Jump to content

Talk:Political positions of Sarah Palin/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Alaskan Independence Party content

Hi all,

Through some circuitous routes, I've become involved in this MfD. To better facilitate any productive use of this information, I completely rewrote and re-cited the content at User:Pulsifer. Copied below is, I think, a straightforward NPOV-worthy outline of the Alaskan secessionist claims. I know this general content (in far less neutral forms, and certainly poorer in sourcing) was rejected previously, though I haven't found all of the relevant discussions, but it doesn't appear that anything of reasonable quality was proffered. While I'm confident it meets all relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I leave it to discussion whether the content below is relevant and appropriate for inclusion here (or suggestions of better locations). I'd lean towards inclusion if only because the general coverage of the topic indicates a fairly wide circualtion, at least within some circles, that may merit a short but straightforward, encyclopedic deconstruction. Cheers, — Scientizzle 17:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

On September 1, 2008, ABC News reported that Sarah Palin had been a member of the Alaskan Independence Party (AKIP),[1][2] an Alaskan political party that calls for a vote on the secession of Alaska from the United States.[3][4] The sources for this story later retracted this claim, and the Alaska Division of Elections confirmed that Palin has always been a registered Republican.[5][6] Palin's husband, Todd, was a registered member of AKIP from 1995 to 2002.[7][8] AKIP officials have stated that the Palins attended the party's 1994 statewide convention in Wasilla[6][4] but the McCain campaign spokespeople assert that Sarah Palin did not attend that convention.[1][9]

The McCain campaign stated that Palin attended the 2000 AKIP convention in Wasila, but that she attended "as a courtesy since she was mayor".[1][7] Sarah Palin also spoke at the party's 2006 convention during her gubernatorial campaign[4] and, as governor, sent a video address to the 2008 AKIP convention.[7][10]

Responses

  • Looks like a good writeup that summarizes the facts in a fair-and-balanced way. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - way too much weight on what was a debunked false accusation by the national press. I particularly don't like the fact that the debunking is stated as "claims" by the McCain campaign, as if they might not be true. I don't think there's any need for mention of this false accusation in the article. Kelly hi! 17:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Maybe it could be shortened up a bit, or maybe most of it could be transfered to the AIP page with a brief mention here. But not to bring it up at all is trouble. The purpose of putting anything about it in the Palin article itself is to try to pre-empt continual POV-pushing that tries to imply Palin supports Alaskan secession. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
    • [EC]Kelly, perhaps I missed a source that more definitively supports the McCain side of the only disupted area (attendance in '94). If you know of one, please let me know. Also, I'm not sure where you read read "claims" in regard to the McCain camp; I see "assert" and "stated", which seem resonable words considering that's what they're doing, asserting and stating. As to whether there's a "need" for this information, I'm perfectly willing to accept that it may be insignificant enough to include. I would point out that Palin secession pops up a quarter million google hits and 1,760 Google news hits (the mis-spelling "seccession", sadly for the English language, doubles the Google hits). Perhaps on the grand scale this is nothing, but if there's that much misinformation out there isn't it possibly better to confront it directly? Also, I'd be perfectly willing to trim the content above to reduce WP:WEIGHT concerns...I think 10-20% of the above can be trimmed with no loss of information. — Scientizzle 18:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
      • (ec)Should we also be including all sourced mentions that she attended or addressed meetings of the Better Business Bureau or the Girl Scouts of America. This is vast undue weight, a "controversy" fabricated by the press that they backed off from once they realized they had no leg to stand on. The New York Times even had to issue a correction. There's no need to dignify it here, especially since it doesn't address any "political positions". Or what is the political position the supposed convention greeting is supposed to verify? Kelly hi! 18:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
        • [ECx3]C'mon now, the BBB & GSoA aren't as "controversial" as the AIP, and such meetings certainly haven't been covered in national and international press. I don't disagree that this is more molehill than mountain, but there is substantive information worth discussion sans hyperbole. — Scientizzle 18:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
        • That's precisely my point - it's an attempt at guilt by association, to create some impression that she has ties to a controversial organization. And what "political position" is this supposed to illustrate? Kelly hi! 18:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Kelly, I don't deny that the original content reeked a bit too much of attempted guilt-by-association--that's why it needed an overhaul if anything of substance was to be seriously considered. Regarding an illustrated "political position", I would argue that this information illustrates that claims that Palin is an Alaskan secessionist are at best unsupported, at worst slimy politicking. The guilt-by-association is already out there, the correct information is here on this page. As I've said, I'm open to this not being included for various reasons; I can assure you that I am not interested in an unfounded smear of any sort, just what reliable sources can verify. — Scientizzle 19:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Those are not institutions likely to cause any controversy. And if you want to keep fighting the McCarthyist POV-pushers, have at it. I just thought that this was a fair presentation that effectively neutralized the POV-pushing on the subject. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree with Kelly, this isn't notable to Palin. It was a media screwup. Arkon (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
oppose. Though I think the write up done well. I oppose on grounds of Recentism. In 10 years, this would have no relevant meaning.
""ten-year test" is one simple thought experiment which may be helpful:..."
Theosis4u (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support except that: (1) Kelly is right that "claims" is a WP:WTA, although of course it's not used for anything the McCain campaign said, but for AKIP sources. In the second sentence, "The sources for this story later retracted this claim,..." change "claim" to "statement" or some such. Better yet, "retracted" makes it sound like someone admitted to having lied, which raises BLP issues re the secessionists. As I remember, it was an internal miscommunication or other screwup. Maybe "The AKIP sources for the story later determined that this was incorrect, and reported that Palin had never been a member; the Alaska Division of Elections confirmed...." etc. (2) Last graf, first sentence, Wasila --> Wasilla. JamesMLane t c 00:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, "claims" implies "they say that but they're lying". That was an issue with the Apollo hoax page that we kept having to weed out - the hoaxsters "claim" this, NASA "claims" that, etc. In fact, that page is kind of my model for controversial stuff. Rather than keeping it out, you state the "claim" and then rebut it, and let the reader decide ultimately. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Beluga Whales

Clean up needed. Plus, this is also addressed in the Govnership page. Do we need it in both? Theosis4u (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we need both. Endangered species are an important part of her record and should be addressed in both places.Jolly momma (talk) 07:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What "endangered species", neither the beluga whale or the polar bear are listed as such at this present time. Who says they are an important part of her record? It seems only animal rights and global warming theorists believe that. Not sure if that's grounds for entry on Palin's page. These topics surely should go under the animals in question, animal rights, and global warming...but for Palin, it's recentism and crystal balling. Theosis4u (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin Reasons

"Palin has opposed, on economic grounds". The main argument is not "on economic grounds", Palin said it was a concern. By only listing this reason it is implied it's the only one! The Time's article doesn't source this reason of "economic grounds" - it implies it about Palin. The reasons are given here. This is a bias POV.

Besides - economic impact. "Palin said ... However, the state is going to closely review all the scientific information in the proposal to be sure it meets the requirements for listing under the Endangered Species Act, she said. Additionally, the state will study whether existing federal law, such as the Marine Mammals Protection Act, provides sufficient protection, she said." Proposal to list belugas as endangered has leaders wary over projects & Decision to list Cook Inlet belugas delayed
Full list of reasons:
1. wants to confirm population in light of restraint on whale hunting over the years
A. doesn't address the issue of why whales haven't had an increase when compared to other whale population growths of 2-6%/year.
2. be sure to meet requirements for ESA (the beluga whales in cook inlet I believe still haven't been demonstrated as genetically unique.)
3. whales are covered by existing laws - question is if it's sufficient.
4. and of course, economic impact due to the possibility of how the ESA is enacted. There would be a difference if the habitat is including in the policy verses not being including.
Remember, the NMFS decided to NOT list the whales in 2000 with the same population numbers. That's why they are taking the six month extension to do another population estimate. For reference. "In 2000, the agency [The National Marine Fisheries Service] refused to list the whales." source
'Rod Hobbs, leader of the beluga whale research project at NOAA's National Marine Mammal Lab, also in Seattle. Hobbs said the long view shows that this year's [2007] estimate of 375 beluga whales is about what it was in 1999." ... 'In June, NOAA biologists flew five surveys of waters in the upper Cook Inlet where the whales tend to be most often and recorded video of the belugas in groups. The biologists came up with the new estimate of 375 whales _ up from 302 whales last year _ by examining the video and from counts made by researchers. ... This year's increased estimate is the largest since 2001 when 386 whales were counted." source

Theosis4u (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, not to be real picky here, but the beluga whales in Cook Inlet HAVE been proven to be genetically distinct from other belugas. They don't even mate with others belugas. As for them not being listed on the ESL, do you realize that the Bush administration has only listed a sum total of 59 species in 7 years, and many of those were because they were forced to do so by lawsuits? Under George H.W. Bush, it was 231 in just 4 years, and under Clinton, 521 in 8. There are several lawsuits now about the belugas. The feds are taking the time to find a way to protect gas and oil exploration, stalling their listing as long as possible to benefit corporations over the species they're supposed to protect, which is what they have been doing for almost 8 years now. Sorry: I know that's probably inappropriate, but that is what this administration's been. However, these belugas ARE distinct. "Cook Inlet beluga whales in decline" There are other references to them being distinct: it's accepted fact now. Jolly momma (talk) 07:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No, they have not. Repeat the claim as much as you want, but it has not been proven to the standards required for listing, at least argued here - Current Population Status of the Cook Inlet Stock of Beluga Whale . Search the document for "genetic" to get to the points. Also from there, "During the public comment period, the Department requested the original genetic data used for the various genetic interpretations contained in the 2006 Status Review upon which the 2007 proposed rule is based." Theosis4u (talk) 06:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the National Marine Fisheries Sevice, Alaska Office, they are a genetically distinct beluga whale - "Cook Inlet Beluga Whale", therefore it is not a claim, it is a fact. Please look at the section involving "Proposed Endangered Status". Also, if you look at the EPA document "Endangered and Threatened Species; Endangered Status for the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale", the first thing it mentions is that it's distinct. Although it isn't stated here, the Cook Inlet whale DOESN'T mate with other belugas. The state of Alaska document has its own reasons for not mentioning the word 'genetic'. The federal document does at least ADMIT they are distinct, even if it, for now, is willing to sit on the fence about this issue, since, as I pointed out before, this administration has only listed 59 species as endangered in 8 years, while Bush's father listed 236 in 4, and Clinton listed over 500. It should not surprise you under the circumstances that they are still not listed. But they are genetically distinct, even if they are not listed! (By the way, using FoxNews, as you did, is hardly an unbiased source.)Jolly momma (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The Alaska peninsula is an effective barrier to genetic exchange with other beluga whales (from your sources). The source I included shows that the females COULD mate with other populations of beluga whales. Their only distinct in that their "incestuous" [so to speak] due to the geographic barriers. You also fail to actually address the issue that your source didn't provide their information for peer review. Theosis4u (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hunting Impact And Source

This is 100% FALSE. The source has this, "In addition, state scientists point out that, in 2000, NMFS ruled that listing the Cook Inlet belugas as endangered was not warranted because hunting was the only factor causing their decline, and hunting has since been effectively regulated through cooperative agreements with Alaska Native organizations." THe NMFS is the Fed's, not the state. Hunting was the factor for the decline, the question is now that hunting has been controlled by the whale population increasing was one would expect from other population growth averages [2-6%/year]. Theosis4u (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What I cited plainly states that hunting was blamed UNJUSTLY for the decline in the beluga population during the 90's, when the decline was due to other factors, mainly pollution runoff from Anchorage, and the like. The area is also an area soon to be open for more gas exploration. Hunting was not the factor for the decline over the last 20 years. The National Marine Mammal Labratory gives them a 65% chance of having their numbers decrease (and not due to hunting); since they're still being considered for ESL listing, this is good indication that they need protection.Jolly momma (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin was citing the Feds (NMFS), not the state in regards to the impact of hunting. And your sources don't support your disregard of hunting being the primary cause of population decline. Please reference the quote and source on talk page to support this. Also, none of the sources have any supporting claims about other factors - none of them offer but conjecture about reasons to why the population might NOT be increasing after the halting of hunting. Again, please offer supporting reference in talk page. The 65% reference is meaningless without the context of the years of projection - which is even less noteworthy considering other turn around times of population increases that have been done for other species. The primary reason their being consider for listing is because of advocacy groups when you consider the prior data that the NMFS declined to list on just a couple of years ago. Theosis4u (talk) 06:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I cited the reference in the section above. I thought I'd made that clear.. It begins "Cook Inlet beluga whales...."; I'm sure you'll see it. And that source does point out that hunting is not the cause of the whale's decline now, although, of course, it was once. It states there is another reason, and probably a manmade one. These are the results of a scientific study......... The gestation period is over a year. They nurse their young for a long time, and reproduce at a later age than many mammals. They already have several strikes against them WITHOUT us making it more difficult for them. [1] The cause of their decline now appears to be manmade, and not from hunting. Jolly momma (talk) 08:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

1. "Palin cited state scientists who claimed that hunting...". This is wrong. It wasn't state scientists, it was the Feds (NMFS). 2. There is no current decline. The issue is why they aren't experiencing an annual average of 6-10% population growth. We still are waiting for the recent population figures; increase, decrease, or populations the relative same as last year. 3. There is no evidence of any man-made environmental causes on the population issue with the cook-inlet whales. Some have made conjectures at this point, but that is all - conjectures. Theosis4u (talk) 23:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Chevron

This section should be removed until there's a better source showing it was a direct action of Palin that regulates the actions of Chevron. The source just is a one liner zigger with no details but the accusation. Theosis4u (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll be removing (or asking for removal) this if there is no objections that are also followed with supporting arguments. Theosis4u (talk) 06:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OPPOSE Sarah Palin and her administrative decisions were indeed responsible for the actions of Chevron (making it easier for them to dump waste into Cook Inlet). Please see"My turn: Alaska salmon need protection from the mixing zone loophole" Before you mention that it's an op-ed, it is chock full of facts and details, which op-eds often are (at least the good ones). Not all of them are rants. Chevron should not be removed since they are primarily responsible for the waste being dumped. If the details are accurate, the cannot be zingers.Jolly momma (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"Facts" in op-ed pieces don't make them reliable sources for wikipedia. Find the sources of the facts in reliable sources. Again, there is no evidence of waster water effecting the Beluga whales at this time. Shouldn't this topic if it's to be included on the Palin page be under "Water" anyways? Theosis4u (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It would make sense under the water section if the water section's sole subject wasn't the Clean Water Initiative. Since that Initiative deals with the Pebble Mine and not this, Chevron belongs here. The facts were already given, I think, but I will refer you to the petittion: "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY", a petition to the National Marine Fisheries Service to list the whale as Endangered under the ESA. Jolly momma (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

should but doesn't have to be part of the curiculum

Palin supports allowing the discussion of creationism in public schools, and says it does not have to be part of the curriculum.[11] 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."[12] She has also stated, "I won't have religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism."[12]

This section was basically repeating her saying "it should be but it doesn't have to be but it should be but...". I've condensed that into "Palin has said that creationism would ideally be part of the public school curriculum". I think the (provided) quote supports that as a description of her position on the issue. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Stem cell research

It looks like there are two different positions listed under that section? The first is cited to a debate? Can there be better sourcing for her postition, either way? Thanks, --Tom 15:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There should be two different positions because there are two different kinds of research. There's the type that's in use today in dozens of treatments and has a track record of saving lives. That's adult stem cell research. Then there's the type that is speculative, hasn't produced any approved treatments to date, and mostly seems to cause cancer and other problems in studies so far. That's embryonic stem cell research. The former, Palin supports. The latter Palin opposes. It's bog standard "culture of life" political positioning. The problem is that if you shorten it down too much there becomes a major NPOV problem. Left wing spin is that there is only stem cell research and if your against any variant of it, you're against stem cell research. Lots of people disagree including Sarah Palin. TMLutas (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
This new article may shed some more light on the subject, and related ones.[2] Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 19:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the explaination, that makes sense and that section looks much better than before. --Tom 16:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan

The "Pakistan" subheading under "Foreign Policy" seems to state nothing other than Palin didn't reveal a position regarding this country. Is there any need to keep this section? —ADavidB 12:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be better to either quote her or remove that section, rather than leaving it as-is. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 07:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. --Tom 16:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Water Section

The Water topic seems to be making a mountain out of a mole hill and is slanted to a POV. The "Alaska clean water act" was something pushed by activists against the purposed Pebble Mining operation. The ballot was rejected by 57% of the voters. Some of the sources used are questionable - non-notable or liken to a blog. This write up makes the assumption that the mine is a reality, when it is not. There has been no commitment to building/running it and it's a long ways off even from the planning and proposal stage. Theosis4u (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The sources are NEWSPAPER articles, hardly non-notable. The mine is slated to be opened by 2011 when all permits are obtained; however, they are already running shafts through the area which are causing some problems in the water (not mentioned here). I believe that was pointed out in at least one of the articles. Newspapers from Anchorage, Homer Alaska, the Los Angeles Times, and the International Herald Tribune are not blogs, nor are articles from local tv stations. The water topic is not making a mountain out of a molehill: just because a mine slated to open in the future hasn't been opened yet doesn't mean it wasn't and isn't important. It's possible future development was the point of the initiative! It wasnt' pushed by just activists. Those salmon and trout fishermen depend on those streams. Bear watching is a huge industry in that area. Residents, fishermen, etc. were also against it, and polls showed the initiative was passing in the polls until Palin came out against it (which isn't mentioned in the section: that would be slanted). It's entitled: political positions. That initiative is a rather important one from her short term as governor, and might still be up for a fight as it stands now.Jolly momma (talk) 06:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, your wrong on many levels. I didn't say all the sources, I said some. Plus, is there really a need to make 3 footnotes to the same source? The Orivs, Gorumet, and Kodiak Daily Mirror should all find more notable replacements. The Kodiak Daily Mirror is simply an editorial/opinion piece. If can find no mention of shaft's being ran that are already causing "problems" to the water. "...just because a mine slated to open in the future hasn't been opened yet doesn't mean it wasn't and isn't important." It does make the issue into a crystal ball, not to mention recentism. This simply has no place in wikipedia to this degree at this time. Theosis4u (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue was just voted on by Alaskans. It is still a very big deal up there. There are a lot of sources used because sometimes people like to go through articles and nitpick. The mention to shafts might be in the Orvis article (which is factual). It is an important issue there. Opinion pieces can be full of facts, which these are. The Pebble Mine is a big deal there, as are those salmon runs. It does have a place in Wikipedia. Just because you don't like what something is saying, doesn't mean that it doesn't belong here. I am getting tired of these insults, by the way. You need to stop. Now! Jolly momma (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Being a big deal up there and a recent vote doesn't mean it's a justification for Palin's page nor at this time. [recentism & crystal ball] Opinion pieces having a bunch of facts doesn't mean they are reliable sources for an article on wikipedia. I'm tired of your POV pushing and dumping it directly on the article page rather than find consensus on th at talk page. If you noticed, unlike others - I don't edit war on the article page and I don't make the assumptions that my personal opinions and biases can bypass consensus and go directly in the article. Theosis4u (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you do. You call people names because you don't agree with them. You assume that I am the one and only person behind whatever it is I'm defending, even though I might have had little or nothing to do with what's there, because I'm the one who's responding to what you're saying. Opinion pieces often have lots of facts behind them, which, if you read them, you would see. I haven't pushed my POV anywhere: I simply disagreed with you, and you became insulting, rude, condescending, and called me a liar. You are the one who's trying to rewrite what is already there; I'm simply trying to defend it as it's written. For that, you call me a liar, become unreasonably nasty, and behave in a way that is unacceptable. I did nothing to deserve the attitude you've hurled at me. You assume too much, and need a serious attitude adjustment. Jolly momma (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Do what? Your the one making the edits on this article. Before you, it was one other animal rights activist. Your the one creating the inference of insulting, rude, condescending. I call you out on lying about the appropriate use of the word - cull. I only did this after you actually lied though, when you tried to imply it only was in reference to domesticated animals. Your welcome to correct me on this point and say you were to lazy to actually confirm your assumption before posting what you did. And in the end, your still avoiding the actual point of this "talking" issue. All your stuff above could of been posted on my talk page. Theosis4u (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

AGAIN, DON'T CALL ME A LIAR! I was right about what cull means: it isn't my fault pro-aerial hunting people want to sanitize it by using the word 'cull' improperly. It is, nevertheless, an improper usage. You are wrong. If you have a dictionary, look it up. You are condescending and rude. Now, you make it worse by calling me lazy. Is there a reason you feel you have to be nasty? What gives you the right to be like that? I shouldn't have to quote a dictionary if you won't look it up. Whatever I have put in this article was balanced: no opinions, just facts. I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, the only person who touched any of the sections you object to. There is nothing there that even implies animal rights activism: no animal rights organizations quoted (by me anyway). Again, you are making assumptions, which you do all the time apparently. I'm tired of your insults. Jolly momma (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You know what makes your own premise groundless that I'm somehow being unfair and uncivil to you? I did include the dictionary reference for culling on the wolf topic. It's still posted right there in this talk article. I also gave you recently a book reference on using the very term for game management within the biological field. Your hysteria about trying to make this a personal issue appears to me to be an attempt to distract from the real issues - that the article content is wrong and should be corrected. Alas, I've seen others do this already on the Palin page and get away with it. We'll see if you do, but that will not make me submissive to your POV in the meantime. Theosis4u (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's personal when you call me names, which you did. People only resort to insults and name calling when they are wrong, which is what you did. Again, you are assuming facts not in evidence in your last post. You need to get over yourself and get over your own biases and prejudices. I have asked you to be nice; that should not be too much to ask. Jolly momma (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Jolly momma is correct. "Culling" (like "harvesting") is commonly used by hunters as a euphemism for killing animals for sport. Theosis4u, if you can't be more civil, could you at least make your insults more elegant? - Writegeist (talk) 06:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
The fact that both of you argue that "culling" is simply a political word used by hunters displays a POV. It's simply false and if one knows it to be false but then argues that it doesn't mean what it does - that's a lie. If one can assume the other person has seen evidence to show they are wrong but then continues to argue for their original opinion - they are lying. A hunter never refers to his annual license to hunt white-tail deer as a "culling program". It is consider a right to hunt - regardless if it's for pleasure or subsistence. Some "hunting" laws do imply reasoning for "culling" within them - for example, how many animals or fish can be taken. But most annual hunting laws aren't for the primary and expressed purposes for "culling". If the DNR open's up a special permit for hunters to hunt a specific animal and maybe in a specific area because of over population, that would be considered a culling program that allows "hunting" to implement it. If the DNR lays out poison traps because there are two many "skunks" in a park and they are aversely effecting the ecological balance, that would be considered a culling program. Theosis4u (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Polar Bears

The section about the email is flat out false and misleading. The source doesn't state, "When he finally got the e-mails, by a federal records request, he discovered that contrary to what Palin suggested, the scientists supported the fact that the bears were in danger." The emails only showed that there was some (3) dissent among the state scientist on the issue. Theosis4u (talk) 07:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This section should also give a paragraph that main complainants have admitted to wanting to use the possible polar bear listing as a way to push/enforce "climate control" legalities to other issues that they currently can't do. Their argument is that greenhouse gases (man made global warming) is reducing the ice areas that the polar bears need. That "their" climate models project that the ice will reduce unless global warning is controlled/stopped; i.e. the polar bears will be endangered at sometime in the future when this happens. There is no other supporting evidence to make claims to the polar bear listing except for global warming projects that claim the ice shelfs will reduce and there reduce the viability of the polar bears existence. They have stated that a successful listing on this argument will allow them to legally push against "greenhouse gas" industries. Legal fray likely after ruling on polar bear status Theosis4u (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you read Palin's op-ed? The section on the email is correct because Palin asserts that the state wildlife officials (of which there are only 3) agree with her: that is obviously NOT THE TRUTH. As for people using the bears, etc. etc...... isn't that opinion that has no place here? That isn't why the bears were listed. Kempthorne had to be SUED to list them in the first place. The Bush administration has only listed 59 species in 8 years: his father listed 236 in 4. Polar bears weren't listed just to push against greenhouse gas industries; however, the only way to save the bear is to deal with the melting Arctic ice shelves: a catch-22. If the ice problem isn't corrected, the bears will die. Period. At the rate it's disappearing, even this administration had no choice but to list them. Without the polar ice shelfs, the bears will not exist: no dens; no place to hunt; their way of life gone. They are endangered. Jolly momma (talk) 06:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


Wrong again. There is not ONLY 3 state wildlife officials/biologists. There was only 3 state wildlife biologists that said they disagree with Palin's assessments. Only one of them came on record to speak, he include reference to two others agreeing with him. Know where do the sources state how many state wildlife officials/biologists there are they could of weighed in on this consensus. Palin wrote, "My decision is based on a comprehensive review by state wildlife officials of scientific information from a broad range of climate, ice and polar bear experts." The ADN source about the email says, "Robert Small, head of the marine mammals program for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. ..named two other marine mammal biologists on staff and said the three of them had reviewed the nine new polar bear studies that the federal government was citing to justify a threatened-species listing for the bears. ... None of the three is a polar bear specialist". There is nothing here to state, they were the ONLY biologist to weigh in on this matter. I can't find the total number of employed wildlife or habitat biologist within Alaska, if you can locate this I would be interested in learning the numbers (my youngest wants to be a biologist). Also, I disagree..this is issue was pushed 100% because of green house gas theories. You wrote, "a catch-22. If the ice problem isn't corrected, the bears will die." That's false. http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba610/ This also mentions among others thing, the notion that the ice factor has to due with polar bears being able to hunt seals. Polar bears can and will hunt other animals besides seals. Theosis4u (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The source you listed above is hardly credible. The bears use ice to catch most of their prey. They depend on it. Just because you want to quote some right wing think tank does not make it fact, any more than 'Fox News' does. Since even the Bush administration had to finally give in on this one, you ARE WRONG!!! You also need to drop the attitude. I am tired of the condescension. Jolly momma (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You simply ignored all the actual points. I'm not insulted by your groundless theatrics and tantrums. If you want to consider a rational disagreement as condescension, that's your choice, but it still doesn't take away from the fact your ignoring to engage into a rational debate on the issue. Theosis4u (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd hardly think pointing out that you called me a liar as a "groundless theatrics and tantrums". You did it three times. You have deliberately been both insulting and condescending in your last posts directed at me in every one of the subjects you've responded to and you know it, no matter how rational and nice you are attempting to appear here. All one need do is look the predator section to see how uncivil you've been. The sources I gave you, as do the others, state that polar bears NEED the ice. The won't survive without it. They need: to swim to hunt (most of the time; they are graceful swimmers but not great hunters off the ice flows). They need camouflage. They use ice for their dens. They won't adapt to life without ice flows: they will die. Read the sources, and the ESA petition, and Kempthorne's ruling. Again, this administration DID NOT want to list them in the first place, but even they had to admit the bears are endangered. Since I was not the person doing all the name calling, I was not the person refusing to engage in a rational debate. That would be you. Jolly momma (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No, they don't NEED ice. Your wrong on so many levels with your sense of certainty - Is Global Warming Killing the Polar Bears? , Is the Polar Bear Endangered, or Just Conveniently Charismatic? , Demographic and Ecological Perspectives on the Status of Polar Bears , Possible Impacts of Climatic Warming on Polar Bears - PDF , Someones summary of 'U.S. Geological Survey Reports on Polar Bear Population Status in the U.S. and Canada'. Richard Steiner is simply irresponsible in his statement. The bears would be stressed with environmental change that cause ice shelf loss, that isn't really contested. What is highly contested is the degree of that stress and it's consequence. Polar bears do not need ice shelves for survival, period. They don't need to hunt seals, they don't need it for reproduction, they don't need it for denning. They use it when it's available. Again, their are stresses to some polar bear populations when they don't have it. Theosis4u (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you are wrong. Polar bears DO need ice. Using right wing think tank sources like those above aren't going to give you an accurate picture of the problem. I know you get rattled, but those sources are biased. I know you have a particular point of view, but that doesn't mean it's right when RECENT research is proving it's wrong. The bears DO need ice. I will list these sources. After that, undoubtedly, it will be useless to attempt to talk to you about this any further, since your mind is made up regardless of whatever any real scientific study says, and you get nasty when that's pointed out. "Polar Bears Being Considered for U.S. Endangered List", "Polar bears endangered by loss of Arctic ice" , "Melting Ice Threatens Polar Bears' Survival", "U.S. Protects Polar Bears Under Endangered Species Act", "Polar Bears and Conservation" I have given you other sources prior to this. I've also been civil; do me the same courtesy for once. You know absolutely nothing about me, so stop making assumptions when you've already shown you aren't very intuitive anyway. Just be nice, which is what you are SUPPOSED to be here, in case that's slipped your mind. Jolly momma (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comment about my sources being right-wing think-tanks leads me to believe you didn't review them. I was writing NEED for a reason. PB's NEED air. PB's don't NEED ice. Ice does make hunting seals easier for PB's. Eating seals do make them heavier (fatter). The behavior's of PB's will change without accessible ice shelves and it will be a loss to not see PB's activities on ice shelves. I see the use of the word NEED as being the POV bias. By claiming PB's NEED ice, it leads to the global warming models argument about their survival. When you establish the fact that PB's will, can, and are adapting without ice shelves then it isn't an argument about their survival but rather one of their habitat's disappearing. You'll see one of my sources does exactly that. It shows a PB population group that doesn't suffer the negative effects of the ice shelf loss. Without going into the full details of the report here, there's a reason why that group does well but another group is suffering signs of "stress" due to the ice shelf loss. Theosis4u (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I did review them. I'm also very well of what and who they are, and who they represent. Our local newspaper is one you would no doubt enjoy (I'm not being mean, but I know you'd enjoy the editorials which often infuriate me) and I have gone rounds with the editor on that score. So yes, I know them well. I do appreciate you being civil, reasonable, and nice, however. I do state again, polar bears will not survive without the ice. (This is totally unrelated, but you live in a beautiful state, and are fortunate there, if you still live in Alaska, as you indicated you once did.) Species can adapt over time, as undoubtedly polar bears did to live on the ice in the first place, but they can't adapt fast enough to survive off the ice all the time. They need the fat from the seals they catch on the ice to survive winter hibernation, especially the cubs. Why would you want them to even attempt to live without the ice in the first place? It is not inconceivable that they won't have to. By the way, I also asked people I know around here who hunt, including fox hunters (they chase them now, but don't kill them; I grew up in fox hunting country), and all of them agree that cull is incorrect as you used it. If you use it where you live, then fine. But down here, we don't. Jolly momma (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

culling - I disagree with your friends about the use of "culling". I'm not a hunter - though I did when I was a young teenager. I learned about "culling" from my biology professor, who's professional studies was with the Alaskan wolves. I didn't hear it from hunting propaganda. The term isn't specific to geography. I've given evidence of the term being used world wide to describe these programs. Theosis4u (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
need ice - I already demonstrated they don't "need" ice. That current populations of PB's aren't reliant on ice to be "healthy". That we know they existed without the ice shelves that we have seen - we know the ice shelves have changed in the past. This issue is nothing but a political stunt by global warming POV-pushers. I can say that because one has to accept the global warming projection models to predict that the PB's will possibly suffer extinction in the future. There is no current data that shows anything BUT the population of the PB's is better than it was for the last 20 years. If they need the fat of seals to "survive winter hibernation" ... but wait, if your saying global warming is a fact and is the cause of all of this then why should we not also assume that future "winters" will require less fat to survive them? Theosis4u (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Alaska - Yes, it is beautiful. It's beauty is so surreal at times you'll find yourself pinching yourself to make sure your awake. I recommend the drive from the Yukon to Valdez, Alaska for everyone. Some many breath taking moments you'll have along that drive. Theosis4u (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Circular logic is not persuasive to anyone except for the easily impressed. Nice try. Jolly momma (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and humor me and show how I committed - Begging_the_question . I already laid out how I believe the use of the premises that "polar bears need ice" and the global warming arguments commit logical faults in regards to this issue. Theosis4u (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

And I gave plenty of research, etc., which shows they do need ice. You ignore even the obvious implications of a solid white bear trying to hunt in a color filled world, or trying to make a den in one. Trying to make you see the point, however, is useless. You have already stated your anti-polar bear views, anti-environmental views, anti-global warming views, etc. You assume because I object to the improper use of the word 'cull' and state that polar bears need ice that I am an animal activist, as if anyone who disagrees with your anti-animal views has to be an activist. Your arguments are illogical when they are based on faulty logic and articles paid for by think tanks funded by oil companies and their allies. This is supposed to be neutral, not colored to a particular point of view, or to have the facts obfuscated; however, your questions have been meant to do just that. The operative word is NEUTRAL. Do not adopt another one of your nasty attitudes and become insulting again; it has no place here and is not deserved. There is NO REASON for incivility. None of this was meant to be insulting. Jolly momma (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Bear Fur Color And how is it any different than the brown or black bear running around in the white of winter? Also, you do know that most animals don't see the full spectrum of colors we do don't you? Theosis4u (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Anti-Bears How am I anti-anything? Just because I disagree with your premises I'm not against something? What BS. Are you anti-seals because you want to make sure the PB's can hunt them by protecting their access via the ice shelves? Theosis4u (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Anti-environmental views Again, what BS. You really don't know how clueless you are on this accusation. Planet Green Rules! Thank god for dvr's during political seasons. I would be building my "earthship" now if only I could sell my house. I believe in "Green" because I think it enables personal freedoms and liberties...not because I'm afraid of some boogie man called "global warming". Theosis4u (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Anti Global Warming views - I'm against the "hype" and non-sense that comes out of the mouths of those that support global warming, when they themselves aren't climatologist. The "Green" movement would go farther if people stop trying to "scare" and "blackmail" everyone into it. There are very sound and reasonable justifications for going Green - most importantly in my opinion, is personal freedoms and liberties can be correlated by self-sufficient green technologies. Theosis4u (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
In summary to the other points, you have a funny way of doing exactly what you accuse others of while ignoring the actual points of disagreement. Your welcome to call me names, claim I lied, or fault my logic; but please follow up with hard justifications so I have something to respond to besides "attacking the person". At least that way we can stay on topic to the talk page.

What Polar Bears need or doesn't need really shouldn’t be the issue here: I am not sure but has Wikipedia established that the theory of man made global warming is now fact? If not then to dwell on something that is still theory isn’t productive. You could state Palin position on man made global warming and leave it at that.

On the other hand if Wikipedia has established that the theory of man made global warming is fact then by all means those that made it fact should stress that fact and point out Palin is not dealing with established scientific fact.

OxAO (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Theosis4u: Your condescending attitude needs to cease. You're the one who called me a liar, etc, not the other way around. I'm tired of your attitude and snide comments, as well as your attempts at intelligent put-downs. Civility is supposed to be one of the rules here: please learn it. Jolly momma (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Crying wolf Theosis4u (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Not even remotely clever, but good for you. Jolly momma (talk) 06:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Global warming was only brought up because Theosis4u kept bringing it up in his anti-polar bear defenses, in trying to give every reason under the sun (sorry) why they don't need ice to survive. No, it shouldn't be such a big deal and discussed like this. My 'friend', is a dog with a bone he won't give up. If you look at his posts, you'll see global warming mentioned, snidely, several times (as digs at me), when he's calling me, basically, insulting names and just being rude. I don't know if Wikipedia has a policy of believing whether or not it's man-made, although I know Palin doesn't. Jolly momma (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

By that I meant Palin doesn't believe the effects of global warming are man-made. Jolly momma (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Predator Control - Gunning/Shooting/etc.

All references to gunning, shooting, killing and so forth should be change to the correct term for these action with this type of program. The neutral term is "culling".

Culling is: to reduce or control the size of (as a herd) by removal (as by hunting) of especially weaker animals  ; also : to hunt or kill (animals) as a means of population control

Theosis4u (talk) 06:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me that "culling", rather than being especially neutral, is more a term adopted by people who assume that this form of population control is acceptable. In other words, it carries a POV like all the others, but the only difference is that it tends to be used by the pro-predator control side. Dragons flight (talk) 07:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
It's neutral in that it is the accurate, scientific, and legal term for these activities for these programs. Culling programs can include/restrict certain activities - poisoning, shooting by rifle, relocation, etc. One reference to the purposed method is enough in an article without giving undue weight to color it as a POV. Culling is available to expand for those that desire. Theosis4u (talk) 07:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Terms like selective reduction, sanitation worker, and downsizing are all accurate, legally acceptable descriptions. Nonetheless they are preferentially adopted by people who wish to spin the facts they describe in a more positive light. Same for "culling". It's preferentially used by people from one one side of a POV debate, hence it carries POV with it. That's not to say the section can't be rephrased, but your suggestion is akin to writing it in the way the predator control advocates would prefer, which is not the same as writing about it neutrally. Dragons flight (talk) 07:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I did state that it would be appropriate to reference what manner the culling program has approved. But to keep repeating violent and negative phrases throughout the article when there are more acceptable alternatives is pushing a POV. Picking terms has allot to do with the audience, we wouldn't use a street term for intercourse in an encyclopedia article even though they imply the same thing. Theosis4u (talk) 08:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There is not a single source quoted, nor even in the ballot bill, where the word 'culling' is used. You cull cows from a herd; this is different. You will not find that word used in a single source written about this in the Alaskan papers, etc., or any others for that matter, even the nonsourced ones that I've seen trying to make it sound more appealing. I've never seen anyone even try to pretend that word to be appropriate because it isn't the same. Cows and sheep are not bears nor wolves. Wild animals are not domesticated. When you cull a herd, you separate the better animals out from the rest: you don't fly overhead and shoot one, two, or even the entire pack, . It simply isn't remotely the same thing! The words used in this section are not violent and / or negative, unless you think the terms used by those who advocate predator control programs are, because those are the words that were used, if you read what they (and Mrs. Palin) themselves say. Nor is it slanted. Hunting is not a violent word. Slaughter would be. The section uses neutral terms, not charged nor misleading ones. To call this a culling program would be misleading. If you consider the words shooting and hunting to be violent, which are the negative phrases that would have to be substituted for culling, then what does that say about the actual activity that you have to sanitize it like that? Shooting and hunting ARE the correct words: culling isn't even close! Jolly momma (talk) 07:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Your simply wrong, again. Culling is the appropriate term, it has nothing to do with domesticated animals or not. Anyone who simply does a search on "cull culling alaska wolves" will find out your wrong and you lied about the term not being used. Theosis4u (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT TO CALL ME A LIAR!!!!! The word has not been used in ANY source I've found; however, i must admit I don't generally consult pro-hunting propaganda, which you obvviously do. Culling, if you actually look up the meaning, refers to the act of culling animals as I explained above. Do you live on a farm? Do you have farmers in your family? Are you a linguist? If you look at every NON-HUNTING (NON-PROPAGANDA) - propaganda is not a source- written source on this, you will not see that word legitimately used. They are two very different concepts if used properly. I notice you haven't produced it in any legitimate form. DO NOT EVER CALL ME A LIAR AGAIN. Jolly momma (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Your simply lying about the appropriate use of the term "culling". I don't know what you've searched for or not in regards to the artilces. But I do know you never included the term culling for this issue otherwise you would of seen my point [unless your lying about that as well]. General Google Search and Google News Search. You'll notice that many sources do use the term - even animal rights activist ones. I did consider your write ups on these articles in "good faith", but your responses to my talking points have removed that assumption. 22:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theosis4u (talk • contribs)

AGAIN, DO NOT EVER CALL ME A LIAR! Considering that you called me a liar, I don't believe your 'good faith assumption', and given the insulting and condescending tone you've given them, I'd say you are not telling the truth. You've been nothing but rude. The word 'culling' has implications that have nothing to do with aerial hunting; and NO, I have never seen it in ANY reference, article, etc. about this subject, and I have read quite a few. I am sick and tired of your rudeness. Words have different connotations and different meanings; as someone who actually has studied language: YOU ARE WRONG! The connotation of that word is NOT the same. You need to stop being so deliberately rude. There is no excuse for it. I worked in fraud for years: the one thing I can't tolerate is a liar. I suggest you alter your tone. If nothing else, You owe me an apology for being so rude, and for calling me a liar. 22:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolly momma (talk • contribs)

What's rude is your insistence on a premise that is wrong even after you've been giving the means to see for yourself. I would expect a rebuttal on that, rather from thin air. Try this one in regards to the use of "culling" for these very programs. By the way, my biology/math professor in Valdea Alaska was one of the states most notable researchers on wolves. Theosis4u (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I did find a dictionary with that reference: however, it is not the preferable way the word is used. Most appropriately, it refers to domestic animals. It can refer to hunting, but not as a strong synonym. I frankly don't care what or who your professor was. I have a M.A. in Latin, and have worked with languages all my life. I'm a stickler for language and word meanings. Hence, my insistence that the word 'cull' properly refers to livestock, which by implication it does. If you want to argue, fine. If you want to pat yourself on the back and say 'yippee, I'm right', whatever. However, in its first, best meaning, it does refer to livestock. Just stop the arguing and rudeness. Either that, or you choose your words and are rude without knowing it. Will you just please pretend that you didn't realize you were being rude and drop it? Jolly momma (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll put this here in addition to what I wrote below since it properly belongs in this section. I asked several regular hunters, farmers, and fox hunters (I grew up in fox hunting country -they chase, but don't kill them, now) - and they all agreed that your use of the word 'cull' was incorrect in this instance. What you use up there is different than is used down here, apparently. This is not meant to be taken as an attack, which it is not, but just a point that the word is not as commonly used as you suggest. Again, do not become irritated, please. This is only meant to point out a difference in word usage, whether between different philosophies or different parts of the country, I do not know. Jolly momma (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not geographic, my sources show that and a small amount of time researching it will show the term is used globally. Theosis4u (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As stated before, that's a bad synonym unless you're trying to use it as a euphemisn for something like aerial hunting, which is what you're trying to do. Those who promote it frequently do just that. However, the word, properly, refers to livestock.Jolly momma (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this simply about whether the word used should be "hunt" or "cull"? At least you all are not arguing about the bridge [grin]. Really now, either is fine, but if an RS mentions population control (which it dos IIRC), then "cull" is better, as it is more specific. I do not see this as a euphemism, but rather just a special case of the more general "hunt". Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Kangaroo are not livestock, but they are culled annually. There are ferocious fights over the quota to be culled, but nobody argues about the term. -- Zsero (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Cull properly does not carry the same meaning as in the activity of an aerial hunt, no matter how hunters, or those who support aerial huntering programs, might want it to. Hunting is shooting wild animals with guns, etc; culling is removing domesticated animals from a herd, without the implication of killing necessarily (as in the culling of sheep, etc., by a border collie) for market of some other purpose. It denotes and implies two different activities altogether. Jolly momma (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Those are indeed two different things (although your definition of cull is nonstandardly narrow), but aren't both being discussed simultaneously in the content? So while saying something like "aerial culling" might seem awkward, what about "aerial hunting to cull [predators]"? I think that works quite well. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Repeated assertion doesn't make it so. -- Zsero (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
See, e.g., this article, which is not particularly friendly to the cull, but doesn't hesitate to use the term. -- Zsero (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The kangaroos in the article are being killed for meat for people to eat; the wolves, and bears, killed in aerial hunting are not being eaten, simply killed. The wolves' pelts are sold, as are the bear skins, but wolves are not eaten, and the bears, for the most part, are trophies. Again, there is a big difference in the way the word is used. Jolly momma (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Er, no, they're not being killed for meat. They're being killed because there are too damned many of them. Only a tiny fraction of the cull is used for meat, a bit more is used for fur, but most of it is left for scavengers.
If the wolves' pelts are all being used, then what's your problem with it? Is killing an animal for its fur somehow less valid than doing so for its meat? -- Zsero (talk) 01:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, my problem is with the word usage. Your article suggests that it's a great many more than a fraction that are being killed for meat. We are talking about the use of the word 'cull'; do kangaroos move around in large numbers (I think they do, or am I wrong?). The animals killed via aerial hunting are not in packs, but chosen at random because a plane is flying overhead. Culling is choosing the animal for removal from the whole, unless you want to insist you do it on the spur of the moment because you have it in your sights overhead. Culling in your article, and the practice of aerial hunting, are NOT the same in theory or in practice. In this case, it would be a euphemism. Jolly momma (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The kangaroo cull is millions of animals. How much kangaroo meat do you think is eaten, worldwide? It's an exotic food served at a handful of gourmet restaurants. Some more is used for pet food, but still most of the kill is not used. You're drawing arbitrary distinctions. The wolves in Alaska are being killed for the same reason as the kangaroos in Australia — because there are too damned many of them. And the word for that is "culling". -- Zsero (talk) 04:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the wolves in Alaska are killed to promote the moose and caribou herds for hunting, not because there are too many of them. Jolly momma (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If the moose and caribou herds are too small, that means by definition there are too many wolves. Moose and caribou are a resource for which we compete with the wolves. If there are too many wolves there aren't enough prey for us, so we cull the wolves down to an acceptable number, leaving more prey for us to hunt. If there weren't too many wolves then we wouldn't need to shoot any, because we could take all the prey we wanted and so could they. -- Zsero (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Kangaroo populations have exploded because their natural predator, the Tasmanian Devil, has been exterminated. That is the opposite of what is being done here. The wolf is the predator, not the prey, which is what the kangaroo is. When you remove predators, you have an explosion of prey animals, as we do here with white tailed deer. People killed the wolves and cougars who preyed on the deer: now there are millions of deer who starve. The Bush administration may not even protect the few Eastern cougars remaining because they insist they're released pets, which makes those seen by eyewitnesses dismissed by people unwilling to protect them, even though there have been reported sightings since they supposedly became extinct. As a result, we will continue to have an overpopulation of deer until something is done. Please look at these sources: [[3]] [[4]] The section about aerial hunting even points the problem with overpopulation of prey out. Do they hunt kangaroos from airplanes in Australia? Jolly momma (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, Tasmanian devils are from Tasmania, as the name implies. They're far from extinct, but they have nothing to do with the huge kangaroo herds, which are on the mainland, not in Tasmania. I'm not aware of any kangaroo culling in Tasmania. -- Zsero (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm simply relating what the source I used above stated (facts about Kangaroos, see above). That's why I put it there. Apparently the point is that without the Kangaroo's natural predators, whatever they be, the population has risen, though not in the numbers you suggested. It also suggested that Kangaroos are killed for meat. However, it is useless to belabor the point. Jolly momma (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


People have been arguing about whether the terms "gunning", "shooting", "killing", and "culling" (and perhaps other that I've missed) are "correct" or "appropriate".
Obviously all of these terms are correct in some contexts.
In the context of shooting wolves from helicopters, obviously all of these terms are "correct".
As to whether any of these terms is "appropriate", that's a judgment call (just because many people use a term, or government agencies use it, or animal-rights groups sometimes use it, does not automatically make it "appropriate".)
As to whether there are there are "too damned many" wolves, moose, caribou, hunters, politicians, people discussing this, whatever, that also is a judgment call (we can discuss the expected results of large numbers of critters, but we can't say whether this constitutes "too many".) -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that using the term "culling" more accurately represents the purpose behind the reduction in the wolf population, as oppposing to hunting for recreational purposes. JenWSU (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

opening statement should be replaced

“with her newness to the national spotlight, Palin's political positions continue to be determined. Some say that Palin has governed from the political center,[1] while others say her positions represent far-right politics.”

Should be replaced by:

“The following are the political positions of Sarah Palin on an assortment of issues.”

I have already replaced it and someone has put it back. Being left, right or center is a matter of opinion. Wikipedia supposed to be a place of information not a place of debate.

State the facts and let the reader decide. OxAO (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit update: Noted: someone changed it with out their opinion. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by OxAO (talk • contribs) 00:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Question on opening statement:

Palin started politics in 1992 Obama started politics in 1996. Why is Palin stated as new in politics and Obama is not?

OxAO (talk)

Rick Steiner Statements And Objectivity?

I question the use of the growing quotes from Rick Steiner that are used on the page after reading these: Rick Steiner: Sarah Palin's record on environment is abysmal & Sarah Palin and Global Warming: Alaska Prof. Says Palin Misrepresented State Findings on Endangered Polar Bears…and Tried to Cover It Up . Theosis4u (talk) 06:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Two more sources by Steiner:

Theosis4u (talk) 06:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Bailout

Palin's quote from the Couric CBS interview in the Bailout section cites 3 different sources. One of those sources is the CBS website, but that source does not have the quote that's cited in the article. Citing a single quote should not reqire 3 seperate sources. If Palin really did say what's in the quote, then why does the CBS website with the transcript not contain the quote that's in the article? And why does one quote require 3 seperate sources? If the quote is real, then it should be on the CBS transcript, and it should only require one source, not three. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to the unregistered user who fixed it! I like your changes. Grundle2600 (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Religion in Public Life

Misquote

The quoted text "It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum [but] I am a proponent of teaching both" appears to have gotten mixed up somehow as the text before the "[but]" was given in an interview the day after the "I am a proponent" according to the source.

I suggest replacing the first sentence with something like the text below, which is mainly from an earlier revision, to correct the mistake and give context (leaving the second sentence on not having litmus tests as is).

While running for Governor of Alaska and asked about the teaching of creationism along with evolution in public school science classes, Palin answered: "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". When interviewed the next day, she stated that while open debate between the two ideas should not be prohibited if it came up in discussion, creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

DeanKeaton (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

God has sent me

The "God has sent me ..." quote seems to reflect a private belief. I'm not sure that it belongs here. DeanKeaton (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

The last two paragraphs of the section report criticism of Palin in a way that doesn't seem to add much, especially as the sources are not prominent, and in some cases is pure speculation. I think the article would be improved if they were just deleted. DeanKeaton (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

LA Times Quote on Dinosaurs

Added Palin's belief as reported thereGreekParadise (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this. He said, she said?? Is this really a political position? --Tom 16:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Which was deleted by someone today:" ...although, according to a music professor and Wasilla resident, Palin's personal beliefs are that dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time and that the earth was created 6,000 years ago. According to him, Palin dismissed scientific and fossil evidence to the contrary because she said she saw human footprints in the dinosaur tracks. [13]" LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"Pro-life", anti-abortion

Zsero has taken it on him/herself to reinstate the term "pro-life" after 81.109.13.2 corrected it to "anti-abortion" in the stem cell section. The neutral term, appropriate for an encyclopedia, is "anti-abortion". As political framing, "pro-life" is inappropriate here unless it is intended as a direct quote from Eskimo Nell Mrs. Palin, in which case it should appear in quotes. Otherwise it should be removed and replaced by 81.109.13.2's edit, n'est-ce pas?

For guidances here, WP's own pro-life article is, amazingly, worth reading. E.g.: "The Associated Press encourages journalists seeking a neutral tone to use the terms "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion." And: "The English-language edition of the Vatican Gazette encourages journalists seeking a papal tone to use the term 'the heinous murder of cuddly, darling lickle babies that might have grown up to be totally ignorant about politics, world affairs and statesmanship, thus depriving humankind of the perfect candidates to lead the most dangerous nation on earth when everything starts going to Hell in a handbasket.' " — Writegeist (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If you start putting "anti-abortion" then I'll start changing "pro-choice" to "pro-abortion". As for the AP using "abortion rights", they don't use "gun rights" do they? If "gun control" is neutral, then so must be "abortion control". The only way out of this mess is to stick to the widely-accepted terms for each side. -- Zsero (talk) 05:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
"Prolife" is a technical term. Obviously it doesn't mean having a Consistent Life Ethic, but it doesn't really mean anti-abortion either, because 1) it's possible to believe that abortions are bad while still believing that abortion is a personal decision, and 2) Prolife also includes a number of other beliefs, primarily the belief that a foetus is no more or less than a really really small human being. Best to leave things as is. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Whoa Zsero, hold dem dar ponies cowboy! (Or cowgirl.) I did not say that I would "put" anything. I just explained which phrase I thought the more correct for this here incyclepeedja, in the hope of eliciting an intelligent response or two. Nevertheless "pro-abortion" is correct also, by the same token, as you surmise; but I thought it unnecessary to, er, labor the point. I trust you will "put" it.
As for that gun rights/gun control herring, all red with fishy embarrassment, you should know that in the deliciously idiosyncratic English language what's sauce for the goose is not necessarily sauce for the gander. I do like a bowl of well-mixed metaphors with the after-dinner Cognac, don't you?
I don't believe in leaving the status quo undisturbed when it's so very clearly erroneous. — Writegeist (talk) 07:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I have made a change that retains "pro-life" and adds "anti-abortion". — Writegeist (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Same-Sex Unions

YouTube is not a reliable source because anyone can post anything on YouTube, in any context, with any amount of creative editing they wish.

Does Wikipedia have a policy on using Youtube as a source?(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC))

See WP:YOUTUBE and WP:RS. --Evb-wiki (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I've seen it. There is nothing there that bars this, so I'm restoring it. -- Zsero (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Never mind - I found the original video, so Youtube is no longer an issue. But I'd have restored it even if the only source for the video I could find was Youtube; the video speaks for itself. -- Zsero (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Pot smoking

I know this was covered, maybe in the main bio article? Anyways, what do others think about its inclusion? I know this is one of the many sub articles but. --Tom 17:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted back in September on the grounds that her personal use when it was legal is not a policy position. Which is true; she didn't smoke pot as a form of protest or a political statement, she tried it to see what the fuss was all about, and she had every right to do so because it was legal. That doesn't tell us anything one way or the other about her thoughts on whether it should be legal. The most it tells us is that she knows, from personal experience, that it's not some sort of evil devil-stuff, and that Reefer Madness is a work of bad fiction. -- Zsero (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree except with the last part about what she knows. Did you talk to her about it :) Anyways, thanks for the reply --Tom 19:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

sarah palin and native americans and alaska natives

a section discussing sarah palins positions on native american and alaska native issues would be necessary and relevant imo Shanbhag.rohan 07:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Why? Has she said or done anything unusual on the topic? Apart from marrying one and giving birth to five, that is? -- Zsero (talk) 08:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Path to citizenship

I removed the following: Palin does, however, support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. [5]

Where is this interview from? Maybe we can find a reliable source for this? --Tom 14:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If you follow the link to page 1 of the interview it explains: [6]. For the record, Univision is a major news organization focusing on the Spanish speaking market. Dragons flight (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, I will revert myself. --Tom 14:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Article probation

This is a notification that articles related to Sarah Palin (broadly construed) have been placed by the community on article probation. See Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation‎ for details. Thanks - Kelly hi! 17:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of criticisms...

Procedural: Bonewah has recently removed a great deal of content from this article, including text that is cited and was added in good faith. I am rolling back any of the cited information that was struck with the intention of discussing the changes prior to having them made. My purpose is to initiate discussion prior to the striking of information that was sourced and added in good faith in order to avoid any semblance of bias. The mass striking of criticism from an article in and of itself does lead toward a conclusion of editor bias, however I think I understand Bonewah's purpose in doing this, and I'm assuming good faith.

Discussion: I'm going to try to sum up Bonewah's apparent position, and I hope he/she'll correct me if I'm inaccurate:

An article's content should be directly relevant to the article itself. Criticism (and praise) doesn't belong in an article because they show a bias, and Wikipedia is supposed to show no specific point of view, presenting referenced facts.

I vehemently disagree with this. I believe that it is important to succinctly summarize criticism and praise directly relevant to content previously presented. I also believe that all criticism and praise must be looked at carefully to prevent weaseling and peacocking, and it must be sourced. The purpose of any criticism or praise must be to add breadth to the subject, and not to try to sway opinion. I welcome thoughts. —  X  S  G  04:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You mentioned both criticism and praise, though I see very little praise in the rolled back revision. The undue weight provisions of the neutrality policy come into play. In a decision as to whether this article should more simply include Palin's positions, rather than a broader critique thereof, perhaps it should be compared with its peer articles. I see no such editorial criticisms in Political positions of Joe Biden, nor any calls for same in the associated talk page. Reference citations and assumed good faith do not necessarily justify content inclusion. Such critique is more fitting in the Public image and reception of Sarah Palin article. —ADavidB 07:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
There are lots of good reasons to remove the material i removed, especially undue weight and WP:NPOV mentioned by ADavidB. But id like to offer a more succinct reason: this is and article about Political positions of Sarah Palin not What I think of Sarah Palin's Politics. The title itself dictates what should be in the article, namely, the political positions of Sarah Palin, anything else is editorializing. Bonewah (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
You'll find that criticism and praise from reputable sources is often included in articles when it is directly related to presented subject matter. I do question the reputability of some of the sources for the criticisms in this article, and they should be brought up and discussed prior to deletion. In fact, I'll do so shortly for one of the re-established entries. Ultimately, I think you'll find that in my review of the content you excised from the article, I re-instated less than half of it because I agreed with the deletion of the remainder as being irrelevant or belaboring. —  X  S  G  22:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Having reviewed the political position pages of other politicians, I see that criticism is consistently left out. I think I'm leaning to agree that they should be struck. Let's give it another two days to see if anyone else feels that it's important enough to chime in. If not, I'll make the removals. —  X  S  G  00:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
So i went back over your restorations and, as you said, this was not a mass reversion as i initially thought. I still disagree with your restoration of 'the guardian's' editorializing and the global warming stuff from Rick Steiner, but i can see how the stuff about wolves doesnt make sense without some context. We are probably going to have to go through the each case, but there is no hurry so lets mull it all over while we wait for other opinions. Feel free to continue to edit in the mean time, of course, ill take another look in a week or two. Bonewah (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Religion in public life

I did some minor tidy-up here. Also, the sentence on Edwards v. Aguillard seems out of place to me, so I propose removing it. For one thing, the case was not on teaching creationism per se, but on a Louisiana law requiring that if evolution was taught, creationism should be too. More importantly, it seems off-topic, and while there are a huge amount of things that could be said on the subject in general, I think this section should stick to Palin's views rather than offering wider commentary. I would be interested to hear others' views. DeanKeaton (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Feminism

Is the Steinem attack on Palin ("Phyllis Schlafly, only younger") really appropriate here? Seems to me that it is not, as it's a third-party criticism and amounts to hearsay. I thought it would be good to throw this out here on the talk page before removing it, though. Mark Shaw (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

On considering your point, I tend to agree. Palin's political positions aren't dependent on others' agreement, or a third party's summary of their criticism. —ADavidB 03:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I dont know why that line got re-added to the article. I am removing it again, if anyone wants to discuss it, leave a note here. Bonewah (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Housing... what SP says or what other people think?

These lines from the housing section "Critics pointed to it as an example of Palin's lack of knowledge in the area, noting that the mortgage entities operated until September 7, 2008 as quasi-private companies.[58] Supporters scoffed at the claim that her statement was a gaffe, arguing that neither of the companies are completely private, and that the companies are being bailed out with hundreds of billions of tax dollars.[59][60][61][62]" suffer from the same problem that a bunch of other sections had, putting too much emphasis on what other people think of her positions. We document her views in this article, not others reactions to her views. I am going to boldly remove. Bonewah (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You were right to BOLD, in the absence of other views; however, your concluding sentence contains a mistaken perception of inclusion rules; others' reactions to, and opinion of, her views are very relevant to this article. If you want to give a more balanced account, I suggest changing some of the language; 'scoffed' seems inappropriate, for example. Anarchangel (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Why? Why are other people's views on SP's political positions relevant to this article? Bonewah (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

healthcare

The section on her views of the new health care proposals is redundant with that of Public image of Sarah Palin. Is she taking a political position here, or is this part of her public image? Bonewah (talk) 13:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you raise a good point here. The section has grown considerably beyond what Palin stated on the subject and includes far more about others' support or criticism thereof. Is there any valid reason to keep more than the first sentence and last two sentences of the second paragraph; if not, then perhaps they could be combined with what is now a third paragraph. —ADavidB 01:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I took a stab at tighting this section up. I agree with your assessment, too much on other people's opinion of her statements. Bonewah (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how you could accurately describe Palin's views without context. This is the sub-article where such details are appropriate. There's no room in the main article for this much detail, that's what this article is for. A public image sub-article sounds like a vague idea for an article to me, but maybe that's just me.Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
There already is a Public image of Sarah Palin, its more of a pov fork than anything else, so lets not worry about the public image aspect of this health care stuff. My main concern is, as stated by Adavidb above, that the section spends far too much time detailing other people's criticisms of her positions then it does on her positions themselves. As I said below, this is an article about Palin's political positions, not what others think of Palin's politics. Bonewah (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
No one is an island, not even Sarah Palin. In this case, as in most, her ideas come from others, and affect others. In this case, they come from Betsy McCaughey through Michele Bachmann, and had a major effect (for better or worse) on the health care debate. Whether her statements are true is not a matter of opinion, and does merit inclusion.Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I dont know how that addresses my concerns. Other 'political positions of' articles refrain from delivering criticisms or counterpoints of the positions described. Indeed, every position we detail here has or is likely to have strong detractors. Why not add Sarah Brady's views on Palin's pro-gun stance, or Hilary Clinton on Palin's foreign policy? The answer, because this is an article about Palin's views, not her critics views. Seriously, take a look at Political positions of Barack Obama, you will notice that the article does not detail his detractors views, a standard we should follow here. Bonewah (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
While most political positions could be looked at from more than one point of view, clear facts are visible with regard to the "death panel" claim. That makes it different from most issues here.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
You still havent addressed my concerns, all you are doing is declaring yourself to be correct. Bonewah (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There's more than one way to look at gun control, or foreign policy. Is there more than one way to look at the "death panel" claim? I doubt it.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can look at it as hyperbole, or a rhetorical flourish, or, more importantly, you can look at it as her view on a subject, right or wrong. In fact, the article linked is titled 'Palin paints picture of Obama death panel' (emphasis mine), which is substantially different from making a factual claim. Bonewah (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
So the death panel might only sort of kill people?Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
So death panel might only be a euphemism for something else. Im going to remove the parts that detail her critics views for the reasons listed above. Bonewah (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Only when you get references proving that the "death panel" claim was more of a euphemism than was indicated by Palin's own words and by the sources (Betsy McCaughey's story about Ezekiel Emanuel as told by Rep. Michele Bachmann) mentioned on Palin's facebook page. If she counts McCaughey as a credible source, she was probably serious.Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The references to Emanuel, Bachmann, and McCaughey remain in the article. You've only brought up tangential issues rather than provide a valid reason for the inclusion of evaluations of Palin's views here. As such, I've restored Bonewah's updates to the article. —ADavidB 04:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The difference between a clearly false statement, on the one hand, and issues that include multiple points of view on the other, is more than "tangential." Also, the "updates" are mass deletions of sourced material.Jimmuldrow (talk) 11:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, you have not made clear exactly what "clearly false statement" should not remain in the article or why, nor have you made a case for why "multiple points of view" belong in an article of Palin's political positions. Being political positions, it's a given that people will disagree with them, but other's views are not within the scope of "Political positions" articles on Wikipedia – at least for politicians in other parties. The availability of "sourced material" does not alone justify its inclusion in this article. —ADavidB 13:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Nonsense, Jimmuldrow, nothing you are saying has anything to do with the subject at hand. This is an article about Palin's positions, not her critics. Other 'political positions of' articles detail only the subject's positions, not their opponents, there is no reason this should be any different. Your view as to the truthfulness or falsity of her statements have no bearing on the matter, further, you are going against consensus by restoring the challenged material. Bonewah (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Trying not to go too far here, but there's a chance that perhaps Palin's "death panel" remark might have been controversial.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, I did not say that a false statement should be removed. I only said that a clearly false statement should be treated differently than one where different points of view are possible. As for concensus, aren't you leaving out the opinions of several wikipedians who restored material you deleted, and the opinions of other wikipedians whose material you deleted?Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, on a clear cut matter of fact, I'm surprised you think that "the truthfulness or falsity of her statements have no bearing on the matter."Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This "clear cut matter of fact" as you put it is a product of your own imagination. The fact that you view this as something where different points of view are not possible tells me you can not restrain your POV, and, as such, should avoid editing this article. As for consensus, anyone is free to comment here, but you should not assume that others agree with you just because they have edited the article.
The supposed controversial nature of her statements are immaterial. Her political positions are not dependent on other people's views, even if some hold them to be controversial. Bonewah (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
So you strongly agree with the "death panel" claim, and think that other views are "immaterial." Is this correct? And at least I have references for the "supposed" fact that Palin's remarks are controversial. As for Palin getting her ideas from Bachmann, read Palin's facebook pages. There either is or was a reference containing a link to this, and somebody made an incorrect correction (the citation needed thing).Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I dont 'strongly agree' with Palin's claim, my views on Palin's positions are irrelevant to this article. I think other views are immaterial TO THIS ARTICLE as I have said over and over again. My views on the matter don't enter in to it and neither should yours. This is not a forum to discuss the merits of Ms. Palin's beliefs, nor a soapbox for the merits of Obama's health care proposals. As for the citation needed tag, I put it there because the facebook post that contains the quote in question doesnt say what we claim here. Im in the process of reading the rest of her FB posts on the subject and will update the citations when Ive found a something that supports the claims made here. Bonewah (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Her facebook page did in fact mention a speech by Michele Bachmann about Ezekiel Emanuel. The speech quotes extensively from Betsy McCaughey's article about Emanuel, Deadly Doctors. The "OR" you referred to was done by Palin. The fact that Palin's "death panel" opinion is controversial is a fact, and this is also true regardless of whether you agree or disagree with it.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
So what? You keep avoiding the argument that is being made here: Other people's opinions about Palin's views dont matter to this article.
As to OR, here is exactly what Palin said "Rep. Michele Bachmann highlighted the Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff, in a floor speech to the House of Representatives. I commend her for being a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors." She doesnt say she learned about it from Bachmann, only that Bachmann highlighted it. She also does not sight the New Yorker article that we do. Bonewah (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The article did cite (not sight) the New York Post (not New Yorker) article because both Palin and Bachmann quoted from it. Thanks for helping, though. Also, it would make sense to either talk about death panels or not to talk about them, one of the two. This is equally true if you think the death panel claim might be right, and that no other view should be allowed. Not everyone agrees with you, nor should they. Also, you insist on you being the censor for an article that is on probation, which is bad form. Or you shouldn't be quite so demanding.Jimmuldrow (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
To mention only Palin's point of view, and no other, would be Bonewah's point of view, but, sorry to say, it would also be very misleading. For details, see the references you keep deleting. If you wish, you could add more pro-Palin references, but stop deleting sourced material.Jimmuldrow (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I find it interesting that you consider it incorrect to include only Palin's point of view in an article on Palin's political positions. Please list for me health care points of view, other than those of the subjects, within "Political positions" articles for other politicians. —ADavidB 02:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, it would be deliberately misleading and deceptive to mention only Palin's side of the story, given the circumstances. It would put Wikipedia in the position of strongly implying that Dr. Emanuel really is "Orwellian", and that his comments about scarce organs and vaccines meant that all health care should be rationed. A misleading or deceptive description is worse than none.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
In short, the article should do better than not lie. It should also avoid very misleading and deceptive descriptions.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
And yes, this should apply to all such articles. Is there another article with a misleading or deceptive section?Jimmuldrow (talk) 04:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
As an example, there are many who consider Obama's health care positions as misleading or deceptive. The article on his political positions does not include any varying health care opinions or criticism, however. —ADavidB 12:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
It does not put Wikipedia in the position of strongly implying anything. As we have said over and over, and you ignored, this is an article about Palin's views, not mine or yours. Bonewah (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

The POV tag is there because other editors believe that only Palin’s views on her death panel claim should be mentioned, which would be misleading and deceptive. Also, they keep reverting even the briefest mention of the fact that Palin’s claim is controversial, as well as the 15 references that support it. The reasons given for multiple reverts are that Palin’s death panel comment “might only be a euphemism for something else” or “hyperbole, or a rhetorical flourish”. Maybe, perhaps, but the fact that Palin’s views are controversial is true beyond controversy except here. Also, to mention only Palin’s comments, as these editors suggest, would strongly imply that Wikipedia endorses the opinion that Dr Ezekiel Emanuel really is setting up a “just plain evil”, “Orwellian” “death panel”.Jimmuldrow (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Other editors believe that this article should include only Palin's political positions and, while considered controversial, Palin's health care beliefs should be presented the same as those in like-named articles on other politicians – without criticism and evaluation. Dr. Emanuel's own cited comment that his "quotes were just being taken out of context" has remained in this article. If left as Palin's positions, the content is Palin's, not Wikipedia's. —ADavidB 12:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
My only problem here is making what your saying into an automatic rule with no exceptions, even when the result is misleading.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Additional note to Jimmuldrow. Inserting Palin's POV into Michele Bachmann's article, using Bachmann's article as a WP:COAT to criticize Palin is not going to strengthen your point of view. Arzel (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia's examples of WP:COAT have very little relation to the original topic. Bachmann made her opinions on health care reform very clear, and it was Sarah Palin who cited Bachmann as a source for her opinions of Ezekiel Emanuel. The relation is very direct and relevant.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
You know who else had views that are considered controversial, Jimmuldrow? Adolf Hitler, yet Adolf Hitler's political beliefs never once calls him controversial or highlights his many critics views. Are we to believe that this strongly implies that Wikipedia endorses the opinion that racial superiority and mass murder are desirable? Bonewah (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Does the Hitler article say anything about Jews, or Poland, or other topics that aren't Hitler?Just guessing, but probably.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
By your own argument, the Hitler article should remove mention of topics that aren't very directly related to Hitler (France, Norway, Russia, Japan, the Battle of the Bulge, his policy towards partisans, communists and Jews (Hitler wasn't directly involved, Himmler was. Or some other Nazi).
Also, am I the only one here that doesn't spend a lot of time deleting other people's material? I just looked at some of your user pages.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I understand that Palin should be the main focus of the article, but to make this an automatic rule with no exceptions, even when the result is misleading, is a self-referencing justification for multiple reverts for an article that's supposed to be on probation. Also, I'm not the one that's uncompromising. If one small sentence with more than enough references for the fact that Palin's statement is controversial is too much, that's not reasonable.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
If Palin or anyone were truly seperate from the rest of the world, that person would have no influence because there would be no one to influence. Any attempt to completely separate a person from their influence on others is sophistry.Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
God, strawman again. Adolf Hitler's political beliefs does say something about jews, its says what Hitler's political beliefs about jews were, see, because the article is about Hitler's political beliefs. Bonewah (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
If Palin had no influence on others, she wouldn't be notable, and this article wouldn't exist.Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
My last attempt (one very brief mention of the fact that Palin's remark was controversial, with references) was an attempt at compromise, since the mention of controversy was greatly abbreviated from before. Since the article is on Probation (at least in theory), could all concerned agree to compromise, instead of endless reverts until all of someone's non-negotiable demands are met?Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the general principle that this article should present Palin's opinions without going into detail about criticisms of her or about contradictory opinions. (There might be exceptions where such material is unusually notable and is informative about Palin, e.g., Palin supports xxx, which is opposed by almost all the conservative Republicans who agree with her on other matters.)
What we're dealing with here, though, is a mixed statement of fact and opinion. She (1) asserted that the bill would establish death panels, and (2) opined that that would be bad. It would be misleading for us to say "Palin opposed the counseling provision of the bill because she did not want a 'death panel' evaluating people for treatment." It would convey to some readers that there were death panels in the bill, or at least that Wikipedia was endorsing that assertion. I'm reminded of an experiment I read about in which people are shown photos of the aftermath of an automobile accident. One group is then asked, "Did you see any broken glass?" The other group is asked, "Did you see the broken glass?" Not surprisingly, the percentage reporting broken glass was higher in the second case, because the wording of the question wasn't merely a question, but instead conveyed a statement as to a matter of fact ("There's broken glass in that picture"). In the same way, Palin's statement is not merely an opinion.
I agree that we should not include, in this article, countervailing opinions from all those politicians who support death panels.  :) JamesMLane t c 18:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
You are assuming she asserted that the Obama bill would establish death panels, again, I believe that it is just as likely that she was speaking metaphorically or rhetorically. Not that it really matters, in the a fore mentioned Hitler's political views article we see that "According to Hitler, Marxism is a Jewish strategy to subjugate Germany and the World". Again, the author saw no need to counter that point, as it is merely the opinion of Hitler. How is this for a compromise, lets simply quote Palin, saying "On a facebook post Palin said blockquote blah blah blah endblockquote" or something to that effect? Bonewah (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
If wikipedia had this policy for discussing Hitler, it would merely say that WWII was the fault of Jews. End of story, since this was Hitler's repeated opinion up to the end. It would also say that the Big Lie was all the fault of Jews, since this is all that Hitler had to say about it.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
And once again you choose to debunk the argument you wish I had made, rather than the one I actually made. What policy do you think im citing? The point of the Hitler article is to illustrate that we do no editorialize in these articles, no matter how monstrous or idiotic we believe the subject's views are. Bonewah (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Lets get back to specifics. What specifically, is it you think this article needs that it currently lacks? Bonewah (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems that rather than discuss specifics or gain support here, Jimmuldrow chose to return the article's Healthcare section to the way it was before such criticism and evaluation was removed. No edit summary was provided, nor was an explanation included here. It becomes difficult to believe that Jimmuldrow's bid for "compromise, instead of endless reverts", just hours beforehand, was made in good faith. —ADavidB 04:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The edit is a compromise of a compromise.Jimmuldrow (talk) 09:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
If my edits to the Bachmann article were "drastic and very negative", why did you leave only the part that calls Ezekiel Emanuel a "Deadly Doctor", and take out all the reasons why this phrase is questionable or worse?Jimmuldrow (talk) 10:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
You have yet to acknowledge that this article covers Palin's views, which are that Obama's health care plan would lead to "death panels". I have no problem with removal of the reference to Dr. Emanuel as a "Deadly Doctor" (a 'specific' which you did not discuss here). I do have an issue with inclusion of criticism and analysis regarding Palin's views, which goes beyond the scope of this and other "political positions" Wikipedia articles, (and which has been discussed here). —ADavidB 12:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Considering it was Jimmuldrow who first added mention of an article that refers to Emanuel as a "Deadly Doctor", I question the 'concern' by the same editor about the label's having been left by others. The Time article reference was left in place by me because it includes a direct response from the doctor on whose opinions Palin said her position is based. —ADavidB 14:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Jimmuldrow: Since the article itself has not changed in the interim, why did you remove ("for now") and restore ("spoke too soon") the POV tag within 5 hours? The article either has neutrality concerns in its current state, or not. True neutrality concerns are not dependent on one's confidence that the article won't be changed in the future, if that has a part in the game. —ADavidB 03:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed removal of sentences

Regarding the current version of the article, I propose the removal (again) of the sentence, "According to the Think Progress forum, Palin 'endorsed some of the same end-of-life counseling' as governor of Alaska.'" A claim by Think Progress or other groups regarding what may have been Palin's similar positions 16 months prior is of questionable significance to her current political positions. The derisive criticism in that forum is also inappropriate for citation in a political positions article. —ADavidB 21:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this particular item is now resolved, with Jimmuldrow's subsequent removal of this sentence and its reference, and replacement with a statement regarding Palin's proclamation text for Healthcare Decisions Day 2008 in Alaska. I added its timeframe and expanded the source citation. Placement within the article could still be tweaked some to improve the sentence flow. —ADavidB 19:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I propose the removal of the sentence, "FactCheck.org said, 'We agree that Emanuel’s meaning is being twisted. In one article, he was talking about a philosophical trend, and in another, he was writing about how to make the most ethical choices when forced to choose which patients get organ transplants or vaccines when supplies are limited.'". Whether FactCheck or others agree or disagree with Emanuel's perception is immaterial to an article listing Palin's political positions. —ADavidB 21:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I also propose the removal of the sentence, "A decade ago, when many doctors wanted to legalize euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, Emanuel opposed it." As stated in the article, Palin's position was based on her own interpretation of a former portion of the House's version of the health care bill. Dr. Emanuel's direct response regarding how he has been perceived, such as by McCaughey, is also in the article (though I'm thinking it may not belong here either). Adding other's analysis of Emanuel's positions goes beyond the scope of this article (which is Palin's political positions). —ADavidB 21:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Adavidb. A great deal of the healthcare section is OR and should be removed, not the least of which is the line which says that the provision in question was dropped a week later. The reference to the New York Post artcle should be removed as well, palin doesnt cite it in her FB post so we shouldnt either. Bonewah (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
90 percent of your requests have been met, compared with the original version of the death panel claim, which was mostly written by a number of other Wikipedians.
Saying only that Ezekiel Emanuel is "Orwellian" is not neutral.
Mentioning only Palin's opinion that the end of life consultation in question is a death panel is not neutral.
Taking facts out might be neutral, but that's not the best way to improve the article.
The article is under Probation.
I have heard many other claims about what a Neutral Point of View is and is not, but the opinions of you two are new to me.
In spite of claims to the contrary, I have been willing to meet you more than halfway, and this has been going on for days.Jimmuldrow (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Palin's own positions don't need to be neutral; they're her political positions – see article title. If other's opinions were appropriate here, then the handling of those other opinions would need to be done from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia's other "political positions" articles aren't balanced with opposing viewpoints, and I see no reason for Palin's "political positions" article to be written that way, despite her views being considered controversial and health care reform being a current hot topic. Regarding this article's "probation", you don't give specifics as to what you think constitutes a disruptive edit. In my opinion, your unilateral restoration of most of the article content, and now declaring it to be a 90% compromise, was disruptive. While you claim a willingness to reach a consensus, I've not seen evidence of it. (You could respond specifically to each of my three proposals for sentence removal.) You evidently don't like Palin's choice of words, but they're her positions and should be presented as such. —ADavidB 02:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
As for the "OR" claim, I mentioned this before, but Bonewah didn't read the references. Bachmann extensively referenced[7] Betsy McCaughey’s July 24, article Deadly Doctors, [8] published in the New York Post. Sarah Palin cited Bachmann’s opinion of Dr. Emanuel[9] when explaining her "death panel" statement. Or you can go to Palin's facebook page (link above) which has a link to the Bachmann speech on YouTube. If Palin referenced Bachmann for her opinions, then she did. Any original research regarding Bachmann's influence on the "death panel" debate was done by Palin, not by any Wikipedian.Jimmuldrow (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, no claim was ever made that it was Palin who said anything about the New York Post. Her facebook page, again, mentions Bachmann and links to a YouTube video of her speech, in which Bachmann mentions Betsy McCaughey's July 24 article.
If you now remember that it's the New York Post, not the "New Yorker", that's some progress.Jimmuldrow (talk) 01:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
This does seem like endless repetition.Jimmuldrow (talk) 01:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The perceived repetition could be because you have not addressed the points that are presented. Wikipedia's "political positions" articles are not places for criticism or evaluation, despite one's belief that the politician's positions are deceptive or controversial or not neutral. —ADavidB 12:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
You keep saying, in effect, that Wikipedia's NPOV policy should be changed to agree with your opinions, since NPOV does not agree with you.Jimmuldrow (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
No, the point is that political positions articles present the political positions of those politicians, not what others think of the political positions. If you were as equally adamant about including contrasting opinions in the other political positions articles, I might see things differently. —ADavidB 13:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

People at the top of this discussion page and Bonewah's user page keep asking about deletions and edit wars.Jimmuldrow (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and though initially disagreeing "vehemently" with Bonewah and me in March, XSG "reviewed the political position pages of other politicians", and did "see that criticism is consistently left out" of them, which led to a consensus. —ADavidB 02:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

What is Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy

The very top of the policy states that articles must be written "representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." Perhaps some Wikipedians feel strongly that the policy should say something else instead, but for Wikipedia articles, lets abide by Wikipedia rules.Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV also states, "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor discourages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. Also, it doesn't represent a lack of viewpoint, but is rather a specific, editorially neutral, point of view — it is not aimed at the absence or elimination of viewpoints."

That interpretation of neutrality has not been applied by editors of other "political positions" articles such that they include opposing positions, evaluation, or criticism; why do you believe it applies here? Do you have some examples where multiple "significant views" are represented in other political positions articles? —ADavidB 12:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe all the Wikipedia articles that comply with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy?Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The question pertains to "political positions" articles. —ADavidB 13:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, one Wikipedian thought that Palin's own proclamation of a Healthcare Decisions Day to encourage end of life counseling had nothing to do with Palin's opinions on healthcare. Palin said, "Healthcare Decisions Day is designed to raise public awareness of the need to plan ahead for healthcare decisions, related to end of life care and medical decision-making whenever patients are unable to speak for themselves and to encourage the specific use of advance directives to communicate these important healthcare decisions."Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps some editors have a concern other than the ones they state, since the stated reasons don't seem to add up?Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
How do you interpret "had nothing to do with" from one's writing it "is of questionable significance to her current political positions"? The point was raised here, in a discussion page, to elicit discussion. A related concern was the derisive nature of the source. Why are you referring to it in this section rather than where it was presented? —ADavidB 13:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Some more pro-Palin stuff was added, if that's your concern, which I suspect it is.Jimmuldrow (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
No, the point that's been oft-repeated here (and oft-ignored or dismissed by you) is that Palin's positions should stand alone, and that other's support or opposition to them is outside the scope of this article. It would be helpful if you'd allow some consensus to be formed in these discussion pages before making updates to the article. Other editors have refrained from making article changes during discussion. —ADavidB 13:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
You would have a more solid point if you were saying that one person's opinions on gun control shouldn't turn into a discussion of all the things anybody ever said about gun control. The death panel remark is a new invention, with Palin and a few other creators of it in almost complete agreement.Jimmuldrow (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
So what? Who cares how new it is? Why does that make any difference? Bonewah (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
So it's incorrect to assume that readers will already know what both sides of the death panel issue are. Many people don't know, and a Neutral Point of View prevents a one sided or misleading result.Jimmuldrow (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
If there's a need to explain the "death panel issue", then it should be done in a separate Wikipedia article, linked to from the text of this article. If readers care to see more, they'll click the link. Such details are not within the scope of this article. In fact, there's already a redirect for 'death panel' which points to the "Criticism and controversy" section of an article on the associated legislation. Will this suffice? —ADavidB 15:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't take that much space to make this part of this article neutral and balanced. The alternative would be a POV fork.Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I still dont see why we dont just quote Palin and be done with it. Every other political position article does this and we more or less do this every place else here. I have yet to hear a compelling reason why this particular issue is any different than abortion, gun control, religion, etc. Bonewah (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Because, contrary to what you've said, there is in fact a great deal of confusion over healthcare. One poll indicates that 39 percent of Americans think that government should "stay out of Medicare", for example. There is a need to avoid a result that's misleading and unbalanced. Wikipedia's NPOV policy is the right way to do it.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor a forum to right some great wrong. If there is a great deal of confusion over health care, so be it, this is not the place to 'correct' that, whatever that may mean. I think you have revealed the source of the problem here, you believe that Ms. Palin is wrong and needs to be corrected or refuted, whereas I believe that her views simply need to be reported (right or wrong). You should read the guidelines for wp:TRUTH, we are not here to set the record straight (again, whatever that may mean) merely to record what is encyclopedic. Bonewah (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Technically, Soapboxing is not only not the sames as but rather the opposite of a neutral point of view.Jimmuldrow (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Various considerations in writing this section of the article:

  • Jimmuldrow, you're correct that NPOV applies to this article. That means that, where there's a controversy about the subject of the article, we fairly present both sides of the controversy. Here, however, the subject is Palin's positions. NPOV doesn't mean that if she's against the ESA we have to quote someone favoring the ESA. The article isn't about the ESA. NPOV means that if she's made ambiguous or conflicting statements about the ESA, so that some reliable sources say she opposes it and others say that she's basically supportive but just wants to curb excesses, then we report both of those opinions. Yes, it means we're at the level of opinions about opinions, but that's inevitable in writing a "positions of" article. (By the way, my ESA example is a hypothetical, for illustrative purposes. I haven't gone back and looked at her actual statements on the subject.)
  • In the version I'm looking at now, I see the sentence, "The alleged death panel in question was based on Palin's interpretation of Section 1233 of the House version of the health care plan...." I dispute the accuracy of that sentence and call for the production of a reliable source (which of course would be impossible because there is no source that can confirm definitively that Palin based her comment on a sincere "interpretation" of that sentence, as opposed to a deliberate lie on her part). We can say that, when Palin was questioned about where in the bill the death panels were, her spokesperson pointed to that provision. That's an objective fact. We cannot assert that Palin was making a truthful statement about her own motivation.
Palin quoted from this in the latter of two facebook pages mentioned.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Overall, I think this version has far too much about Emanuel. Why is any mention of him needed? We can't include Palin's opinions about every topic under the sun, and there's no reason to include her opinion about one particular doctor, who's related to a top White House staffer but who is not himself one of the handful of people who are deciding this issue.
  • The issue is not whether Wikipedia should correct confusion but whether we should spread it. Palin's comment is a mixed statement of fact and opinion. On other matters, such as abortion, we can certainly quote her opinions. In this particular instance, however, if we "just quote Palin and be done with it," we will be telling our readers not merely that Palin opposes death panels (statement of opinion) but that there are (or were) death panels in the bill (statement as to a matter of fact). To see why, let's put the shoe on the other foot. Suppose that, in an article about Palin's early life, we were to write, "Professor ____, who taught Palin at Idaho State, criticized her senior-year decision to have an abortion as being inconsistent with her avowed pro-life principles." That's just an opinion, right? The professor is against hypocrisy? Well, no, it's not just an opinion. It includes an implied factual assertion that Palin did have an abortion. We would never include such a statement without qualifying it (he contended she'd had an abortion) and presenting some information about whether that statement was true. For that matter, we'd do the same if the subject came up in the professor's bio article. We'd do it because otherwise our article would mislead many readers, who'd take it that the abortion was a given fact and the only issue was whether Palin acted wrongly in choosing it. Getting back to the actual case, by merely quoting Palin we would give our readers the false impression that the section cited by Stapleton would establish death panels. Furthermore, WP:BLP comes into play. Palin is accusing a living person (Barack Obama) of planning to set up death panels. We cannot simply quote such a scandalous accusation "and be done with it." JamesMLane t c 21:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Technically, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is also a living person, and the one directly mentioned by Palin perjoratively in both of the referenced facepook pages. However, that was also an indirect criticism of the President as well.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with what you said about WP:BLP.Jimmuldrow (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


I give up

I give up.Jimmuldrow (talk) 10:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

In vastly simplifying the text of the Healthcare section, you cited five sources that analyze Palin's comments and removed all direct sources of her position. That's not quite giving up. —ADavidB 13:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Healthcare section summary and suggestions

It may help to look at a full summary of the current Healthcare section:

  • The first paragraph was for quite a while the only one in this section. It refers to Palin's support for free-market health care competition, employer coverage incentives, and more personal responsibility for health. I've seen no concern expressed regarding this paragraph.
  • The second paragraph is the first of three added this month regarding Palin's comments about healthcare legislation being considered by Congress. This paragraph opens with Palin's use of the terms "downright evil" and "death panel", then cites a FactCheck source for a claim that Palin based her comments on her interpretation of House legislation (the reliability of which has been disputed here). A similar section of the Senate's corresponding bill is said to have been dropped (also disputed here), and Palin's proclamation of Healthcare Decision Day 2008 while governor of Alaska is cited.
  • The third paragraph cites Palin's Facebook comments regarding opinions reportedly held by Ezekiel Emanuel, as described by Bachmann, from an NY Post article by McCaughey. FactBook's opinion of Emanuel's criticism is cited (the need for which has been disputed here), and a Time article containing Emanuel's direct response is cited (and again, the need for this detail on Emanuel has been disputed here).
  • A fourth paragraph mentions various others on whose opinions Palin says she has drawn, regarding a potential for health care rationing and whether end-of-life counseling might be seen as coercive. I've seen no concerns expressed regarding this paragraph (although changing a second "that" to "which" may improve the word flow in the last sentence).

Various editors have debated how to apply Wikipedia's NPOV policy to this section, and a consensus seems to be forming that it needs to be applied based on the subject of this article. As such, I suggest:

  • Brief and reliably sourced content that covers the question of whether or not the legislation actually calls for a "death panel", since Palin's claims are considered to introduce a question of fact. I'll concede to an extent on this in the interest of reaching a consensus. Palin's statements are already qualified with "Palin said" and "she claimed", so I don't think we need to make that aspect any clearer.
I thought this was to be only about Palin?Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
That remains my belief, though as noted above I'm willing to go beyond it to a brief extent in the interest of reaching a consensus for article content (i.e., not remove all of what you put in with your most recent edits). I think the coverage of Emanuel is too much for this article, however. —ADavidB 12:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Sounds inconsistent to me.Jimmuldrow (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
It was a change, to allow some compromise. Perhaps I won't let it happen again. ;-) —ADavidB 01:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The removal of follow-up detail on Emanuel, since he is not the subject of this article.

I intend to add specific suggestions on how to implement these suggestions while improving the section's sentence flow. Others are encouraged to do so as well. —ADavidB 03:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ive changed the entry in question to reflect my prefered edit. Obviously this can be expanded upon or improved in a number of ways, but at least it contains the actual quote which caused so much consternation (and a citation for same). Feel free to revert this, im only editing it to show how I would like to see it. Bonewah (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Including her verbatim quotation is a good idea. The problem is that your preferred edit still leaves the reader with the impression that the bill actually included the mythical "death panels". You linked to her follow-up post, which to some extent implicitly backs away from her mischaracterization of the bill, but the text that would remain in Wikipedia in your version would be seriously misleading as to a matter of fact. JamesMLane t c 19:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I tried to include something from her follow up post, but I couldnt figure out how to word it so that it wasent OR. If you want to give it a try, go for it. You could quote her follow up where she quotes Obama, thus making clear that he disagrees with her characterization, or you could quote some other passage that has her backing away. Bonewah (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I took a stab at it, but it is somewhat unclear that Obama is the second quote. Bonewah (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The last edit made it sound like Palin was channeling Obama.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we need to give a lengthy quotation from Obama. Instead, I've added one sentence that gives multiple sources for the media's discrediting of Palin's charge. JamesMLane t c 06:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with JamesMLane's edit.Jimmuldrow (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Why are Palin's more recent comments after older stuff?Jimmuldrow (talk) 11:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Sequential order is a common standard? —ADavidB 13:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

So we are back to citing a whole bunch of her critics again? Keith Olbermann's reaction? And why did you remove the wording that makes it clear that this is Palin's opinion? You made a big fuss about how we might mislead the reader as to what is opinion and what is fact, so why make it less clear that this is all the opinion of Palin? Bonewah (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It's difficult to accurately describe a thing with no facts.Jimmuldrow (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I restored the simple introduction to Palin's statement; we don't need to say what she says when it's quoted verbatim just below. —ADavidB 13:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The wikilink is useful, and some people might want facts.Jimmuldrow (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Bonewah writes: "And why did you remove the wording that makes it clear that this is Palin's opinion?" Uh, pardon me, what wording are you talking about? After my edit, the passage said, "Palin expressed her opinion...." Jimmuldrow reworded it to remove "opinion" and substitute "her claim", which also gets the point across, although I prefer my wording (per WP:WTA among other reasons). I did overlook that Facebook, mentioned in regard to her follow-up comments, hadn't already been mentioned as the locus of her initial charge. I'll add that, but even without it, the phrase "her opinion" should be enough of a tip-off.
As to quoting her "critics", the AP and other sources reported on what's actually in the bill. That doesn't turn the AP into a Palin critic just because she happened to make a charge that's not supported by the text of the bill -- unless you agree with Stephen Colbert that reality has a well-known liberal bias, and that quoting an accurate report about reality is therefore unfair to conservatives and violates NPOV. JamesMLane t c 14:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I stand corrected as to who changed the wording, my apologies. I take it we agree that "expressed her opinion" is preferable to "her claim"?
On the subject of quoting her critics, I think it is safe to call Keith Olbermann a critic of Palin. In any event, we seem to be back to the question of 'do we need to refute some claim made by Palin, or is she merely expressing her opinion?' For my part, I think we make it clear that this is the opinion of Palin and not some assertion of fact, but perhaps a third opinion could be useful here?
As to your blather about Colbert, Im going to leave it alone, although I shouldnt. Bonewah (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
There are worse thing you could put in an encyclopedia than facts.Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Jimmuldrow, what in the hell are you talking about? Bonewah (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Bonewah, you seem to think that just quoting Palin and calling it "her opinion" is equivalent to saying, "Palin gave her opinion that there were death panels in the bill and gave her further opinion that death panels would be a bad idea." I don't think that's how all readers would read it. A significant number, reading an assertion as to a matter of fact, and further noting that Wikipedia reported that assertion without comment, would assume that the assertion was true. I'm just trying to avert that misleading impression. My wording is something of a compromise, given that, parallel to how we treat the Flat Earthers, we'd be justified in stating without qualification that Palin was in error as to the contents of the bill. In any event, you wanted to include her second Facebook posting, and we put that posting in context by reporting what allegations she was answering. It's not as if she needed a second posting to respond to all the politicians who came out in favor of panels that would ration care based on value to society. Nevertheless, that latter position isn't totally ludicrous. Therefore, it wouldn't be obvious to the reader that the debate was about whether the bill did have such panels; some readers might think the debate was about whether the bill should have such panels. My wording lets them know what subject Palin is addressing in the second Facebook link. JamesMLane t c 23:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Addendum: Because of your disgruntlement with citing Olbermann, I've removed that citation and replaced it with a link to a detailed analysis of Palin's charges by the nonpartisan PolitiFact.com. (Sorry, I accidentally labeled this edit as minor.) JamesMLane t c 05:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I think there is a false equivalency here in that Bonewah thinks every issue should be treated the same, even though to do so is not always appropriate. It's not appropriate this time.Jimmuldrow (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Why Jimmuldrow? You have yet to provide actual logic to back up your beliefs. And James, I think the removal of Olbermann is a good step, but it cuts to the problem I have with all of this, despite the fact that we describe Palin's views as opinion, despite the fact that we present it as a blockquote, and despite the fact that Palin, herself, uses quotation marks around death panel, you still insist that our readers might somehow confuse this with a statement of fact. And, of course, the only way resolve this issue is to link to partisans like Olbermann, how convenient. Bonewah (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I did give reasons. We simply disagree. Also, you are very uncompromising, and again, its bad form to imply that having most things your way isn't enough, and want 100 percent of all your demands to be met.Jimmuldrow (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, what you've said up till now is that you agree with your own opinions about a one-size-fits-all approach, which isn't much of a reason why.Jimmuldrow (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, you're not even consistent with your own ideas. If we're not talking about the influences of others on Palin (as you insist), the comment about Sowell has to go, according to your own argument.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Bonewah writes, "And, of course, the only way resolve this issue is to link to partisans like Olbermann, how convenient." I don't understand this comment. You complained about citing Olbermann so I removed him. The citations now are to ABC News, the Associated Press, The Washington Post, CBS News, and PolitiFact, all sources that most Wikipedians would consider nonpartisan. JamesMLane t c 15:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The Sowell comment is there because Palin Made it, as I have said from the begining, this article is about Palin's opinion. If she cites Sowell, then there is no problem quoting her doing so. You are, once again, distorting my views to suit your arguments. Same with you, james, I have complained from the start that her opinions are just that, opinions, and, therefore there is no need to 'refute' them. In response to this, you refute them anyway, but offer a highly partisan source, then graciously remove that same source, thus neatly end-running my concerns all while looking as though you are compromising. Bonewah (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Again (and again and again and again) Palin said much more about Ezekiel Emanuel than about Sowell. The Sowell comment is out, or more needs to be said about Ezekiel Emanuel. Take your pick.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Overall, it's way past your turn to do some compromising.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
You act as if I'm ignoring your view. I've repeatedly and at length explained why I disagree with it. The word "opinion" can't be stretched the way you want to. Let me make an analogy to defamation law. If Sarah Palin said in public, "Barack Obama amuses himself by torturing little Down Syndrome babies in the White House basement every weekend," he'd have a valid cause of action against her. If she said instead, "It's my opinion that Barack Obama amuses himself by torturing little Down Syndrome babies in the White House basement every weekend," and he sued, and she invoked the defense that statements of opinion are not actionable, what result? The answer in American law is that he'd still win. Whether it's labeled "opinion" or not, it conveys an assertion as to a matter of fact. If she said, "It's my opinion that Barack Obama amuses himself by torturing little Down Syndrome babies in the White House basement every weekend, and it's also my opinion that that's a bad thing," then, yes, we could report her opinion in opposition to torture (well, some torture), but you want to focus on the second component of the statement and ignore the first.
Our actual case isn't quite so clear because Palin wasn't that explicit about distinguishing her factual assertion (the bill has death panels) from her opinion (death panels are bad). Nevertheless, the most reasonable reading of her comment is that it makes a factual assertion about what's in the bill. The context is such that, if we report Palin's quotation without comment, some readers would form the impression that Palin's assertion was either uncontested or was accurate according to Wikipedia.
We're talking about one sentence here. What's the big deal? We don't need to go through the whole article with such refutations because there really are politicians who favor things like reproductive rights and the Endangered Species Act, so we can simply report Palin's position. This one is a special case. And, yes, it is a compromise. An accurate wording would be, "According to Democrats, and according to every nonpartisan source that examined the matter, and even according to some Republicans, Palin's charge was false, and more than one commentator adopted her own famous words and urged her to 'quit making things up'." It's a compromise, bordering on inaccuracy in Palin's favor, to say that her charge was "widely disputed". That borders on inaccuracy because it conveys an impression that there was a good-faith dispute about the matter. Few Wikipedians would support a sentence like "The contention that the Earth is flat is widely disputed." JamesMLane t c 17:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Good question, James, we are talking about one sentence, arent we? What is the big deal? After all, we link to death panel which states unequivocally that the 'death panel' claim is wrong, we describe it as Palin's opinion, we provide it as a quote, so what is the big deal? I frankly have a really hard time believing that someone would read a quote and take that to mean that Wikipedia endorses that view, especially when the linked words lead to a direct refutation. Bonewah (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
That leads to another question: why was the death panel link repeatedly removed?Also, yet again, you got most of what you wanted, so why all the complaining?Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, the death panel link links to the Palin quote, so why do we need that here?Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Jimmuldrow, removing the first part of Palin's quote seems to serve no purpose other than promote your point of view. To make things worse you capitalize the word "Government" which further implies that this was the first word that she wrote, which is simply not true. Quite trying to promote YOUR point of view. Arzel (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Bonewah and Jimmuldrow, who both argue from the existence of the "death panel" wikilink: There's an analogy here to Wikipedia:Summary style concerning the creation of daughter articles. According to the nutshell, "Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place" (emphasis added). This article should stand on its own. The wikilink is for people who want the next level of detail on the subject covered. It's not a substitute for covering the subject. If we present Palin's own words, and the one summary sentence about the factual issue, that will be enough for many readers, and they won't feel a need to follow the link. That's why it's important for us to retain both these elements of the core of the subject, even though those facts (and much else) are available at the linked article. JamesMLane t c 07:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c "Members of 'Fringe' Alaskan Independence Party Incorrectly Say Palin Was a Member in 90s; McCain Camp and Alaska Division of Elections Deny Charge". ABC News. Retrieved 2008-09-17.
  2. ^ telegraph.co.uk: "John McCain's running mate Sarah Palin was in Alaskan independence party". Retrieved 2008-09-17.
  3. ^ "Alaskan Independence Party web site". Retrieved 2008-09-03.
  4. ^ a b c L.A. Times: "Sarah Palin's ties to Alaskan Independence Party are played down". Retrieved 2008-09-17.
  5. ^ "Todd Palin, Longtime Former AIP Member". ABC News. 2008-09-02. Retrieved 2008-09-03.
  6. ^ a b "Another AIP Official Says Palin Was at 1994 Convention". ABC News. Retrieved 2008-09-17.
  7. ^ a b c FactCheck.org: "Sliming Palin". Retrieved 2008-09-17.
  8. ^ New York Times: "A Palin Joined Alaskan Third Party, Just Not Sarah Palin". Retrieved 2008-09-17.
  9. ^ "Todd Palin, Longtime Former AIP Member". ABC News. 2008-09-02. Retrieved 2008-09-03.
  10. ^ "YouTube video of Palin's address to 2008 AKIP convention". Retrieved 2008-09-03.
  11. ^ Kizzia, Tom (2006-10-27). "'Creation science' enters the race". Anchorage Daily News.: "In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms: '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. She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum."
  12. ^ a b Kizzia, Tom (2006-10-27). "'Creation science' enters the race". Anchorage Daily News..
  13. ^ http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-palinreligion28-2008sep28,0,3643718.story
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin/Archive_3&oldid=1062132366"