless of how they might look on it, we are trying to state facts here. It is not our job to determine whether her stance on Creationism should be included, or not, on the basis of how it might influence voters. It is our job to explain that position accurately. Atom (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. There are no substantive arguments for excluding well sourced and neutral presentation of material. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a sufficient argument. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The primary substantive argument is WP:SS. We should not be repeating everything that's in the sub-articles here in this article. We need to summarize. Jossi, almost all the material that you're referring to is already in Political positions of Sarah Palin (not to mention the new article Cultural and political image of Sarah Palin).Ferrylodge (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Comparison to other candidates' "Religious views"

I think we should be looking to the model of the other candidates' articles as a model for the weight on religion in this article. John McCain and Joe Biden contain only brief mentions of their denominations. Barack Obama, a featured article, contains the following paragraph in the "Family and personal life" section:

In The Audacity of Hope, Obama writes that he "was not raised in a religious household." He describes his mother, raised by non-religious parents (whom Obama has specified elsewhere as "non-practicing Methodists and Baptists") to be detached from religion, yet "in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I have ever known." He describes his Kenyan father as "raised a Muslim," but a "confirmed atheist" by the time his parents met, and his Indonesian stepfather as "a man who saw religion as not particularly useful." In the book, Obama explains how, through working with black churches as a community organizer while in his twenties, he came to understand "the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change."[160][161]

I believe we should be striving similar neutrality and weighting in this article. Kelly ^hi! 18:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is dynamic, and I think that a Biography of these individuals should fairy address all aspects of their life, including their religious upbringing and values. Just becasue those article do not have sections on that now, does not mean that they may not. Suggesting that biographical information regarding religion should not be in an article about Palin because it is not in an article about Biden makes no sense. Do we strive to make all Biographies the same? They are different individuals, and if there is a significant religious component to the life of Biden, or any other person we make a biographical article about, it should be included within the balance of NPOV and UNDUE. Atom (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the material presented is really trying to build a psychological bio which is fundamentally a POV biography on the person. Inclusion of these references is an attempt to have the read make correlations between their religious beliefs and political motives. The whole issue is best avoided and dropped from all living and political bio's. If someone says in their political advert on t.v., "I'm running in this campaign because God says I should and he gave me a list of things to do." that is something else altogether. The politician is giving us a hard cold fact of their political motive based on religious belief and interjected it in the public sphere. These references we are talking about with Palin aren't even remotely like that. Theosis4u (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the way you spin that -- "Psychological bio". *chuckles* Of course, this is Wikipedia -- it is a biography -- not a political advertisement. In a biography we talk about a number of aspects and attributes of a person and their life experience and history. Of course religious information is part of that. For Sarah Palin, it is, in fact pervasive throughout her life, not some unrelated and unimportant trivia. Perhaps some people will try to make some correlation between her religious experience and whether they want to vote for her or not. That is not our problem. It is our job to provide the information as accurately and fairly as possible in a non-biased way, or if there are strong, varying (but citable) views, to express those views in a balanced way. It is natural and normal that people want to know about other people. Religious people want to know the religious experience that other people, especially notable people, have had. If they choose to use the biolgraphy on Wikipedia as a source of information to help them learn more about Palin, they often want to know if she is like them, if she has similar life experiences, values and attitudes.

Trying to suggest that anything religious in nature should be removed from all biographies of living people, and all politicians is outrageously silly. If we should decide to have a section that is primarily about Palin's religious nature in this article, the content needs to meet all of the standards that we always apply to all other articles, especially BLP policies. NO one has suggested differently. It is not our job to spin the article to Palin's benefit, nor to make her look bad. It is our job to find information that is notable, has reliable sources and meets our other guidelines and present it in an organized fashion for our reader. Not to try and guess the intent of the reader and how they might use that data. And certainly not to spin the data so that it leads our readers in a particular direction. If one of our readers is looking to build there own "psychological Bio" in order to determine who they want to vote for, that is their business. Atom (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Apples and Oranges... There is no other candidate (McCain, Biden, or Obama) with profound (or extremist, depending on your POV) religious views, and that wear their religion as Palin does, therefore it is appropriate to have substantial coverage in her bio. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head. While I find nothing in her behavior indicating "extremist" religious views, and most firsthand accounts I've read indicated entirely otherwise, you have apparently labeled her as an extremist kook and are intent to prove that despite the lack of fact supporting it. The solution is simple -- stop making crap up and cite tangible reliable sources, but not in this disparate fashion that reads like a ransom note of out-of-context nonsense strung together to sound ominous. And I have to ask -- where you as critical of the other candidates in this manner? Fcreid (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed your recent inclusion until it's correctly sourced and placed into a proper chronology, including the dates of these alleged events as well as Palin's own explanation. For example, I will not allow any inclusion of the extemporaneous "task from God" statement she made to her theology students unless it's accompanied by her own explanation of the statement in her recent interview with Gibon. For what it's worth, this is my first actual edit to the article. It won't be my last if you keep this crap up. Fcreid (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you're obviously struggling with the exact quote (as indicated in the selective bits you used), so here it is verbatim: "Pray for our military. He's [Palin's son Track] going to be deployed in September to Iraq. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do also what is right for this country – that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan." Fcreid (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"I will not allow any inclusion..." sounds like you have issues. Grsz^talk 22:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I do. I'm very frustrated to see someone with a clear (and self-admitted) axe to grind distorting words to paint an erroneous picture of a person in his/her biography. Read the quote above? Does it really sound that out-of-mainstream, particularly given she was speaking to a group of theology students? Should she have used football analogs to get a point across to them? Fcreid (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter...you've made it clear you have an agenda as well. "A task that is from God"...I don't think that's being distorted, it is what it is. Grsz^talk 22:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Context doesn't matter? I heard an Obama snippet somewhere the other day where he stated "my Muslim faith"--his exact words. Would it be fair to take those completely out-of-context for inclusion in his article? Of course not! Fcreid (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The only agenda I've seen from Fcreid is one of fairness. He has never pushed a POV, only tried to keep POV-pushing insinuations and distortions out of the article. Inserting the "Task from God" quote without the proper context is misleading POV-pushing.--Paul (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I put the Iraq quote in in full, so there should be no issue, unless someone deleted the rest of it, again.....LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I added the fact that it occurred inside the church for more complete context. Fcreid (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's not a big deal what she said, why are you fighting for it to be there? Grsz^talk 23:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not fighting for it to be there. I don't think these incidental snippets are representative of this person based on all other more tangible examples of governance and person. In fact, if you scroll back to the talk history beginning on 8/29, you'll find this has been my consistent position with regards to including these quotes. Yes, I would like to think of myself as an objective person, but I'm not oblivious to the fact that one side of the political spectrum desperately hopes to paint this person as outside the mainstream in her religious beliefs. No data I've seen presented yet indicates that. To me, this particular quote represents nothing more than generic platitudes given the context (in a church speaking to a theology class). Despite, if consensus feels these are important enough to include in the article, they should be given full context and explanation and not deliberately seeded to lead a reader to an erroneous conclusion. Fcreid (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I dont know what I was trying to say there. Anyways, I went ahead and added some quotes to the personal life section.

(ec)It's important to some people that her every public mention of God be highlighted and magnified to perpetuate a meme that she's some kind of wacky Apocalypse-believing Kristianist, I think. I'm not sure why this standard applies for her and not other politicians - for example, Joe Biden recently mentioned God when he said to a person in a wheelchair "Stand up, Chuck, let 'em see ya...God love ya, what am I talking about?"[26] However, we don't take that mention of God to have any deeper meaning than what it is on the surface, a typical political appearance by that politician. Kelly ^hi! 23:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, hopefully what's there now clearly establishes that damning testimonial that Palin uses religious platitudes liberally in a church when speaking to churchgoers. Can anyone dredge up any salient quotes about makeup and beauty tips from backstage at the Miss Wasilla pageant. Fcreid (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Does the WSJ source support that these quotes were all said in the church? I can't find it. Grsz^talk 00:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The locale is documented as being inside the Wasilla Assembly of God in the AP piece regarding the pipeline comments. The Iraq comments are from a video taken of her at the pulpit. Fcreid (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Does the fact that these quotes were gleaned inside her church give you pause on the merit of their inclusion, Grsz? It does me. Fcreid (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I know you weren't addressing me, but on the contrary, from my POV, I like it there, in context, and the fact that it was said in church tells me that she is attempting to show and/or receive support from that church audience. I know an argument can be made for apples and oranges, but do we have any knowledge of the other candidates speaking at a pulpit? That alone is worth attention, in my opinion. FangedFaerie (talk) 04:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's common for local politicians to be asked to speak to a congregation. This would be particularly true in a small town like Wasilla. In fact, according to his own website [27], Obama himself spoke from the pulpit of the United Church of Christ and spewed such inciteful, divisive and hateful words like "Doing the Lord's work is a thread that's run through our politics since the very beginning". Fcreid (talk) 09:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he was reminding us of the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria. But that's just my guess. Our country is built upon Puritan values. Puritan values are built on religion. But, I trust your judgement as to inciteful, divisive and hateful words and your ability to "ferret' them out.--Buster7 (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Buster - [28] 138.145.4.3 (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

@ 138.145.4.3 - [29]---America has been a religious country from the very beginning. The sarcasm should only be construied regarding Fcreid's misinterpretattion of Senator Obama's comment. My sarcasm may have been off-base for which I apologize.--Buster7 (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

While on a state-funded trip to speak at a graduation ceremony, Palin urged the students to pray that God's will be done in unifying people to get a gas pipeline built. Does anyone believe that this is "mainstream" for the U.S. in 2008? This article should have considerably more space devoted to her religion than bios of other politicians, because she is out of the mainstream and that fact is important. God help us.--Appraiser (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"Out of the mainstream"? Guess who said this - Let us teach our children that the God of comfort is also the God of righteousness. Those who trouble their own house will inherit the wind. Justice will Prevail. It was Bill Clinton.[30] Is he out of the mainstream in 2008? That quote was far more extreme than anything Palin said, and his comments were intended for a general audience. Kelly ^hi! 16:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who doesn't recognize how specious this argument is based on the current evidence is either predisposed to the conclusion based on their political persuasion or has become overly complacent with the media and is foregoing critical thought. If this were a court case, it would have been tossed out eons ago. One might accuse Palin of pandering to a church audience or even of a weekend boondoggle from Juneau to Wasilla at the taxpayer's expense, but that's about all. Fcreid (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What an insidious POV article. The "graduation" was a class of ministry students, and the venue was her former church in Wasilla. What would you expect her to say to such a group in such a venue? Any other examples of her doing this in a non-church forum? No? Fcreid (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you believe that the Anchorage Daily News is biased, whether Bill Clinton's religious views are mainstream, or whether Alaska should have paid $640 for her to speak at the church school's graduation, how many people are so arrogant as to believe that they know what God's will is with respect to a gas pipeline? As far as I know, the facts stated in the ADN article have not been disputed, including the quotation attributed to Palin. I would expect her to say, "Go into the world and do God's will." I wouldn't expect her to say, "I think God's will has to be done, in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that." Someone suggested that some of us are "foregoing critical thought." yep...some of us are.--Appraiser (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Your above comment seems like your intent is to use this article, a BLP to malign and defame Palin. You state that Palin's comments in your view are extremely "arrogant" and then argue for their inclusion on that basis, not for relevance to Palin's life, not for other reason but to expose her "arrogance" to show the whole world, how arrogant she is. I hope I'm completely wrong here since this would be somewhat contradictory with BLP as an editing attitude. Hobartimus (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because I have an opinion of the woman and I shared it with you here does not mean that I want to interject my opinion in Main Space. But I do want to write in Main Space accurate and well-sourced facts that give the reader an accurate overview of the topic of the article—in this case Ms. Palin. My suggested wording is, "While on a state-funded trip to speak at a graduation ceremony, Palin urged the students to pray that God's will be done in unifying people to get a gas pipeline built." Some readers will be endeared to her based on that fact; others will not. In Main Space, I am happy to leave out commentary and let the facts carry her where they will. Apparently others are afraid of doing so.--Appraiser (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not a wikipedia expert, and I don't know the proper protocol for making changes, but it seems that this portion of the Personal Life section of the article is not an accurate characterization of Palin's comments:

In a 2008 speech, Palin urged a group of graduating ministry students at her former church to pray for the military and to consider the military's job as a task from God.[200] In the same remarks Palin asserted that "God's will" coincides with the building of the Alaskan national gas pipeline project.[199][201]

The full speech is here but basically, when talking about growing up in the Wasilla Assembly of God Church, Palin made these extemporaneous comments:

My oldest, my son Track, he's a soldier in the United States Army now. He's an infantryman ... and Track -- pray for our Military -- he's gonna be deployed in September to Iraq. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God -- that's what we have to make sure that we're praying for -- that there is a plan, and that plan is God's plan. So bless them with your prayers....

So she is not asking people to consider the war to be "a task from God," but merely asking people to pray "that there is a plan, and that plan is God's plan." That seems similar in nature to John Kerry's remarks in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention (July 29, 2004):

"I don't want to claim that God is on our side. As Abraham Lincoln told us, I want to pray humbly that we are on God's side."

Same goes for the pipeline comment; these are merely prayers, not statements of fact or belief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.228.36 (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the Obama wiki has anything about his oh-so-mainstream prayer, you know, the one where he asked to "be an instrument of God's will".66.190.29.150 (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Creationism redux

Not sure if a mention should be made here, but Palin's views on creationism in education are apparently shared by the Director of Education for the Royal Society.[31] Is this a common position among education policy professionals? Is Palin's position even remarkable? Kelly ^hi! 01:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Palins views do not appear to be remarkable unless you spin what she has said to distort them into something they are not.WTucker (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As a politician, unless she has put forth an act, a law, a measure, etc, that directly mentions something (and is directly labeled as part of a movement, group, etc), then I think it has very little place. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Unbelievable, folks. Absolutely unbelievable. According to LexisNexis, over 400 articles have been published in reliable sources discussing Sarah Palin's political statements regarding the introduction of creationism into the school curriculum. Another 20 articles have been published in magazines. Another 59 articles have been published in newswires and press releases. Another 14 in aggregate news sources. Currently, her statement (such as it is) occupies one sentence in the Sarah Palin article, hardly undue weight, and three of you would like to remove it because of a unrelated BBC article that does not even discuss Sarah Palin. "Is Sarah Palin's position even remarkable?" Apparently, the mass media think it is. For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone would want to complain about this one sentence. J Readings (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, the problem with your statement above is that she never advocated, or implemented, placing creationism in the school curriculum. She advocated allowing student-initiated discussion. Kelly ^hi! 02:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, this is not an exercise in semantics for me. The point stands: reliable sources reported on it. Our job is very simple: we accurately reflect what the sources say. We don't "interpret" them. We don't spin them. And we certainly don't censor them for political purposes. It's not our job. If anything, I'm sure you'll agree on that last point. If not, we have seriously problem with how this article is being edited. J Readings (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Calm down. And please don't put words in my mouth. I never advocated removing this well sourced info from her bio. The sentence in question has been spun and respun so many times, I am dizzy -- and all from reliable sources.WTucker (talk) 02:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite calm, WTucker. I didn't mention you or your statements in reply to Kelly. But I'm thankfully relieved you also agree that it isn't our job to remove sourced material from multiple independent reliable sources. J Readings (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for removal either - I'm asking if we should include the view that her opinion on this is a mainstream one. To speak in a more general way, though, we do have a serious problem with how this article is being edited in regards to anti-religious POV. Kelly ^hi! 02:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, if a reliable source (preferably multiple reliable sources) connect the idea that Palin's political position on creationism in education is "mainstream", then I have no problem at all with that addition provided that we accurately reflect what the sources say. I leave my political positions at the door. I *do* have a serious problem, however, with original synthesis being introduced to an article. Obviously, that applies to all articles not just this one. FWIW, J Readings (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Anti religious POV? Is there a problem in being a Pentecontalist, a Jew, a zoroastrian, or a Muslim? Is there a problem in a person describing her religious views and opinions? I don't think so. I would further argue that Palin is proud of her beliefs, so what is the problem? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No, but there is a problem in giving specific aspects of religious beliefs undue weight, or repeatedly mentioning the same things repeatedly throughout the article, or in multiple articles, as you continue to do with the prayer thing. Kelly ^hi! 03:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

read WP:SUMMARY. And what is wrong about a prayer? Are you anti-religious? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the aspects of weight is to justify it in relationship to the individual. Do these sources say that it is the main focus of her life? Do they say it is the most important focus? If not, then there is little argument to be made. Every source could say Abraham Lincoln's hair is brown, but that doesn't necessitate a paragraph devoted to it. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

she never advocated, or implemented, placing creationism in the school curriculum. So what? Are people here asserting that her views are not notable? A VP candidate's views are notable, by default, regardless if in their short career they did not implement policy as is the case here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read the conversation - it's over whether we should mention that her views here are in the mainstream. Kelly ^hi! 03:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Who decides what is mainstream and what is not? And how that argument is relevant to this material? Palin's views on anything related to politics, religion, economy, hobbies, etc can be included in her biography, in particular if covered extensively in published sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) :: Mentioning that her views are on the mainstream, or mentioning that her views are not, would be a violation of WP:NOR, unless we have a source that makes that assertion, that is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

But especially religion, right, Jossi? Lots and lots of religion? Kelly ^hi! 03:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, why not. It seems that Palin is very proud and outspoken about her religious beliefs. AIs there anything wrong with that? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Very outspoken? And there is a problem with giving undue weight, or repeating the same thing over and over in different sections of the article, which makes the weighting problem even worse. Kelly ^hi! 03:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward jossi somewhat, insofar as Palin is proud of her beliefs, and arguably is using them to garner support. I haven't analyzed the article, but if the sources repeatedly reference Palin's religious views, it's hard to avoid them in the article itself. The idea is to reflect the facts that are out there, yes? (Please don't bite me.) FangedFaerie (talk) 04:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the assertion is coming from that she's using religious beliefs to garner support. I don't remember a single mention in her speech at the Convention, for instance, or in any of her stump speeches that I've read about. I recall only a very brief, somewhat generic mention, of faith in the Gibson interview, in response to his "Crusader" questions. In fact, she seems to keep her religious beliefs private. What am I missing? Kelly ^hi! 04:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly, the convention speech was pretty low-key on religion, with only a mention of a prayer and the grace of God. Her state of the state address for 2008 included the bit "Proverbs tell us there is no strength without unity. So, Alaska, let us be united to be strong."

But on other issues: soldiers in the Middle East on a task from God; the gas line being God's will. Her other opinions are often argued by others from a religious standpoint (murky thoughts on sex ed. and Creationism in school; abortion: "faith that every baby is created for a good purpose" and strongly pro-life; opposed to stem cell research as being related to abortion; same-sex marriage about preserving family structure; against physician-assisted suicide according to a few sources), though admittedly we haven't heard her speak extensively about them yet. My point is that what little we do know about her tends to have at least a tinge of religion attached, but I'm not trying to argue for any content changes one way or the other.

I'm fairly amused by the "Thank the Lord that we do have that freedom of speech" when discussing the separation of church and state.

Um, by the way, "any of her stump speeches"? I'm not aware that she's made more than one, yet, at least as a VP candidate. [32] Regards. FangedFaerie (talk) 05:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Separation of Church and State is an issue of "Freedom of Religion", not "Freedom of Speech". There is a strong difference between the two. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. FangedFaerie (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A VP candidate's views are "notable by default?" Seems overreaching at that point. If a VP says she like blue nightgowns, then that is therefore "notable by default?" Nope. Unless there is some semblance of reasoning behind referring to views of a perso, I would suggest that no views are "notable by default." Collect (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Bush doctrine?

Regarding foreign policy, Palin generally supports the Bush doctrine of preemptive military action in the face of an imminent threat. Really? My recollection of the ABC interview and many sources published on the subject point to a very different situation. I will find sources to make this sentence more accurate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, according to the Washington Post, Palin got it right, and Gibson got it wrong. Kelly ^hi! 03:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different. He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?" She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?" In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine. Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush doctrine. Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine. It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world." This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy's pledge in his inaugural address that the United States "shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson's 14 points. If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume -- unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise -- that he was speaking about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration. Not the Gibson doctrine of preemption. Not the "with us or against us" no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days. Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration. Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents. Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HSED (talk • contribs) 20:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

But at the end of last week we were granted an audience with the Princess of Alaska. It was painful. She had no idea what the Bush Doctrine was – the central and most controversial foreign policy innovation of the past eight years: the doctrine of preemption against states with WMDs. Moreover, in her speech the same day, she described the war in Iraq. She said her eldest son, who has just enlisted, would “defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans”. "Sarah Palin: the most underqualified vice-president ever? - Times Online". Retrieved 2009-09-14.

Jossi, you really need to learn the difference between an opinion piece and straight news. Also, presumably you know that there are such people as Al Qaeda in Iraq. Not many of them left, though, thanks to Petraeus and the Iraqis. Kelly ^hi! 03:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(Ahem) No need to get into polemics, but there was not Al Qaeda in Iraq before 9/11. In any case, there is obviously an enormous amount of sources that describe the Palin;s gaffe (or the wit, depending on who you ask) and we should include this in the article, sans spin. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically, there wasn't even al qaeda in Iraq After 9/11. They didn't exist in Iraq until a year after America's 2003 ocupation of Iraq. Duuude007 (talk) 04:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)No polemics, the pre 9/11 situation is pretty much irrelevant in this context. Al Qaeda carried out 9/11. Al Qaeda is now getting its ass handed to it in Iraq, where Palin's son has deployed to. Charles Gibson didn't know there are multiple interpretations of the Bush Doctrine, whereas Palin did. Even Charles Krauthammer, who invented the term, says that Gibson screwed the pooch.[33] Kelly ^hi! 04:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Guys. This isn't a blog. Take it outside. What is the specific content issue here, again? MastCell ^Talk 05:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue is any objective person who saw the interview with Gibson knows that it's obvious Palin had no idea what Gibson was talking about when he mentioned the Bush Doctrine. Even if other doctrines could also be considered, Bush "doctrines," according to the Wasington Post, it was painfully obvious that Palin didn't know any of them. (I guess the McCain crammers trying to teach her all of foreign policy in a week hadn't thought of this one...)GreekParadise (talk) 07:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Our article includes the sentence "In the interview, Palin answered questions about her experience, national security, Iraq and the Bush Doctrine.[150]"

The source cited for this says:

"Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about."

The sentence in the article is a flat contradiction of the source, IMO. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh, not really. See the Post article I linked above. Apparently it was Gibson who was confused. Kelly ^hi! 16:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kelly: My point is that IMO the article contradicts the source that is cited in the article. We are not supposed to backup a statement with a source that does not support it. That some other source is different is not the point. Wanderer57 (talk) 12:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Approx. transcript:

Gibson: Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?

Palin: (pause) In what respect, Charlie?

Gibson: What do you interpret it to be?

Palin: His world view?

G: No, the Bush Doctrine, enunciated on [date] 2002.

P: I believe [vague statements about Bush's intentions in foreign policy]

G: The Bush Doctrine as I understand it, is the right to preemptive strike. Do you agree with it?

P: Charlie, yes, if there is legitimate evidence against a country.

I don't see many ways that can be interpreted. --Loodog (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Interpreted by who? The Post interprets it as a Gibson screwup, as does Krauthammer, the coiner of the Bush Doctrine term. And Krauthammer is no Palin fan. Kelly ^hi! 17:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see why Gibson was wrong on this. Can comeone please clarify? Duuude007 (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's not quite what the Post article says; it merely quotes some Republicans as saying that there are multiple Bush doctrines, and James Fallows as saying that the issue wasn't Palin's inability to precisely define the "Bush Doctrine", but her failure to recognize even the term or general concept. Charles Krauthammer is a partisan figure, to put it very mildly. But I'm sure he'd offer the same principled semantic defense if Obama had been the one to flub a question about the "Bush Doctrine" :)

In any case, reams have already been written about this particular question/answer. Perhaps the best we can say is that "Palin's response to a question on the 'Bush Doctrine' provoked criticism from those who saw her as unfamiliar with the term, though some Republicans defended her by pointing to multiple 'Bush doctrines'." MastCell ^Talk 17:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear, MastCell! FangedFaerie (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Krauthammer's editorial is rather clear that the idea of the "Bush Doctrine" has four definitions, and that Gibson screwed it up by choosing the wrong one. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, to be fair, while Gibson didn't do his homework on the question, Palin's answer was iffy as well - the response she came back with didn't precisely fit any of the four "Bush Doctrines". That whole interview was just odd...the weird camera angles, the choppy editing (sometimes in mid-sentence), and Gibson's sighing and white-knuckle demeanor. I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like it, and I'm a huge politics junkie. It's a little puzzling that Gibson's interview with Obama earlier this year was Oprah softball-style, but Obama has had a few tough interviews, such as the one with O'Reilly last week. Overall, I don't think either Gibson or Palin came out covered with glory here. But, my amateur punditry aside, when using that interview as a source, we should stick to the quotes and the definitive policy statements, and leave the interpretation aside. There will be more interviews and I'm sure the secondary sources will have wildly varying interpretations of them, just as they did with this one. Over time a picture will build up. Kelly ^hi! 22:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Krauthammer does say that she didn't know what it was. Regardless of what Gibson said that he should or shouldn't have said, she didn't know what he was talking about when he asked her. Grsz^talk 22:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What kind of text did you have in mind? I do think that any mention, if included, should include the muddled nature of Gibson's question, since we have plenty of sources that discuss that. Kelly ^hi! 22:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

How and why? Palin screwed up before Gibson went into detail. Grsz^talk 23:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It was not a quiz, so saying she was "wrong" is inappropriate. Also, since the term is vague and unscholarly, I don't know how to you can really begin to discuss it, especially when it has four various ideas with little overlap. She asked what he meant, and he basically refused to answer at first, which was quite strange. Even in Spelling Bees you have the right to ask what a word means. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)