Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

NPOV re marijuana use

As I understand it from prior discussions, her marijuana use was at a time when it was prohibited by federal law but not prohibited by Alaska law. The current text highlights the latter point while omitting the former. If we're not going to give a complete picture, then the legal status should be eliminated by deleting the phrase "during the time when possession was legal in Alaska". JamesMLane t c 17:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The fact that Alaska did not have a law against it did not make it legal if it was against federal law. To say otherwise is typical of the kind of argument a pothead would make. (I am for legalization BTW.) :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I'm trying very hard to take a wikibreak, but you guys really need to be set straight. You know better than to make a bunch of claims without bothering to mention reliable sources or provide any links. You may be correct and you may be incorrect, but why clutter this talk page up with unsupported claims? It really brings down the whole level of discussion. The cited ref in the article is this. It says:

"A 1975 Alaska Supreme Court decision allowed adults to possess small amounts of marijuana for personal use. In June 2006, a law signed by then-Republican Gov. Frank Murkowski re-criminalized the drug. The American Civil Liberties Union later sued the state, alleging that the law violates Alaskans' state constitutional right to privacy."

The cited source doesn't say anything about federal law. Geez.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The cited source says, "At the time, marijuana was legal under Alaska's liberal drug laws." The current version of our article says she used it "during the time when possession was legal in Alaska". The two are manifestly not the same. If Alaska's state law did not prohibit it, but federal law did, then it was illegal everywhere in the United States, including Alaska. (The secession movement has not yet succeeded.) Thus there is no RS for the assertion that it was legal. The passage could be reworded to say "during the time when possession was not prohibited by Alaska state law". Then, to avoid giving a misleading impression, we would dig out a source about federal law and change it to, "during the time when possession was prohibited by federal law but not by Alaska state law". Then we would delete the whole thing as irrelevant. If Palin is claiming she didn't know it was illegal because she consulted only the Alaska statutes, that would be another matter, but I doubt she's making that defense. JamesMLane t c 18:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There are differing opinions about the legality of the usage. How many we just say she used it & not try to decide if it was legal or not? Either 1- "Palin admits to smoking marijuana as a youth, at a time when some believed it was legal in Alaska, though she says she did not enjoy it." 2-"Palin admits to smoking marijuana as a youth, though she says she did not enjoy it." I vote for #2. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the part about her not enjoying it should be in the article. We only have her word for that. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then let's take it all out as being non-germane and trivial. We only have her word for it that she ever smoked it at all! Read the reference. By the way it's little more than a blog post, and the fact that she tried this stuff once doesn't rise to the level of something that should appear in an encyclopedia biography.--Paul (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Of ThaddeusB's two choices, I join him in preferring #2, because #1 would require sourcing for the assertion that some believed it to be legal -- an assertion that's irrelevant here unless Palin was allegedly one of those holding that belief. As for Steve's point, I agree we have only her word for it, but that's why it's attributed: "she says she did not enjoy it". Readers who choose to discount her statement as self-serving are free to do so. JamesMLane t c 19:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:" out of chrono

section is seemingly in chrono order with the exception of the NYTimes Sept. 1 mention.--68.173.2.68 (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Political Positions Section

This section, as it stands, is a freaking joke. It is basically an copy of the "Political positions of Sarah Palin" article using different words. We need to do one of three things:

1. Have no summary at all, just a link to to main article 2. Merge the whole article back in 3. Write a summary of her political philosophy, without referencing specific positions (as I had attempted to do)

The third option is the one used for both McCain and Biden, while the Obama article blends this approach with some specifics. To be clear, I am not asking anyone to endorse the summary I wrote just one of the 3 options.--ThaddeusB (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Your changes were debated above, as was having only a link to the main, and consensus was achieved; a summary of her political positions. Using different words. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That is patently untrue, the discussion was fairly even, but if anything it leaned to something completely different that just repeating all her positions. P.S. A summary doesn't mean repeating every detail in an article, it means consolidating them into general principles. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Check again, the debate was in several sections, and the signatures of many of the supporters of a summary are the default blue plaintext like mine. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Asked and answered (a few hours ago.) zredsox (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

People, there is no political motivation here. Our section as it stands is utter crap stylistically and is pretty much a line for line copy of the sub-article using less words. An admin even felt the need to tag the section as not being in proper prose even while the page is fully protected. The page is not fine as it is, or even close to it. What exactly is the objection to a summary, one similar to Biden & McCain's pages? If you don't like this option, suggest another but don't act like it is fine - it isn't. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Candidate warning template

The template {{future election candidate}} appears in the campaign section.

That message, which could just as easily apply to the entire article, seems like unnecessary clutter to me. It is hard to imagine anyone visiting this page wouldn't already know she is running for office, and they certainly ought to know before they get to the campaign section. I propose removing it. Dragons flight (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The tag is standard, and it's fine. Let's not get bogged down in minutae.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It does seem to be common on the other candidates. I stand by my opinion that it is silly, unnecessary, and looks unprofessional, but that's probably an argument to make somewhere else. Dragons flight (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit requests: floatplane; order of "Personal life" subsections

{{editprotected}} Request the following changes:

1. Delete reference to floatplane per discussion above in talk section "42 Small Factual Error Re: Float Plane Owner"

2. In article section "6 Personal life", move subsection "Family" up above "Religion" second. Family is primary in one's personal life. A "Personal life" section with "Religion" first and "Family" second would probably odd and jarring to the average reader coming to this article.

-Exucmember (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I would favor removing separate headings for "Family" and "Religion", and staying with the major heading "Personal Life". This treatment would be addressed by WP:Undue policy. This change would be consistent with the bios of the three other candidates, none of whom have a separate "Religion" heading -- even Barack Obama, whose religious background was controversial. Freedom Fan (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur with both the reordering and the removal of the subheadings. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree also. Great observation by exuc. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea by Ecucmember. Kelly ^hi! 19:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it will be an improvement. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Done: I removed the floatplane statement, removed the subheadings "Family" and "Religion" from the "Personal Life" section, and reordered so that family (and the picture of her family) are at the top of the section and religion at the bottom. Here is the diff. Is that what you guys had in mind? MastCell ^Talk 20:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, looks fine. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Still seems unnecessarily POV: "In June 2008, Palin spoke at her former church. On the topic of Iraq, she asked that people pray for the soldiers and that "there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan." In regards to a proposed natural-gas pipeline she said, "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built."[136]" The obvious intent is to paint her as a zealot (which she may or may not be), but the inclusion of such platitudes amounts to no more than quoting that someone closed a speech with "And may God bless America." The dialog that precedes this clearly states what Palin herself believes with regard to the Bible, and these selected quotes contribute nothing more substantive. Fcreid (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't the issue being address in this section though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Other editors want this sort of thing expanded. And she did say those things, right? They are reported on by secondary sources, not lifted by a Wikipedia editor from the church circular. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Do the other candidates have a section in their main article listing the various contexts in which they used the word "God"? We should probably take this elsewhere, as Thaddeus suggested. Fcreid (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Political Cartoons for inclusion

{{editprotected}} Can an editor please include one of the following political cartoons ---> 1 --- 2 --- 3 ... Thanks 72.91.113.17 (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Not done: Because those are copyrighted work and cannot be reproduced here, for one thing. MastCell ^Talk 19:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't a fair use argument be made ? 72.91.113.17 (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You could try making one; but I seriously doubt, for instance, that freely reproducing work which is copyrighted and is being marketed would entail proper "respect for commercial opportunities". Then again, I'm not an image-policy expert. MastCell ^Talk 19:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You could include a link for someone if interested to buy rights for the cartoon ... thus increasing commercial opportunities, could you not ? 72.91.113.17 (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is in line with our image-use and free-content policies, but I'll defer to opinions from editors more experienced with such issues. Anyone? MastCell ^Talk 19:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no way they'd make it into the article, even is copyright wasn't an issue. Political cartoons don't belong in a biography. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, there's that as well. :) MastCell ^Talk 20:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

General problems

IMO this comes across as slightly anti-Palin. This entire section reads as a laundry list of "hehe, look at all these crazy things she thinks". Either way, it should be refactored into a more "continuous prose" style: AFAIK in-article lists, which is sort of what that section is, are frowned upon. Why is it that only Palin's most controversial positions are listed here? She must think something about health, tax, education (other than evolution/creationism), surely? "Though the position of mayor is non-partisan, the state Republican Party ran advertisements on her behalf.[19] " - relevance to a bio of Palin? Otherwise, I've seen worse, though the grammar is rather sloppy in places. Moreschi (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That particular item (about the mayoral race) is cited in the New York Times article in support of its overall point: that Palin introduced a partisan, wedge-issue-driven approach to what had previously been a local, nonpartisan election. Whether the details need to be spelled out is arguable, as you say, but a summary is probably relevant to her political biography. Personally, I was more curious at the allegation in that article that Palin approached the town librarian about book bannings, and then tried to fire the librarian when she refused to be part of such an operation. But that's me. MastCell ^Talk 19:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

For some unkown reason people here object to making the section into an actual summary, and would rather have a list of items. (See also my request to summarize it a few sections above.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The summary that was in place read like campaign copy, only touched on issues popular to the base and had an obvious POV. At least now we have a more balanced overview.zredsox (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Again what is your objection to a summary (not the summary)? This is what exists on Biden & McCain's page and to some extent Obama's (ours is utter crap stylistically in comparison to all 3)? --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, if you have sourced positions that Palin has taken on other issues, please ask to have them added, for balance. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Youtube Compilation Video

I was wondering if it would be appropriate to use this Youtube Compilation Video in the external links ... to display the various ways that the media have reacted to her candidacy ??? 72.91.113.17 (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

We can't knowingly link to copyright violations. Joshdboz (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If youtube allows them, that means they aren't copyrighted. 72.91.113.17 (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_IRC.2C_MySpace.2C_and_YouTube_reliable_sources.3FFerrylodge (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it means a copyright holder hasn't complained yet. Dragons flight (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasilla Assembly of God, Ed Kalnins, Wasilla Bible Church and Larry Kroon information does not belong on Sarah Palin page

There are numerous suggestions on other discussion pages that information on Wasilla Assembly of God, Ed Kalnins, Wasilla Bible Church and Larry Kroon, more properly belong on the Sarah Palin page. The principal information is the quotes, NOT MADE BY PALIN generating the news stories.

• The quotes on Wasilla Bible Church and Larry Kroon, of the agreed David Brickner, published in the national media well BEFORE Palin’s nomination , belong on Wasilla Bible Church and Larry Kroon, not on [[Sarah Palin}] as suggested. This is because the David Brickner made them in Wasilla Bible Church, Wasilla Bible Church invited him, and Larry Kroon is repeatedly reported commenting on the Anti Semite, in the news. The fact that Sarah Palin was in Wasilla Bible Church at the time is incidental. There may be an association later made (unlikely if no one can research Wasilla Bible Church because there is no place to collect information). Until that happens, the information is best kept on Wasilla Bible Church and Larry Kroon, not on the Sarah Palin page.
• Although the quotes on Wasilla Assembly of God and Ed Kalnins were made prior to similar public policy arguments of Sarah Palin, and the quotes repeatedly appear all over the major media, it has not been established by a reliable source that the newsworthy quotes from Wasilla Assembly of God and Ed Kalnins are etiologically related to the later similar public policy arguments of Sarah Palin. I agree the quotes in all of the major media stories belong somewhere, but not on the Sarah Palin page. That is why I put them on Wasilla Bible Church, and not on the Sarah Palin page.EricDiesel (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what your objection is - none of this info is on the Sarah Palin page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A great way to not be an admin anymore

Edit warring on a page that was protected to stop edit warring is a great way to lose your admin bit and rightfully so. Use the dam sense you were selected for and stop edit warring! You are admins, act like it for fucks sake! Chillum 19:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin Praying for Pipeline

I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that.

— Sarah Palin - June 2008

Why is this not included ??? 72.91.113.17 (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You might want to look a little closer. The following is found in personal life section. "In June 2008, Palin spoke at her former church. ... In regards to a proposed natural-gas pipeline she said, 'I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built.'" --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has attended services in lots of different churches, I can tell you that people pray for all kind of things that might seem odd to non-church goers. And that includes churches where most people are planning to vote for Senator Obama. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I remember Bill Clinton asking for God's support in a public announcement about Operation Desert Fox. Invoking God is pretty common in American politics. Kelly ^hi! 19:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if the objection to that is based on a non-belief in God, so that prayer is irrational, or based on a feeling that God is so grand and almighty that he wouldn't get involved in something so trivial as building a pipline. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

So would it be fair to say that "Sarah Palin personally believes she speaks to God" ??? 72.91.113.17 (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly not. That comment unsourced and POV.--ThaddeusB (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that inferred? Clearly she thinks God listens to what she is saying ... does she not ? 72.91.113.17 (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No it's not, especially not in the way you phrased it, and Wikipedia doesn't do inferences anyway.--ThaddeusB (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasilla Assembly of God, Ed Kalnins, Wasilla Bible Church and Larry Kroon links should be restored

Wasilla Assembly of God, Ed Kalnins, Wasilla Bible Church and Larry Kroonlinks from this page were edited out. They should be restored, as there is argument that the information on the pages should otherwise be put on this Sarah Palin page, which is clearly guilt by association.

Note: There is currently a conflict with the user that posted this about whether those articles should exist. They have been AfD'd. --mboverload@ 19:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Prose vs list style in Political Positions section

In case any one is looking for a prose version, there was one that had achieved some measure of consensus (above), and which I put into the article earlier today. Another editor made it more like a list shortly after. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I nearly always prefer prose over list, but it isn't too bad as is. I'm more concerned at why User:Tone saw fit to stick {{prose}} in the middle of it (not even at the top of the section) while the article was protected. Unlike semi-protection, full protection doesn't mean "you peons can't edit, but we can". Everyone has to come here and use {{editprotected}}. 86.44.24.250 (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Footnote 130 is not accurate to New York Times article

The New York Times article does not state that her son signed up in the U.S. Army on September 11. This is simply hearsay and not documented. (Possibly used to invoke people's connection to Sept. 11 and play off as a compassionate act.) The date should be removed since it's not cited correctly.

Change should be as so: Track Palin enlisted in the U.S. Army in September 2007, subsequently joining an infantry brigade. He is set to be deployed to Iraq in September 2008.

 Not done The next footnote, 131, is cited to this Anchorage Daily News article, which notes that Track Palin enlisted "on the 6th anniversary of the September 11th attacks." It's tricky because such a short sentence is cited to two sources, but it's supported by the reference. You're correct that Footnote 130 doesn't support it, though. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Where things like this are unclear, it's often useful to add something like "(citation for date)" to the footnote, immediately after the cited source. - Jmabel | Talk 20:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Daily Show on Gender Hypocrisy

Daily Show Clip = Jon Stewart hits this out of the park by showing the Amazing hypocrisy of the GOP on the gender card. I think this warrants inclusion on external links, and comedy central allows sites to link to their material. 72.91.113.17 (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The Clip has also been reported on 72.91.113.17 (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding everyone why anons should not be editing this article. That link has no encyclopedic value at all. There are other venues for pushing your POV. EconomicsGuy (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Econ, Please review policies on no personal attacks and assuming good faith. 72.91.113.17 (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Much as I love the show, I'm not certain that this qualifies as a reliable source, nor is it appropriate to an article about a Specific Republican. Maybe the party's main article? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The Daily Show is a comedy show. It is not a reliable source for any article, except possibly one on Jon Stewart. RonCram (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, obviously. I meant that the topic is more appropriate elsewhere, not the source. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree in one way; satire shows are commenting and analyzing things just like any other secondary source. In any case, if it is decided to include any responses to her acceptance speech, there are plenty of regular sources out there for us to drawn on. I am personally disinclined to allow such material, under recentism/bloat. We had a similar bloat problem earlier, a whole section of "responses to her pick" that got out of hand. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I love the Daily Show. I think they're often far more on-point than most of the "mainstream media", and they do an excellent job chronicling the cynicism inherent in our political process. But a Daily Show bit plus a Huffington Post bit does not equal encyclopedic material. Them's the facts. Letterman and Leno will make fun of the candidates every day from now till the election, but we don't run with it in their Wikipedia biographies. MastCell ^Talk 21:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

References to Beauty Contestent....

Where are there references to Sarah's history as a Beauty Contestent... and the many associated images?

The McCain paid lackey editors won't allow images of Miss Wasilla 1984. 72.91.113.17 (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Because this is a biography and her beauty pageant history is considered an important enough part of her life to include mention. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

ZOMG - there are PAYCHECKS! Where's mine? Kelly ^hi! 20:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The beauty pageant is mentioned: "In 1984, Palin won the Miss Wasilla Pageant,[6][7] then finished second in the Miss Alaska pageant,[8] at which she won a college scholarship and the "Miss Congeniality" award.[5]" Maybe some of the footnotes will lead to the pix.--Paul (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggested edit to "Energy and environment" and "Political positions" sections

{{editprotected}} Current text in "Energy and environment": Palin has strongly promoted oil and natural gas resource development in Alaska, including in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), where such development has been the subject of a national debate.

Proposed text: Palin has strongly promoted oil and natural gas resource development in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where such development has been the subject of a national debate.

Current text in "Political positions":Palin has strongly promoted oil and natural gas resource development in Alaska, including in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

Proposed text: Palin has strongly promoted oil and natural gas resource development in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where such development has been User_talk:JamesMLane|t]] c 18:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)the subject of a national debate.

Rationale: Correct the name to Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (not "Alaskan"); wikilink main Refuge article as well as article on controversy; wikilink controversy article at second occurrence. There is duplication here but I think it's reasonable, given the structure of the article and Palin's prominence on this issue. JamesMLane

I endorse one copy of the proposed text, but not two. A.J.A. (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Declined Use {{edit protected}} after consensus has formed for any edit that affects content. Don't use it as soon as you have an idea, unless it is for something as uncontentious as fixing a broken citation. GRBerry 20:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Uh oh, I've already  Done this change, since it seemed trivial to correct the term used for the area under discussion (ANWR does indeed stand for Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, not Alaskan). Since the link to the debate was already present, I moved it to the reference to that debate - the alternative was to have a term linked to its article, and then an abbreviation for that term linked to a different article. I did not add the second reference to the controversy, but I did correct both instances of Alaskan vs Arctic. Please revert me if I screwed something up. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • GRBerry is right on procedural grounds... on the other hand, this probably falls under the sort of "uncontroversial" proposed change which can be rapidly enacted. Probably the less reverting on this article at present, the better, so unless anyone has an objection to the edit by Ultraexactzz, I'd propose we leave it and keep the procedure in mind for next time. MastCell ^Talk 20:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is their right mind would object to correcting an error. The change was fine --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

• Please some admin copy edit to remove extraneous [[ in "1st sentence of Energy and environment". 79.74.252.173 (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Done by Refdoc. GRBerry 21:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridge to Nowhere

The current version of this is just "he said she said" and not very encyclopedic. Clearly merits mention, since she herself alluded to it in her acceptance speech for the VP nomination. In terms of the claim that Alaska took the money & just didn't build the bridge, though, we should be citing solid, reasonably neutral sources, not opposition politicians, and if we can't find solid, reasonably neutral sources we should probably lay off of it. - Jmabel | Talk 20:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, present the facts and keep the opinions out of it. Kelly ^hi! 20:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Such sources exist, both neutral and critical. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, in terms of independent sources, the Associated Press "fact-checked" some of the speech's claims here, including the Bridge-To-Nowhere... MastCell ^Talk 21:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The AP would make a great source for this section. I am not apposed to pulling direct quotes from their copy either.zredsox (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Can't forget the "6 minutes of hell" for the McCain campaign that lead of the CBS Evening News the other night.;)[1] Where the reporter notes that Congress killed off the bridge earmark well before Palin took official action on it and that she actually supported the bridge before she opposed it.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the CBSNews "Reality Check" raised some similar issues with the reality behind the earmark claims and the bridge. Lucky for the campaign no one watches CBSNews, eh? :) MastCell ^Talk 22:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

<-What is the proposed new wording? Kelly ^hi! 22:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions regarding protection and editing as admin

I found in the text a couple of typos (e.g. extraneous [[) and terms which should really be wikified ('Assemlies of God' e.g.) I am not interested in getting my adminship removed for such stuff and rather mention this here. What is my position as an admin who physically can edit? This protection is quite clearly an extraordinary one and a bit outside of my normal scope. Should I simply go ahead and make such minor corrections or should I also seek always consensus? Thanks Refdoc (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you will be struck down by a lightening bolt if you fix the typos. Then again, I don't see why this extraordinary protection is in place anyway. Joshdboz (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

My opinion: If you're talking about edits that could be honestly and conservatively marked minor (simple typo corrections and uncontroversial wikilinks) I see no reason why you shouldn't go ahead. (Full disclosure:I am not an administrator.) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Copy editing is allowed without seeking consensus. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor copy editing. It would probably not be a good idea to be restructuring paragraphs or sections on your own right now. Dragons flight (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Simple litmus test. This is likely to end up in front of ArbCom in the near future. If you'd feel totally comfortable defending the edit as minor and not-possibly-controversial in front of ArbCom, then go for it. MastCell ^Talk 21:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is also a good idea to note here that this is what you are going to do before you do it. As MastCell says, be careful, also a reasonable rule of thumb is if your change might alter the meaning, even slightly, then it should have consensus on the talkpage. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I did my edits and I am still alive. Refdoc (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Grats! :) At the danger of asking you to press your luck can you edit some of the above things that have reached concensus? --98.243.129.181 (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Conspiricy theory

"This page is currently protected from editing because of repeated violations of Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy." 2 days ago, this article had less unsources or controversial material. Now its locked and additional BLP violations are locked in to place. Is this on purpose? Am I crazy? Are the admins pushing an anti Palin POV since 2 days ago? --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you specify the parts you have a problem with? Many are being discussed above. Kelly ^hi! 22:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please let us know what you think is unsourced, controversial or in violation of WP:BLP. If we can get consensus to change it or remove it, an admin will make the edit.--Paul (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. :) Off the top of my head major things like the "God's will" quote and the Business Endeavors section. Both cite opinion blogs and are written in controversial and POV tone. Then there's the "According to Ann Kilkenny, a Democrat who observed City Council, Palin also brought up the idea of banning some books" I mean really? I had the thought of punching someone in the face once but I didn't. And then "a 527 group that was designed to serve as a political boot camp for Republican women in Alaska" yeah, from a blog again... and who cares at that? And then there's the things that are jsut worded so POV like.. "she opposes helping" the belugas? Maybe she just didnt like that bill. And all of these changes came into place AFTER the protection? That's the messed up part. Most of it is being discussed above I think but I'm having a hard time keeping up with this all. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing with "God quotes", and we're hammering that out above now. They're out of place in the Personal section, to be sure. (Frankly, I don't give a crap about the politics, but I'm glad others do and are working to be NPOV!) The "book burning" thing is another that caught my eye, but I haven't researched its accuracy. Fcreid (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Anchorage Daily News articles about attempts to move Monegand firing case from the Alaska State Legislature to Personnel Office

Lisa Demer et. al. at the Anchorage Daily news are running a really fine series on Palin's attempt to wrest the Monegand firing case from the jurisdiction of Alaska State Legislature and place it under the jurisdiction of the State of Alaska personnel dept and I don't see them in the sources listed here, though I do see other articles from the ADN referred to. I suggest those working on this page have a read through them. The can be found here on the ADN site. --Pleasantville (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Pleasantville. You might want to mention that at Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but it is also appropriate here. --Pleasantville (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Get a consensus at that article first - this is just a summary of what appears there. Kelly ^hi! 22:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I simply provide references to an emerging theme in the ADN coverage. I had no plans to ad text. There is no consensus necessary for providing references on a talk page. --Pleasantville (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

So... this is a forum discussion? Deletion pending? --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection tag

Can we use the |small=yes version? I don't think it is a good idea nor necessary to have this huge tag at the top of such a highly visible article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, makes us look bad. The talk page notice should be sufficient. Kelly ^hi! 22:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Very much agree with this 100%. I ask any admin passing by to implement this. Hobartimus (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am an admin, but thought it be best to make sure there are no problems before doing so. Just going to wait a bit. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And you're right. A discussion about this already took place: #Protection Message. We need a broader consensus before changing the template (it already happened several times). Cenarium ^Talk 22:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with getting rid of the huge notice atop the article. While I'm sure Mastcell had the best of intentions here, there is an extraordinarily obvious red-bordered notice at the top of the discussion page, and that should be sufficient.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No, such a decision must be made at the WP:AN discussion, and approved there. Admins' necks are on the block. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. This is not a content decision. It is a simple option with the protection tag only. It will convert the huge unnecessary banner into a simple lock icon at the top of the page. We dont have to discuss this minor change at AN, and I'm seeing a consensus beginning to form here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The protection status is also made clear and explained in the editnotice (visible when you edit the page). This place is the most appropriate to discuss this. Cenarium ^Talk 23:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The edit notice you refer to MediaWiki:Editnotice-0-Sarah_Palin is only available in an edit window. It is not shown in the "view source" windows provided to people that aren't permitted to edit. Non-admins will never see it. Dragons flight (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(←) I agree that we should use the small notice. I'm sure the vast majority of the folks who happen upon this article are here to read it, not edit it. For the former, the notice is unnecessary and potentially confusing. For the latter, the icon and the notice on the top of this page is sufficient.   user:j    (aka justen)   23:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It should make us look bad. Putting cover up on the blemish is not going to change that. We should be working toward unlocking it, not worrying about a tag. zredsox (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(e/c x3)If it makes us look bad, the solution is to loosen the restrictions on the article, not obscure the reason for the protection. Mr.Z-man 23:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I say no. Consider this. If the article is so piss poor POV that even the admins are edit waring during protection, then we need that big ol sign to say "Yes this article sucks please don't take it serious and please don't sue us till we get our crap together." When all the blog stuff is gone, or the really controversial stuf, then I say lets downplay. But right now it's so full of garbage.. we don't want some kid reffrencing this for his social studies paper. READ THE SIGN KID! THIS ARTICLE IS WHACK! --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Amen. zredsox (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's leave the tag up. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree it makes us look bad, I also beleive it should stay. Full protection of high profile articles is unusual and should be acknowledged. It also serves the useful function of directing visitors who want to edit the article to the discussion page. The fact that a large fraction of the people visiting this page may be unfamiliar with concept of discussion pages and Wikipedia protection policies only inceases the need for some form of acknowledgement. Dragons flight (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I have now flip-flopped to agree with Dragons flight. :) Kelly ^hi! 00:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Misinforamtion about Education

The posted BIO says that Palin rreceived her bachelors from North Idaho College which according to their website only offers associates. This information needs to be checked. The bio is inacccurate and inreliable.74.163.225.177 (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Surely you can provide a reliable source to show that the Vice Presidential candidate for the Republican Party has lied about her alma mater - let's have it! Kelly ^hi! 23:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No, read it again. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

One can look at the offical biography and read "She received a bachelor of science degree in communications-journalism from the University of Idaho in 1987." This should be edited on by someone in the ICESPA cabal. patsw (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No edit needed. The article already contains the correct info.--Paul (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Early life

"As a child, she would sometimes go moose hunting with her father before school, and the family regularly ran 5K and 10K races.[5]"

Does this belong? It sounds like fluff. Running a 5K isn't even a notable accomplishment. --76.113.150.171 (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

For me it is. :) Kelly ^hi! 23:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The moose stuff has resonance in the media, but the running stuff could go. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sets a good back ground for her early family. That in itself might be slightly positive POV. No one gets on wiki for running a 5K but if the article's purpose is to paint the overall picture is there a better way to do that? --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This sounds fine to me. You've got to say something about her childhood and the fact that she grew up taking advantage of the great outdoors in Alaska seems a reasonable thing to say.--Paul (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Moose hunting is noted in the Palin blueprint document and I think it should remain. Our goal should be to mirror their work as closely as possible. zredsox (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Your link is to the Conservapedia, not the McCain campaign. Do you have a link to an official biography, either from the State of Alaska or the McCain campaign?--Paul (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If Palin was a runner and moose hunter, I don't see the problem continuing to mention it briefly here in this article. It's not relevant what your Conservapedia "blueprint document" thinks of it. Zredsox, you ought to support keeping the mooses in this article, as a strategic prelude to the future edit war about including a photo of her next to a dead moose. Photos must be supported by text in the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Conservapedia article is less fluffy. Hilarious. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to the official State of Alaska bio.--Paul (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What's the dispute here? That Kaylene Johnson is lying or that she was misled, or that for a family to run in 5K and 10K races is unremarkable? My take: 1. We are going to regard Johnson, Kaylene (2008). Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down. Epicenter Press. ISBN 978-0979047084 as accurate on this point until otherwise shown. 2. For a family to run in 4K and 10K races is significant as part of a larger biographical article. patsw (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Feminist movement

Gloria Steinem has written an op-ed in the Latimes essentially bashing Palin. It's a noteworthy response from a feminist who has almost always supported female candidates over male.We used to sit (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps she cares about Palin's positions rather than her chromosomes. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Meh. Plenty have praised her and plenty have bashed her. Opinions are like you-know-what, everybody's got one. Kelly ^hi! 00:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Political Positions

Right now, the Political Positions section is very choppy right now. I suggest merging some of the supports/opposes until more detail about it can be added. It wont go the {{editprotected}} yet, because I'm not sure if anyone will oppose. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 00:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• In case any one is looking for a prose version, there was one that had achieved some measure of consensus (above), and which I put into the article earlier today. Another editor made it more like a list shortly after. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes that was me. It was already a list, I just made some of the entries shorter. I think it would be a good idea to arrange the positions thematically rather than listwise. In fact I already did that by putting the energy and environmental positions together and was thinking about doing the same for some of the 'values' positions when the page was locked down again. I think some people might be sensitive about which order the positions go in though? T0mpr1c3 (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP summary

"(the first such Democrat was Geraldine Ferraro in 1984)." How is that sentance a BLP summary? I could see it as a footnote maybe. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 00:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The lead does not include any footnote, so we should not start including them now. I would have no problem with changing the sentence in question to the language someone else suggested above: "Palin is the second woman to run for vice president on a major-party ticket, after Democrat Geraldine Ferraro in 1984."Ferrylodge (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

See above (bad grammar section) where I proposed fixing this grammatical problem. Even though the edit is completely non-controversial in any way, there doesn't seem to be an admin willing to fix in. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It has been my opinion for some time that Geraldine Ferraro need not be mentioned by name in the introduction of Sarah Palin's biographical article. The salient point is that SP is the second woman to be nominated for VP by a major party. Readers looking for more info on that can go to the footnote. I'd prefer to see that clause moved out of the introduction entirely, back to footnote status. Kaisershatner (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

NB that I personally at least twice put it into a fn (reply to 98.243.129.181). Kaisershatner (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The lead does not include any footnotes. If we put in one, it looks weird, and raises the question why the other facts in the lead are not footnoted. Ferraro is already mentioned later in the article, so I really don't see much need to mention her in the lead. Maybe the best thing would be to just say in the lead that Palin would be the first female Veep.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be ok with that, also stating she is first woman to run for Vice President on a Republican ticket would solve this. I see your point about the fn. My main concern is that Palin's biographical introductory summary not get sidetracked into the history of Democratic Party female nominees. Kaisershatner (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Palins educational background not correct.

She began college at Hawaii Pacific University, a private, nonsectarian school in Honolulu. She attended only as a freshman during the fall of 1982, school spokeswoman Crystale Lopez said.

Then known as Sarah Louise Heath, she was in the business administration program as a full-time student, Lopez said.

From Hawaii Pacific, Palin transferred to North Idaho College, a two-year school in Coeur d'Alene, about 30 miles east of Spokane. She attended the college as a general studies major for two semesters, in spring 1983 and fall 1983, spokeswoman Stacy Hudson said.

From North Idaho College, Palin transferred 70 miles south to the University of Idaho, the state's flagship institution. She majored in journalism with an emphasis in broadcast news. She attended Idaho from fall 1984 to spring 1985.

She then returned to Alaska to attend Matanuska-Susitna College in Palmer in fall 1985.

Then she returned to Idaho, for spring 1986, fall 1986 and spring 1987, when she graduated.

Your website does not inclue the Matanuska Susitna College nor that she left Idaho and then came back. Please change.

This is already being discussed 4 sections up.--ThaddeusB (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Manual archive 12 for "resolved" issues on main talk page. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Approval ratings

Resolved

 – --lajolla2009@ 03:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be included that approval ratings are for Alaska only and not the entire United States. Soon, if not already polls will be out on her approval ratings for the entire United States and it could be concluded from the way it is written that Palin has an 80% approval rating for the entire United States

Now there's no reference to her approval ratings within the state of alaska? The rating ranges that are given for her within the state of Alaska should stat - it is significant when compared to other governorship. The additional of national rating should be added as well when they become know - under the "2008 vice-presidential campaign" section though. Theosis4u (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The source Hays Research home page is inappropriate as well - A More Specific Survey Result. It leaves it completely to the reader to hunt down the poll numbers. This information was within the article before and the old references showed a 80%+/- poll and another around 70. Theosis4u (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The legality of the marijuana possession in Alaska

Resolved

 – Kaisershatner (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The federal laws on marijuana are very clear: it has been federally illegal to own, sell or buy marijuana since 1937 (Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, then the Controlled Substances Act in 1970).

The Alaska Supreme Court decided that small quantities of marijuana are allowed to be owned. This does not mean that the Federal law on controlled substances isn't still valid in Alaska, but just that they decided not to enforce it.

The blog post used as source says that "At the time, marijuana was legal under Alaska's liberal drug laws.", but that's plain misleading, because the states do not have the power to change or repeal federal laws."

Saying that marijuana was "legal" is either just POV or plainly wrong. That's why I think the "during the time when possession was legal in Alaska" phrasing does not belong there. bogdan (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not including that fact is POV, as you're making the assumption that Palin would have used had the state law not decriminalized possession. Fcreid (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Tim Vickers last edit. PhilKnight (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Then not including the fact that it was still federally illegal is also POV. bogdan (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

See discussion above where I have suggested changing to to simply "Palin admits to smoking marijuana as a youth, though she says she did not enjoy it." --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Again, as the "offense" was still within local jurisdiction, and the Alaska decriminalization law is relevant to (and, as far as we know, the reason for) her usage. Fcreid (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The federal law has always been valid in Alaska, just that it wasn't enforced for small quantities. See this article, from NYT:

The state now allows people over 19 years old to possess up to four ounces of marijuana in private without penalty, though it can not be sold or bartered. Technically, the state is in conflict with Federal law, which prohibits possession of any quantity of the drug. But Federal law is rarely enforced in Alaska when small amounts are involved, except at the Canadian border or when drugs are found in the mail. (New York Times, october 1990)

bogdan (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree also, CBS isn't a blog, and your interpretation of the U.S. legal system isn't relevant. PhilKnight (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It's the blog of a journalist. Anyway, it's not my interpretation: look at the New York Times article I linked. bogdan (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Still counts as original research - have a look at WP:SYNTH.--PhilKnight (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times reference should be included, it adds useful context to the article and comes from a reliable source. - Francis Tyers · 20:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If adding one and one is original research, then here's a source that gives the result outright:

Palin said she has smoked marijuana -- remember, it was legal under state law, she said, even if illegal under U.S. law -- but says she didn't like it and doesn't smoke it now. Anchorage Daily News, quoted by Examiner.

bogdan (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think "decriminalized" (versus legal) is the correct term to use in the statement. Certainly, there are people who would not have smoked pot had it not been decriminalized, and we have no data to indicate Palin was not among them. Back in the days of High Times, people actually moved to Alaska so they could possess pot for personal consumption. This is not a referendum on U.S. drug laws, but it is clearly POV to omit the fact that Alaska had decriminalized possession during her usage. What's the significance of this again? Fcreid (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

New suggestion: Change "Palin admits to smoking marijuana as a youth, during the time when possession was legal in Alaska, though she says she did not enjoy it." to "Palin admits to smoking marijuana as a youth, during the time Alaska had decriminalized possession, though she says she did not enjoy it."--ThaddeusB (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that's misleading, too.

Actually, the wording in this 2006 article in Anchorage Daily News is the most factually accurate:

"legal under state law, but illegal under U.S. law"

http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/governor06/story/8049298p-7942233c.html

bogdan (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

So what was wrong with the first one? She was in Alaska, and it was legal under Alaskan law. When in Rome... :) Fcreid (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Alaska is not an independent state. Federal laws are still relevant, even though they're not enforced by the local authorities. (federal organizations like the FBI did enforce them) bogdan (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Bogdan, you are misquoting your cited source. Please do not misquote cited sources. Thanks ever so much. Also, please note that the constitutionality of the federal law was highly disputed until 2005. See Gonzales_v._Raich.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I was paraphrasing, the exact quote is "legal under state law, she said, even if illegal under U.S. law". bogdan (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"if"Ferrylodge (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

it's "even if", meaning "although". What is your point? bogdan (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"even if" is not equal to "if". - Francis Tyers · 21:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"even if his former GOP rival John McCain wins the presidency in November, Romney says he won't emulate his father by taking a Cabinet position." See Johnson, Glen. "Romney readies for White House run if McCain fails", Associated Press (2008-09-03).Ferrylodge (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you trolling or simply you don't understand English? "Even if" can be an expression (as used in the ADN article, meaning "although") and it has a different meaning from the "even" "conditional-if" in the AP article you link. The key of differentiating the two meanings is the fact that the first one has no verb. Conditional-if requires a verb. bogdan (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

See WP:Civil, WP:AGF, and any elementary school grammar textbook, if they have those in Bucharest.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

from dictionary.com: al·though [awl-thoh]

–conjunction -- in spite of the fact that; even though; though.

—Synonyms --- notwithstanding (that), even if, albeit (that).

22:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of the words "even if" is ambiguous and is not always clear from the context. Instead of looking up the word "although" at dictionary.com, you might try looking up the words "even if" at dictionary.com. "even if: no matter whether". Are we through here?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I support Thaddeus' wording "decrimalized possession", above. Kelly ^hi! 22:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And he's a lawyer folks! :) 79.74.252.173 (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you'll get them riled up against me.  :(Ferrylodge (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick canvass

Should we change "Palin admits to smoking marijuana as a youth, during the time when possession was legal in Alaska, though she says she did not enjoy it." to "Palin admits to smoking marijuana as a youth, during the time Alaska had decriminalized possession, though she says she did not enjoy it." or leave it as it is?

Change wording

1. The second version is more technically correct as far as I can tell. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
2. I agree. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 01:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Also agree. Although the controversy has subsided, I believe it's technically more correct. Fcreid (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Agree. Alaska decriminalizing it did not remove the federal law, so it is not correct to say it was "legal to smoke marijuana" then. Edison (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Agree. My understanding of the situation concurs with those above; if this is the situation, the current wording is inaccurate. -Exucmember (talk) 04:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Agree. Federally illegal, so cannot be "legal" in a given state. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Agree. "decriminalized" is much better than "legal", which would get some people riled up. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
8. Remove the clause altogether and not change her word "like" into enjoy, which has – although similar – a different meaning. Digitalmandolin (talk) 07:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Other

1. The current text ("possession was legal") isn't less technically correct, as some have charitably called it -- it's flat-out wrong and isn't supported by the cited source. The proposed change improves the text by converting a lie into a half-truth. We could just as well omit the legal status entirely, but if we're going to mention it, it should be "at a time when possession was prohibited by federal law but not by Alaska law". If "decriminalized" means that Alaska had had a law in place but repealed it, then an alternative would be to say "at a time when laws against possession had been repealed at the state but not the federal level". JamesMLane t c 12:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Decriminalized" means it's illegal but is not punished or is treated as a misdemeanor, which effectively means it's not worth enforcing. The state's repealing of their law was technically irrelevant, although that arguably wasn't certain until the Supreme Court decision came down. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please change "Palin admits to smoking marijuana as a youth, during the time when possession was legal in Alaska, though she says she did not enjoy it." into "Palin admits to smoking marijuana as a youth, during the time Alaska had decriminalized possession, though she says she did not enjoy it." per apparent consensus that the new phrase is more accurate. (Not everyone agrees that the new phrase is perfect, but every seems to agree that it is at least better.)

Resolved

 – Kaisershatner (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Car wash info

Resolved

 – removed by Kevin [2]. the wub "?!" 08:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Palin also had a 20% ownership in an Anchorage car wash business, according to state corporation records filed in 2004. Palin failed to report her stake in the company when running for governor in 2006; in April 2007, the state issued a "certificate of involuntary dissolution" because of the company's failure to file its biennial report and pay state licensing fees.[16]" Is BLP appropriate? --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a full description. I don't think this is notable enough on its own, unless as part of a list of business she has taken part in or if it becomes a scandal. Joshdboz (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah.. this is sad. Ever since this happened "repeated violations of Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy." we can no longer edit the contentious, unsourced stuff out. It's like the protection is set up to protect the bad edits.. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick canvass

Keep car wash info as notable

1. Keep. Notable, according to LexisNexis database search and Wikipedia notability standards. Issues were discussed in the following newspapers: The Kansas City Star, The Philadelphia Daily News, The Anchorage Daily News (6 times), McClatchy-Tribune Business News (twice). National Public Radio (NPR) discussed it once. MSNBC discussed it twice. Business Dateline discussed it once. Then, of course, there are all of the so-called "notable blogs" that discussed it including (but not limited to) The Ohio Daily Blog, the Moderate Voice, etc. Overall, it's a fairly notable subject, according to our standards. J Readings (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   What is the claim to notability, aside from appearing a news article? We don't include everything here that is in the news - WP:NOTNEWS. Kelly ^hi! 00:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

True, we don't include everything that appears in the media, I agree with you. Then again, by that standard, I'm sure you would agree with me that we should probably be removing large sections of this article if something only appeared once or twice in the news. In this case, "significance" of coverage is measured by the number of times independent third-party sources measured by WP:RS decide that it is noteworthy. Personally, I try not to inject my own agendas into this situation and I take no view either way of whether readers should disagree with the judgment of the mainstream media. As it was discussed multiple times in the mainstream media -- highlighting its significance, I see nothing wrong with including it provided that it is properly sourced (currently it is not, I agree) and it is written in a NPOV manner. Regards, J Readings (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So we should use the number of times it has appeared in print as our main (sole?) criteria to decide if somethign should be included? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Besides, compared to other aspects of her story, this has been largely ignored, if those are all the sources you could find. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, in actual fact, those were only some of the English-language sources. We haven't even discussed the foreign-language sources generated by Factiva, but let that pass. At this point, it isn't even necessary (in my view) to discuss Factiva results considering that below some editors are quite happy to include a section on "book banning" whereby the only sources presented are a single indirect reference in a Time Magazine article and something in the Boston Herald. I look at this situation a little differently. Obviously, everything added needs to be sourced properly. So it goes something like this. 1. Was it original research? No. Was it a reliable source? Yes. Can it be verified? Yes. Was it discussed multiple times? Yes. Was it (can it be) written in a NPOV fashion? Yes. Does it violate WP:BLP? I don't see how, so no. Therefore, on balance, I honestly think it only needs a bit of a gentle re-write. FWIW, J Readings (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove car wash info as non-notable

1. Remove, I don't see how this is notable at all. Kelly ^hi! 23:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Remove, the way it is written makes it look like there was something wrong. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Remove, so un-notable Sarah seemed to have forgotten about it. And poorly sourced at that. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Remove, unremarkable, non-notable.--Paul (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Remove as non-notable. Also it is placed in the early life section which is just plain inaccurate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
6. As stated, its a non-story. While it could be story if she was involved in some meaningful way with its management/failure, the existing blurb and reference doesn't establish that. Dragons flight (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Remove. 20% notable. A.J.A. (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
8. Remove this trivial detail. As to the arguments about book banning below it should also go, what's the great contradiction? Erase them both. Hobartimus (talk) 03:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: We'll see how this situation plays out. If the "car wash" material is removed on notability grounds, but the "book banning" stays, something is terribly wrong with the transparency on our inclusion criteria considering the quantity and quality of the sources at issue. J Readings (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment - as I have tried to point out numerous times on this talk page, the number of news sources covering a specific detail is not a good way to judge whether something is notable or not for our purposes. This is a biography, not a news source - our purposes are mostly different than theirs so we should use our judgment as the primary tool to decide notability. We should ask ourselves "how did this event impact Sarah Palin's life and/or career" not "how many third party sources have covered this." The library detail is unquestionable more important than the fact that she once owned a piece of a car wash, despite the fact that it has been covered by far less sources. The book banning at least potentially effected her career, whereas the the car wash certainly did not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is that you're making a personal judgment call. It's quite arbitrary because unless you're prepared to document via social science (i.e., refereed journals) all the ways it supposedly changed her political and personal life, the situation becomes partisan. As editors, we have no idea what impacts her life nor should we get involved in that kind of discussion. Inclusion criteria needs to be transparent, verifiable, NPOV, reliably sourced, etc., etc., etc. The minute we start to make judgment calls on what people should and should not read about the subject, we need at least to be consistent and fair. Right now, we're not being consistent, in my view. J Readings (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I hate to do this, but the prove my point about using our own judgment here are google news hits for various terms (all searched as: "Sarah Palin" term)... oil - 1126, gasline - 873, moose burgers - 1027, hockey mom - 3027 ... guess we better beef up our hockey mom & moose burger lines and reduce all that thinly covered gasline & oil stuff. And just for reference car wash gets 20 hits while book banning gets 119. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You might not be aware of this, but Google hits are largely considered to be inappropriate and flawed measures for demonstrating notability on Wikipedia. If you were to ask the Reliable Source Noticeboard, for example, they would confirm that we generally don't acknowledge them as relevant and reliable sources in the abstract because they include personal websites, blogs, and other sources that do not have editorial oversight or fact-checking. Add to that problem, the fact that the situation becomes original synthesis and we have a genuine concern. For this reason, it is always a better practice to source information generated by widely respected media databases such as Factiva, LexisNexis, JSTOR, and Worldcat -- to name a few. In addition, notability guidelines make it clear that we are looking for "significant" coverage. What constitutes "significance" has largely been accepted to mean what the reliable sources decide to be relevant (not us), barring a few contentious WP:BLP issues. So, to bring this discussion back to the original question, barring your personal judgment (which is irrelevant), why exactly would anyone insist on including one but not the other piece of information given the quantity and quality of sources involved? Obviously, arguments like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:GOOGLEHITS, and WP:BIG are not compelling reasons for either. If the amount of the space isn't more than a few sentences, it certainly does not violate WP:UNDUE either. So what exactly seems to be the real problem? As you can see, I'm not convinced yet -- in all good faith -- by the answers I'm reading. Back over to you. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well my point was not to blindly add info just because it appears in many sources. It still has to be relevant to our purpose. Controversial and salacious material will ALWAYS be more covered, but that doesn't make it more relevant. In any case, I am sure the ratio of hits would be similar whatever method you used - but that doesn't mean we should alter our article because of it.

Basically, my question to you is should we work EVERY fact covered by a sufficient number of RS into the article? --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

9. Remove. It has not been established that there was an oblibation to file any LLC renewals with the state of Alaska as the state permits, but does not require Artilces of Dissolution to be filed. Barring any such obligation, and without evidence that the LLC did indeed exist when Palin filed financial disclosure forms the asumption that she failed to provide any needed information does not prevail. We could also say that Palin failed to file Alaska State personal income tax returns for the last ten years - that indeed is true, but insofar as there is no personal income tax in Alaska is it simply a red herring.

In all good faith, I'm trying to understand what the problem is. Answers so far are unhelpful. Some people were asking it to be removed because of (then) sourcing issues. Given that reliable sources are now present, surely those people have their concerns addressed. Others simply asserted "non-notable" as if that were a compelling reason. Folks, it really isn't because Wikipedia does not make edits (as it does not resolve AfDs) based on the number of votes one way or the other. And we all know this. Others inject what appears to be original research. Please, I guarantee no admin will make edits based on that. Finally, there is the subjective "I don't like it factor" which sets a dangerous precedent for this article, as it would anywhere on Wikipedia. I could understand if editors wanted to remove material consistently across the board based on policies and guidelines, but in this case there is no consistency at all. Where does that leave us? Well, I agree with Jossi. The burden falls on people now wanting to remove the material to indicate which policies and guidelines preclude its inclusion. That seems like a sensible non-partisan question. J Readings (talk) 04:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

10.Remove. Completely spurious. Has the vague potential of becoming a minor scandal in the nondescript future, but completely UW.

Comment. Which reliable secondary source published on this issue and what relevance does it have to the current discussion of inclusion? More troubling, if it was not published and discussed in any reliable third-party sources, why is this original research relevant to the current discussion? J Readings (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

11.Remove, not notable. -Exucmember (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

12. Remove. Same level of "scandal" as having overdue library books, or tearing a tag off a mattress. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} Seems to be fairly clear consensus on removing the information on the 20% ownership share of a car wash. Kelly ^hi! 03:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I object, of course. The edit would be completely against policies and guidelines, but please do as you like for now. It can be reverted later given the inconsistencies on the page and the most important fact: Wikipedia is not a democracy. J Readings (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm, Keelly. Not so sure. There are sources such as NPR and the Washington Post that report on that business and the implications related to a failed disclosure. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Joossi. Could you please make your arguments in the attempt at consensus above? Kelly ^hi! 04:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I too would be interested in a cogent argument for including this seemingly minor factoid in the article. Please state your argument.--Paul (talk) 04:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if either of you could take the time to outline what the problem is based on policies and guidelines. "Seemingly" implies an arbitrary judgment call. That's not for us to decide. We simply need to cite reliable sources, present the information accurately in a NPOV way, and be done with it. Otherwise, Wikipedia quickly degenerates into chaos. Regards,J Readings (talk) 04:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• "A Full-Fledged Feeding Frenzy On Sarah Palin : NPR". Retrieved 2008-09-04.
• "Palin Scrubbing Turns Up an Undeclared Car Wash". Retrieved 2008-09-04. {{cite web}}: Text "The Trail" ignored (help); Text "washingtonpost.com" ignored (help)
• "Campaign 2008: Patchwork Nation: Palin scores big on aggressive evening, but tone, specifics linger as questions". Retrieved 2008-09-04. {{cite web}}: Text "The Christian Science Monitor" ignored (help)

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Kelly. We should avoid the dull accretionistic article that comes from adding every referenced fact that anyone can find. Do major news sources say that a part ownership of a business is somehow significant in creating a fortune, or that there was criminality, or that the experience shaped her philosophy, or that she worked so hard at it that it affected her or her family, or any such way in which it is of encyclopedic importance? If not, leave it out. If a newspaper published Herbert Hoover's hat size, (7 3/8 per [3]) we would not be compelled to include it in his article. Many well referenced facts are trivial. Edison (talk) 04:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately or unfortunately, multiple reliable sources in the media disagree about its importance. They thought it important enough to dedicate multiple articles and radio time on its coverage. Where does that leave us? J Readings (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That leaves us where we've been all week, where the media has printed every single fact they could find on this person. Could someone offer a single reason we should have this other than that a newpaper printed it? Kelly ^hi! 06:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done. The consensus here is to remove the entry. Kevin (talk) 07:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

How about because we honestly believe in our policies and guidelines, Kelly? How about because even though we might be Republicans (and we will likely vote for Sarah Palin), we're not letting that get in the way of our own community-generated rules by creating a biased advertisement that embarrasses us and the project? How about because the original rationale for removing the material is now clearly irrelevant, and we are all operating within good faith? How about because Wikipedia is not a democracy, a battleground, a bureaucracy, or an anarchy? How about because Wikipedia is not censored? How about because these are all multiple reliable sources discussing the issue? How about because the information is the subject of multiple articles and not just a fact buried in one article? How about because no one here (your fine self included) has managed to raise one policy-oriented reason as to why it should be removed? *Sigh* Unbelievable. J Readings (talk) 07:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Kelly, for the present, unless major news media say why it matters in a larger sense. The facts that are easy to find online are not necessarily encyclopedic. Edison (talk) 07:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So be it.J Readings (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

bad Grammar

Resolved

For some reason an admin changed the perfectly fine:

Palin is the second woman to run for vice president on a major-party ticket and the first Republican woman to do so (the first was Democrat Geraldine Ferraro in 1984).

to the grammatically goofy:

Palin is the second woman to run for vice president on a major-party ticket and the first Republican woman to do so (the first such Democrat was Geraldine Ferraro in 1984).

I suggest changing to the even better:

Palin is the second woman, and first Republican woman, to run for vice president on a major-party ticket. (The first was Democrat Geraldine Ferraro in 1984.)

Or:

Palin is the second woman to run for vice president on a major-party ticket, after Democrat Geraldine Ferraro in 1984.

And let the superior reasoning skills of WP readers jump to the conclusion that she is the first Republican. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The current line is poor writing. I like your first suggestion best.

Palin is the second woman, and first Republican woman, to run for vice president on a major-party ticket. (The first was Democrat Geraldine Ferraro in 1984.)

RonCram Let's be sure Geraldine is wikified. (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. The article presently says: "Palin is the second woman to run for vice president on a major-party ticket and the first Republican woman to do so (the first such Democrat was Geraldine Ferraro in 1984)." This may be a little awkward, and may eventually be improved, but can we please try to focus on big stuff until this article becomes stable? The sentence as it is makes perfect sense. Eventually, I would have no problem changing it to the proposed "Palin is the second woman to run for vice president on a major-party ticket, after Democrat Geraldine Ferraro in 1984." I don't like having parentheticals in the lead.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, why are you opposing something you say you agree with? It is nonsensical. RonCram (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

So you are opposing the removal of bad grammar on grounds that it is too trivial to worry about yet taking the time to point it out? --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Roncram, one of the proposed versions continues to have a parenthtical in it. As I said, that would not be an improvement, because the lead really should preferably not have parentheticals in it (though I would add parenthetically that a parenthetical would certainly be much better than a footnote, because this lead does not have any other footnotes). As for the other suggested version, I like it, but I don't think it's appropriate under present circumstances where the article is protected. It can wait. The current version is not wrong, just a little awkward.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

But it is wrong. "The first such Democrat" implies other Democrats. Corvus cornix_talk 22:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Ferraro was the first and only such Democrat. Leaving out that Ferraro was "the only" such Democrat might suggest that there was a second Democratic vice-presidential nominee, except for the very obvious fact that this Wikipedia article explicitly says "Palin is the second woman to run for vice president."Ferrylodge (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please change the grammatically poor "Palin is the second woman to run for vice president on a major-party ticket and the first Republican woman to do so (the first such Democrat was Geraldine Ferraro in 1984)." to "Palin is the second woman to run for vice president on a major-party ticket, after Democrat Geraldine Ferraro in 1984." as this appears to be the preferred version.--ThaddeusB (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I would not object to that.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I had to unarchive this since it got archived without being corrected. Sorry to be such a pain. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Argh, I see now it is addressed above; I wonder how I missed that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is Geraldine Ferraro in the intro of Palin's biography?

Resolved

(not sure why this was archived - can we resume discussion of this?) "(the first such Democrat was Geraldine Ferraro in 1984)." How is that sentance a BLP summary? I could see it as a footnote maybe. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 00:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The lead does not include any footnote, so we should not start including them now. I would have no problem with changing the sentence in question to the language someone else suggested above: "Palin is the second woman to run for vice president on a major-party ticket, after Democrat Geraldine Ferraro in 1984."Ferrylodge (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

See above (bad grammar section) where I proposed fixing this grammatical problem. Even though the edit is completely non-controversial in any way, there doesn't seem to be an admin willing to fix in. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It has been my opinion for some time that Geraldine Ferraro need not be mentioned by name in the introduction of Sarah Palin's biographical article. The salient point is that SP is the second woman to be nominated for VP by a major party. Readers looking for more info on that can go to the footnote. I'd prefer to see that clause moved out of the introduction entirely, back to footnote status. Kaisershatner (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

NB that I personally at least twice put it into a fn (reply to 98.243.129.181). Kaisershatner (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The lead does not include any footnotes. If we put in one, it looks weird, and raises the question why the other facts in the lead are not footnoted. Ferraro is already mentioned later in the article, so I really don't see much need to mention her in the lead. Maybe the best thing would be to just say in the lead that Palin would be the first female Veep.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be ok with that, also stating she is first woman to run for Vice President on a Republican ticket would solve this. I see your point about the fn. My main concern is that Palin's biographical introductory summary not get sidetracked into the history of Democratic Party female nominees. Kaisershatner (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Reposted from archive. Kaisershatner (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Geraldine Ferraro

Resolved

 – Kaisershatner (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick canvass

Should we change "Palin is the second woman to run for vice president on a major-party ticket and the first Republican woman to do so (the first such Democrat was Geraldine Ferraro in 1984)." TO "Palin is the second woman to run for vice president on a major-party ticket and the first Republican woman to do so."

Change wording

1. Sarah Palin's bio article does not need to mention Ferraro in the introduction. Other bio articles of highly visible politicians generally do not make reference to other politicians in the introduction, (especially mention of those of rival parties.) The latter version is also more concise and removes the parens, plus the sentence is already wikilinked to the list of VP candidates so readers will hit Ferraro immediately if they care to know more. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Agreed. Removing Ferraro is acceptable. She is mentioned later in the article and probably does not belong in the lead. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Yes, the shorter wording is better. The details can be covered in the body of the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Agree to the removal from the lead. The comment in the body of the article is more than sufficient.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
5. yes, change the wording. How about linking second woman to run for vice-president to Ferraro? Ronnotel (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Support. patsw (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Support Remove it. Its a neat fact but we dont need to fill her bio with neat, loosley reated facts. --146.145.79.137 (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
8. Support. more concise this is not needed in the lead.--Paul (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
9. Yes ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
10. Support --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Leave it

{{editprotected}} Please change "Palin is the second woman to run for vice president on a major-party ticket and the first Republican woman to do so (the first such Democrat was Geraldine Ferraro in 1984)." TO "Palin is the second woman to run for vice president on a major-party ticket and the first Republican woman to do so." per consensus.

__..-- META DISCUSSION: HANDLING THE TALK PAGE --..__

MediaWiki's failings are evident in talk pages that grow to this size. However, we have to find a way to keep this manageable.

I propose that we use the {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} tags to close topics that we are pretty sure are finished and noncontroversial. In addition, we should use the {{resolved|Reason is here --~~~~}} template to signify when topics are resolved. Should this resolved tag be disputed, strike the text out with <s> text to strike </s>. Then put {{unresolved|Reason here --~~~~}} on the next line.

I am going to be attempting some of these on the above topics. Please let me know how you feel about this.--mboverload@ 00:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

!!!!!Demonstration of above tags!!!!!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Requested edits and actions made --User:Vetran#409

Unresolved

 – Still not enough cowbell --User:Newbie2390

Resolved

 – Have added the max amount of cowbell this article can take --User:Vetran#409

This article needs more cowbell. Also, mboverload hates America. --User:Newbie2390

Both points taken and applied. --User:Vetran#409

HEY! I SAID it needs more COWBELL!!! THERE IS NOT ENOUGH COWBELL--User:Newbie2390

Fine, I have included more cowbell. This is more than enough so I will be closing this thread since no one will object or because this is a freaking ridiculous request --User:Vetran#409

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cowbell or Moose Belle? :) Kelly ^hi! 01:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about this

Agreed, but I think you should show some more good faith in User:Newbie2390's request. Joshdboz (talk) 01:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. It might be nice to collapse them, too, something with that hide/show variable. This talk page is the length of a small novel. However, the moment this is unfrozen I will add cowbell to every last paragraph. Coemgenus 01:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort, but I'm dubious that a significant number of issues could be marked "closed". The current method is that they're effectively marked "closed" just by virtue of being buried by new edits. Software fixes won't affect the underlying problem: We have many editors offering many comments on many issues, where the real-world facts and sources that we must reflect are changing by the hour. (Of course, the problem of too many comments is far preferable to the problem of too few.) We'll just have to grin and bear it until things quiet down a little. JamesMLane t c 01:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

James is right. Tvoz/talk 20:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

__..-- META DISCUSSION: ARCHIVING --..__

Archives

Many threads, 109 to be precise, have been archived by Miszabot due to a 2 hours setting, [4]. I've reset to 12 hours, maybe it should be more. Some threads may still be under discussion and needing to be unarchived. So far, #Dispute_.231:_Alaskan_Independence_Party has been unarchived. Cenarium ^Talk 03:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

12 is the absolute minimum it should be, 18 or 24 hours seems more safe since not every editor comes here multiple times a day.--ThaddeusB (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say 12 is too low. I'd vote for 24, would accept 18.216.106.170.103 (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It is now 24 hours. Cenarium ^Talk 18:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I strenuously object to this overly short archive window.Even 24 hours is not enough - this is way too aggressive. We need a 3 day minimum, which I think was discussed a couple of days ago. With such a short window it is too easy for one side of an issue to game the system with others who don't log into this page as frequently closed out, not even knowing a discussion happened. There's no reason we can't live with a long talk page - and this will all fade away quickly enough. Let's remember this is a biography not a news article, and not the campaign article. Tvoz/talk 20:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the bot only checks the page once per day. If you attempt to set the delay in hours, it will honor that by archiving everything more than that number of hours old when it visits, but it still only visits that one time per day. Given that, I generally think settings less than 24 hours are not very useful. Dragons flight (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Over-agressive archiving

This section: Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_11#Suggested_edit_to_PSC_section was archived last night, even though it was active as of yesterday, and had not been resolved or marked resolved. The one right after it, too, and who knows how many others. Whoever controls that bot should back off. Homunq (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, if you see another section that is unfairly archived, cut and paste it here. Here are the two sections I noticed: Homunq (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

__..-- META DISCUSSION: PROTECTION STATUS--..__

section for discussing protection of article. Kaisershatner (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection Template, again

Did we decide to reduce the protection message? [5]

The first discussion clearly favored a larger message. The second feels like no consensus to me.

Personally, I continue to feel that a larger template is useful (despite being ugly). It identifies an unusual condition on a high profile page, and directs interested parties to comment on the discussion page. It also identifies the underlying policies that got us here (e.g. BLP and protection). I wouldn't put it back myself, but I am a bit disturbed that it would be changed again without a comment, and would like to raise issue for discussion (again). [As an aside, whoever decided to archive all sections older than 2 hours seems to have been rather over-eager.] Dragons flight (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I dropped a note at jossi's page pointing to the recent discussion in which the older discussion is also linked. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Given the traffic we are seeing on this page, I think the reduced profile is beneficiary. -Zeus- 04:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• What does the tag adds? Not needed given the high visibility of the article, and the too obvious lack of consensus for having it protected in the first place. Time would be better spent in researching material for the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Stop being pointy and commit to consensus before making edits, especially when the edit you wish to make has already been discussed. You need an IP user to tell you this? 86.44.27.255 (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

An IP? Seems more like an editor that knows the ropes ...pls stop pretending. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I do indeed know the ropes; i've been editing daily or near daily since january or before, and from time to time for a considerable period going back further. no registered account ever though, so no pretense whatsoever. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 04:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • It is needed especially given the high visibility of the article. Many visitors who are unfamiliar with our policies may be surprised that the page is protected and need help finding this discussion page, where they can contribute to further improving the article. Dragons flight (talk) 04:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with the small tag. Remember that most people come here to read, not edit and most new people couldn't edit anyway even with a semi. The difference between full prot and semi only affects regular editors who are expected to be able to find the talk page. Hobartimus (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • For heaven's sake, small tag. The purpose of the wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia for readers, and not a utopian wikicommunity for its editors. The big ugly tags on mainspace should never be used to extort concessions from fellow editors, and readers come to articles to read about the subject, not to watch wikidramas or the unfolding machinations between its editors. Put readers first.Professor marginalia (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Leave the small tag, as I suggested before. There is no reason for a glaring banner on such a high-traffic page, really. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Full Protection for Two Weeks?

Note: There is a parallel discussion at WP:AE#Sarah Palin. Go there to request to have the article unprotected; doing so here will generally be ignored. seicer | talk | contribs 12:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is absurd. This page is locked from editing for "two weeks." Among other travesties, it is unclear when the two week period started and when it ends. It also keeps the page locked in with incorrect information, poor formatting, incorrect grammar and outdated facts. This is no way to run a site that touts itself as an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" and that should reflect reality. This instead results in the freezing of an incorrect article that will be sourced by individuals and organizations around the world (such is the power of Wikipedia) as "truth." If violations of policy occur, deal with the individual editors that are violating the policy. Whoever has put the page lock in place is throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water. I am very disappointed in this action. --Crunch (talk) 07:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong place to complain about this. Here [6] is the right place to make your feelings known. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposals on the talk page are being discussed, and when consensus is reached, they are posted to the article. This is actually a much better way to run wikipedia than through the flurry of edit warring that was going on. If you think some fact is "incorrect", then bring it here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this an argument against semi-protection too, comrade? :) 86.44.27.255 (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Good the longer it's locked, the more irrelevant it will become. The article shouldn't be viewed as a place to influence voters. I have faith in the American people to vote the way they always do; the way their parents did. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • If you have any specific complaints, bring them here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Er... this sort of thing is absolutely not our concern. What people do or don't do with their vote has no bearing in what we do. And that's speaking as a dirty liberal who's pushed for discussion on including some negative stuff and tried to slam the door as well on some negative stuff. rootology (C)(T) 12:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• My confusion is understandable. This too is symptomatic of the way the controversy surrounding this article has been handled. Why is there not a top banner on the article explaining the lock date, unlock date, and process for discussion? Some of you apparently have been engaged in protect-unprotect wars for several days and assume that all of us are up-to-date on every nuance of the drama. I am really disappointed in the way a few people have handled this situation. It has hurt the integrity of Wikipedia at a time when it is most in the spotlight. As for discussing changes on the Talk page and then bringing them to the article, that's absurd as well. I'm not going to go through the Talk page to discuss every little change in a misplaced comma, spelling error or subject-verb agreement. You all have to understand the wide-ranging reach of Wikipedia articles and trust that, despite the POV tendencies of some, a lot of us just want to get the grammar correct. --Crunch (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussing Trivial Edits on Talk Page and Protection Wars

I was editing a post here when it was moved to an Archive page in the middle of my editing, so here's what I was saying: Some of you apparently have been engaged in protect-unprotect wars for several days and assume that all of us are up-to-date on every nuance of the drama. I am really disappointed in the way a few people have handled this situation. It has hurt the integrity of Wikipedia at a time when it is most in the spotlight. As for discussing changes on the Talk page and then bringing them to the article, that's absurd as well. I'm not going to go through the Talk page to discuss every little change in a misplaced comma, spelling error or subject-verb agreement. You all have to understand the wide-ranging reach of Wikipedia articles and trust that, despite the POV tendencies of some, a lot of us just want to get the grammar correct. --Crunch (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the majority of us agree in spirit with what you have to say, Crunch. The problem is that the blatant BLP violations were hurting the integrity of the project itself. This is an encyclopedia not a trashy supermarket tabloid. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a question of how badly he wants to get the grammar corrected vs. how badly he wants to spend energy complaining about it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that the locking down is worse than the POV edits and that the new advice to ask for permission to add a comma (so it seems) is not just insulting and a violation of the spirit of Wikipedia, but discourages good edits (see above). --Crunch (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Given her unknown status, one expected the initial "surge" of fact collection. It's why I first came here. Since, it has turned into a campaign battleground of unsubstantiated claims from both sides (although, from where I sit, more from one side than another), with an occasional plain-old "smear". It's worse than the paparazzi with Britney, probably because pseudo-anonymity affords such without recourse. However, we can make it work. It would be great if people were simply responsible enough to admit whether their intention was solely to bolster or tarnish her credibility and, if so, confine that to a blog somewhere where it belongs. Fcreid (talk) 12:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The Arbitration Enforcement page is open to you to voice your opinion as well. As seicer said earlier, any commentary here is simply ignorable lip flapping. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The frenzy will die down in a few days and then things can get back to something resembling normal. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Kyaa, Can you give us that link again? The one you provided earlier just looped back here. Thank you. --Crunch (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE#Sarah Palin Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Bbat, the page is now locked for two weeks, so waiting "a few days" won't do anything. --Crunch (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Two weeks is not absolute, it's subject to reconsideration. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection update

I proposed going ahead with a respected "by consensus"--that is, all people, admins included going with what we all agree to, no more stupid warring--downgrade to semi tomorrow morning. Weigh in here. If all hell breaks loose again we can always decide to go back to full after. rootology (C)(T) 13:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

To see admins warring like this and meanwhile have a page with errors front and center, if only for another 24 hours, is a big ugly scar on the face of Wikipedia. BTW, if anyone with magic authority into the page can get to it, you might want to fix the grammatical error in the fourth para: "Palin is the second woman to run for vice president on a major-party ticket and the first Republican woman to do so (the first such Democrat was Geraldine Ferraro in 1984)." What this actually says is that Ferraro was the first Democrat to be a Republican woman to run for vice president on a major-party ticket. Such are the dangers of locking down an article. --Crunch (talk) 13:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Way overreaction. What specific issues do you have, besides spelling and grammar? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Would this proposal mean that, on disputed issues, whatever text happens to be in place at the moment of unprotection is given preferred status, changeable only if everyone agrees? or even changeable only based on a broad consensus, which might fall somewhat short of unanimity? Either way, given a preferred status to a particular version undercuts the general protection procedure (which, after all, requires admins to protect the wrong version). JamesMLane t c 13:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We'd be back to the original semi-protection. We'd not have to use the edit protected tag to edit the article. There would not be any preference given to the original document. It would be mostly back to normal editing structure. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Could we not amend the rules just to say that a single <Undo> would make further edit on that point off-limits until consensus is reached in discussion? I don't know how one could measure that arbitration, and I'm not sure how WP actually enforces such things, but my take here is that most folks on both sides have at least been reasonable when presented with facts. Fcreid (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There are several places where even the reasonable people have disagreed, not to mention the POV-pushers on both sides. We need to address the issue of what language appears in this highly visible article while issues are being discussed. The current setup gives a very powerful preferred status to what was in place as of the protection, which is bad, so any change should correct that flaw. JamesMLane t c 13:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What specific issues do you have with the current page? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't canvassed the entire article or tried to monitor all the changes. Off the top of my head, the main one that occurs to me is the deletion of the well-sourced information about Palin's initial false public statements concerning Troopergate. The focus of my comment, though, wasn't on any specific dispute, but on the meta-question of whether the current version gets preferred status. If there's a passage that I think is fine but someone else disagrees with, I could sympathize with the someone else's complaint that my preferred version shouldn't be locked in unless there's a consensus to change it. JamesMLane t c 17:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not over-reacting. Wikipedia is not a plaything for a few admins on an ego trip or editors with too much time on their hands. Some of us actually want to contribute to the "encyclopedia" and are able to do so properly, adhering to the guidelines for WP:BIO. To ask what specific changes we want is a ludicrous question. I don't have all day to list every single change. Let the grown-ups back in, enough of this childishness. --Crunch (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And you are free to propose additions and changes to the article - unless there's a reason you don't want anyone to see them first. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus threshold for editprotect requests?

I think that it is unreasonable to wait for perfect consensus before editing this article. The decision to protect was made to prevent serious violations, not to drastically change the process of editing the article. Any edit that is a good-faith step towards talk page consensus should be implemented provisionally, with further discussion and edit proposals allowed.

Say that the POVs fall on one dimension, 0 is ideal NPOV, and a magnitude greater than 1/C is obvious POV given the developing (increasing) consensus-level C. If C=1 and someone proposes going from -0.8 to +0.4, that should be done; if somebody counterproposes going to -0.6 that should be done; if C grows to 2 then the article should revert to +0.4; then somebody proposes a -0.1 version and that should go in place; and so on.

If that makes no sense, the point is just that you accept edits that are compromises and not by-consensus NPOV. People propose successive compromises until you get consensus. Normal process, but you don't wait until it is all done to change the page, because that sucks. Homunq (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please list disputes that need to be resolved

Could we get a list of those items that are in dispute so we can work to getting the page unprotected? I'll start:

1. Remarkably, overnight, while everyone else was watching the RNC, the article on Sarah Palin has morphed into a puff piece. It completely avoids the treatment of any potentially unflattering issue and ignores well documented facts. Furthermore, all of the discussion of these issues was simply deleted from this page, in one bold stroke and without any explanation. Should this be fixed, or should it simply be left as is, so that any intelligent reader can see how corrupted the editing process has become, and how little credence should be given to this article? Or maybe a new article should be started that documents the facts with the goal of disclosure rather than cover-up? Pulsifer (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

please see FAQ link above. Thanks! Kaisershatner (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasilla Bible Church, Larry Kroon, Wasilla Assembly of God, Ed Kalnins

Wasilla Bible Church, Larry Kroon, and Ed Kalnins links should NOT be sent to the Sarah Palin article. This is grossly unfair for Palin, since it is not established that Palin was present for every controversial remark of Kalnins that is quoted in the the media, and since the church is associated with the controversial David Brickner, and all Palin did was attend a speech of his. Wasilla Bible Church, Larry Kroon, and Ed Kalnins should have their own articles, where information in the media unrelated to Palin can be written and sourced, and links to the Palin article can be put only where they are relevent. Wasilla Assembly of God is up for Delete and redirect here, but it should have its own article by the same reasoning.

(A third Palin pastor is Riley, who is more often quoted in the media, but he only appears in the media talking about Palin, so he does not merit his own article simply by being Palin's pastor.)EricDiesel (talk) 10:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Undue Weight on "God" quotes

"In June 2008, Palin spoke at her former church. On the topic of Iraq, she asked that people pray for the soldiers and that "there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan." In regards to a proposed natural-gas pipeline she said, "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built."[136]"

This does not belong in the Personal section. The intent is clearly POV, i.e to paint her as a religious zealot (which she may or may not be), but the simple inclusion of using "God" in such platitudes amounts to no more than someone closing a speech with "And may God bless America" (which every candidate obviously does). Moreover, I suspect the other candidates do not have similar selected quotations in their personal bio where they used "God" in context or platitudes. The narrative that precedes this clearly states what Palin herself believes with regard to the Bible, and these selected quotes contribute nothing more substantive. They may belong elsewhere, but not in this section. Fcreid (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this hasn't gotten nearly the coverage to merit all that quoting, and the paragraph immediately above does a good job of summarizing her religious history. I'd say either whittle it down or strike it out. Joshdboz (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Other editors want this sort of thing expanded. (Not me.) And she did say those things, right? They are reported on by secondary sources, not lifted by a Wikipedia editor from the church circular. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I vote to strike the quote as undue weight. (You should've seen the original version though, it was much worse.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree. It seems obvious that Palin's faith is influencing her personal and political life, with everything from a child's education to the rights of women. Referring to building a gas line as "God's will" is completely bizarre and definitely noteworthy. The same applies to referring to anything related to Iraq as "God's plan" - particularly because you get into questions about which god. These are not the same as "God bless America" speech closings at all. Maybe you are looking at the wrong coverage? Reliable sources for these statements are legion. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I do agree on the undue weight. American politicians invoke God all the time, in nearly every speech. Bill Clinton did it frequently, particularly when discussing military operations with the American people. This is unremarkable. Kelly ^hi! 21:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not an undue weight issue at all. Invoking God is common, but the extent to which faith plays a role in Palin's political views mostly certainly isn't. The two instances described here are unusual and reliably sourced. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not simply an invocation of God, it is a statement that she knows God's will and wants to implement it. Quite a different thing, and noteworthy. Doug Weller (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

How do you know that? She's not saying she knows God's will. Cite, please? And presumably she has given hundreds or thousands or speeches - why only these quotes? Kelly ^hi! 21:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The pipeline quote says it by inference. I think that these quotes should be moved into political positions and merged with other content re: energy and Iraq policy. It is noteworthy to base policy statements in religious terms, particularly outside the area of social policy. These are not quotes about her personal life, and don't belong in this section. They are quotes about her policy views, and belong in that section however. Huadpe (talk) 02:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, the Iraq thing seems less noteworthy than the pipeline thing, but if we take out the Iraq material, then the pipeline material is more prominent. I say we let the woman's words stand. She is who she is. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Why quote only snippets of this particular speech? Kelly ^hi! 21:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason is that secondary sources quoted her. If some IP was getting this stuff out of online videos of her church meetings, it would be a primary source and should go. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of undue wieght of things taken out of context.. look at AL GORE who clearly made crazy statements all the time that were well reported in the news. However keeping the article clean was more important than pointing out little tidbits of wierness for the sake of pushing a POV. It's an isolated comment, out of context, from a church service.. its got undue wieght. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying there's no case to be made, but these quotes don't make it. If there's a case, there should be ample material to put that in a more thorough context (and into another section on political views or something, where it belongs). Fcreid (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I elect that the statements remain. They add relevant texture to the article and are not controversial. zredsox (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say this discussion shows they are obviously controversial. Kelly ^hi! 21:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment I read the pipeline quote as saying it can only happen if it is in God's will. See the full context in the linked source. If so, it is hardly noteworthy. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. You are attempting to define her as a person (and even in the "Personal" bio section) through these quotes, and if that is appropriate these simply don't provide that weight. As an aside, I actually watched her speech last night (and I typically don't follow politics), and I don't recall any invocations that would warrant painting on an extreme. If there's material out there, someone should find it and assemble it. Fcreid (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is some type of synthesis to divine and define her religious beliefs. Only Palin herself can be a reliable source on what she believes, not out-of-context quotes. Kelly ^hi! 21:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the quotes showing her using religious language on specific issues seem to me to be entirely off point. Palin has been forthright about being a strongly believing Christian. We should be quoting her on her religious beliefs, because she has placed those front and center, but not on her using religious language to talk about issues unless those are her key statements on those issues. E.g. if she is talking about abortion in religious terms then it might be relevant to quote that. If she happens to mention God in talking about a pipeline, that is no more relevant than if someone else happened to mention the Constitution or Americanism in a similar context. - Jmabel | Talk 21:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not synthesis; there are 307 Google News hits on the praying for a pipeline material. Much of it is analysis; secondary sources are interested. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well said. If she were quoted saying, "I stand against abortion because I believe that's God's will", it would be noteworthy. These are taken purely out-of-context. Fcreid (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Here is an entire AP article on the subject. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I will point out once again that the amount of news coverage does not determine an item's relevance. If it did, Barrack Obama's article (for example) would look quote different. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Or quite different. In any case, the tone and manner in which a deity is invoked does have relevance. Talk to McCain about that ... &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like the Iraq quotes could be added to Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Iraq. Joshdboz (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I had not seen that. The fact that she believes that Iraq is a holy war is quite significant. zredsox (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that is quite a jump from the actual quote. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Beyond the very selective quoting in this, she was clearly speaking to theology students in execution of her religious "duties". Would you want her to be cursing? It's already well-established and non-controversial that she believes God. Lots of people go to church. Find something that shows she legislated or administered from that perspective. Show where she asked for the pipeline money because she was on a mission from God or something. Otherwise, this is a witchhunt. Fcreid (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Cursing has what to do with claiming to know the will of a deity whose "ways are not our ways"? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

She's undoubtedly a religious person. I don't know how that taints her ability to administer or legislate, and nothing that's been put in front of me provides greater insight. Tie it to specific actions or lose it. Fcreid (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, she told people to go out and do things to bring the pipeline into existence, invoking God. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In a church - I fail to see how that indicates a policy decision in any way. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Bill Clinton invoked God sending soldiers to fight. So did FDR, JFK, Reagan, and every other American leader. Kelly ^hi! 22:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Info from a blog does NOT belong on a BLP. please remove. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The AP is not a blog. There are many non-blog sources, in any case. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources for what? That she mentioned God in a speech? How is that an indication of religious beliefs? Kelly ^hi! 22:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln said "under God" in the Gettysburg Address, and he is thought to have been agnostic or atheistic. It's just P.R. hype. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick canvass

Support inclusion of "God" quotes in religion section

Is it normal discussion to reference "god's will" for a clearly mundane and secular enterprise such as a natural gas pipeline? The fact that she referenced that the pipeline is "god's will" implies that she is extending theological beliefs into clearly secular activities and it is significant that she uses theological arguments to justify actions that are secular.

1. Opposed-- Just giving out of context quotes has very little value. What we need is a notable commentator saying that she is too religious or else that she is a politican who cynically uses other people's religous feelings for her own aims, whatever the point is supposed to be. (Then counter opinions need to be given too.) Steve Dufour (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Strongly Support. - The quotes did occur and the public has a right to know that she is one of the fundamantalist, snake handling, Christian Taliban that are ruining the U.S. These quotes show that she clearly believes she has one on one conversations with an imaginary man in the sky - normal people call that CRAZY. 72.91.113.17 (talk) 12:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that using such colorful language is going to draw much support for your POV. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Snake handling"? That's getting kind of personal. Public officials praying for the safety of our troops is routine. It would only be an issue if she said something contrary to that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Not that it matters considering the consensus below, or that I agree with the above poster's characterization of "Christian Taliban," but the terms "God's plan" and "God's will" are not frivilous terms and do not equal "God Bless America," as another poster suggested, when taken in context of the speaker being at a church, and being the speaker at the church. These are industry terms of church followers alluding to a certain belief system. This is an important point. The executive branch has a not too insignificant amount of weight in deciding law--they appoint Supreme Court Judges. And if elected, Palin and one missed heartbeat would give her control of this important feature. That's only one point, another is establishing sound judgement--decision-making based on fact versus belief-- but I believe that easily falls into conjecture and the media is doing a fine mess of sorting that out. --Stono rebellion (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm personally appreciative of the wiki administrator for their balanced approach. But after reading some of the comments, I'm left wondering what the question is in the matter. Are people assessing whether Pallin is a religious fundamentalist/zealot? If that's the question, it's patently obvious if you do even a little bit of research. Even Moveon.org has figured it out. The email they sent out yesterday contained these stories: http://www.naral.org/elections/election-pr/pr08292008_palin.html
http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/palin-buys-climate-denial_b_122428.html
etc.

These articles spell out her character on major issues: anti-abortion, global warming sceptic, evolution denier. These are hallmark topics of the religious right. It's not a controversy, that's their doctrine. There's also the story listed in the email speaking of her tenure as mayor, and trying to get the public library to ban certain books because of language. It was in the email. I don't have it, but I'm sure someone else can qualify. And to the point about Abe Lincoln et al including God Bless in a speech, those arguments aren't even relevant. An address such as God Bless isn't directed at any specific event. The point the one poster made about her decision-making process was right on the money. That's the only point that can be argued. Whether her religious belief could be called fundamentalism is not even a question. --Stono rebellion (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Moveon.org email: http://howbourgeois.blogspot.com/2008/09/moveonorg-sarah-palin-letter.html
--Stono rebellion (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion of "God" quotes in religion section

1. Undue weight and apparent synthesis to try to determine religious beliefs. Kelly ^hi! 22:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
2. As I said above, this would fit much better in the relevant section of the article on her policy positions. Joshdboz (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Opposed (if my vote counts... don't know how that works!) This wiki, possibly more than anywhere else, represents a battleground for independent voters. Both sides know a web search for Palin will see this article ahead of all else, so it's imperative that we get it right (NPOV). Those on the left and those on the right have made up their respective minds and are stewing in their respective blogs. These quotes paint her as a religious loony in just two sentences. Now, I've not researched whether she is or she isn't, but these quotes in their original context don't make that argument. If there's fire somewhere outside this smoke, someone should research it and make a compelling case. Fcreid (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Opposed. It is not the image the McCain Camp is currently crafting for Palin (now that the base is strongly in tow) and to echo her religious beliefs (as well sourced and as relevant as they might be) could be off putting to some moderate and independent voters who are currently the focus of the campaign. I think in place of the disputed quotes we should instead have a passage from a PTA meeting (or something inline with that hook) which will play better in the all important battleground states and be directed toward women.zredsox (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   Sarcasm noted. :) Seriously, there's gotta be more than this from her past to raise this specter. Fcreid (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

5. Opposed. The only reason for inclusion is that some editors feel the quotes are more important than the other things she said in all the other public appearances that aren't covered, and the reasons given may or may not be valid but are original research in either case. There may have been a few mentions in new articles, but there have been more articles about other things she said. So again singling these out is undue weight. A.J.A. (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Opposed. It's a small out of context speech at her church. Undue wieght as well. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Opposed. including them gives them undue weight. There is no evidence that these two quotes are more important than any other she has said.--ThaddeusB (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
8. opposed, for reasons cited above Pianomikey0 (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
9. support, It happened, it's well sourced and video of the event is readily available. Palin is clearly a very religious woman so inclusion of this information and quotes is not out of line at all. If asking an audience to pray for a pipeline isn't extending theological beliefs into secular activities, I dont know what is. To remove this information takes out an important facet of the intesection of her religious life and political life.--Rtphokie (talk) 04:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
10. Opposed-- Just giving out of context quotes has very little value. What we need is a notable commentator saying that she is too religious or else that she is a politican who cynically uses other people's religous feelings for her own aims, whatever the point is supposed to be. (Then counter opinions need to be given too.) Steve Dufour (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
11. Opposed - per Steve Dufour immediately above. As one supporter of keeping admitted, the intent of inclusion is to paint Palin as out of the mainstream. There is nothing similar in the Al Gore article, which someone mentioned as a comparison. If she is out of the mainstream, let's quote published commentators making their case, not have an argument by stealth by Wikipedia editors with short out-of-context quotations that are somehow purported to represent her religious beliefs. -Exucmember (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
12. Opposed. It really ought to be in "humor" section. It's God's will that a pipeline get built? That's funny stuff. However, praying for soldiers is not funny, nor is out of mainstream. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
13. Opposed. Undue weight. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
14. Opposed -- Leaving these quotes in will just invite editors to add even more quotes to balance the section. No other Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate's bio has this kind of religious scrutiny. Obama's bio does not even have a "religion" section and we were not allowed to add Obama's quote from Dreams From My Father in which Obama clearly states that he attended a "Muslim School" for 2 years and studied the Koran. Lose these quotes per WP:Undue and WP:NPOV and general fairness to the subject. Freedom Fan (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
15. Opposed. The present article distorts (perhaps unintentionally) what she said. This article says: "On the topic of Iraq, she asked that people pray for the soldiers and that 'there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan.'" But if you look at the source, it doesn't show her asking that that plan is God's plan, but rather shows her asking people to pray that that plan is God's plan.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

{{editprotected}}

I suggest removing the phrase

"In June 2008, Palin spoke at her former church. On the topic of Iraq, she asked that people pray for the soldiers and that "there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan." In regards to a proposed natural-gas pipeline she said, "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built."[136]"

on the basis of the apparent consensus above, Zredsox's sarcasm aside. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of Palin's religious statements because she was not merely describing her faith, but was describing how she, a public administrator, makes decisions. The public has a right to know -- and ought to know -- as much as possible about a given elected public official's decision-making process, and if an official admits to using religious considerations as a primary criteria in her deliberations, then discovering the nature of those religious considerations is in the public's interest. That said, I think the penultimate "God" quote currently in the article represents a distortion of what she actually said. She did not say that the invasion and occupation as planned and implemented was a task from God or God's plan. The relevant section of her speech at Wasilla Assembly of God is available here, three minutes and 35 seconds into the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG1vPYbRB7k

In her words: "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right, also for this country, that our leaders -- our national leaders -- are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for: that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

As you can see, she urged those in the audience to pray that the plan for Iraq the "national leaders" had created and implemented conformed to God's plan. She did not say that "national leaders" had conformed, were conforming, or would conform their plan to God's plan. I think the words she spoke at Wasilla (again, see the Youtube video at 3:35) segment should be used, but used correctly, and used in full, without being partially paraphrased. Medocritus (talk) 08:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So when FDR and Bill Clinton said similar things about sending troops into battle, it meant that religion was the reason for their decision? Please. Kelly ^hi! 08:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, it's quoted from a speech in a church (and, if I recall, to students of theology) and entirely outside of her official roles. Again, we've already clearly established she attends church. While that in itself is a bit foreign to me, I suspect they do use "God" liberally in there, don't they? Fcreid (talk) 10:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Pray for our troups" != calling a war "God's plan" "Pray for our troups" != Pray for our proposed pipeline.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If she said the Iraq War was part of ALLAH's Plan (which is how her phrase translates in Arabic) it would be noteworthy .... why the double standard ??? 72.91.113.17 (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite a red herring (narative) you've reeled in there.--Rtphokie (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If a candidate closed a speech with "May Allah bless America", I assure you that would also be newsworthy, but the current platitude is simply gratuitous as are these selected quotes. Not to be preachy (pun intended) and repetitive, but there's got to be something more substantive in her history than these selected quotes that paint her as a zealot. Fcreid (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Allah" as used in English specifically refers to the Arabic word for God, and which Christians regard as "not the same God" as the Christian God - because true Christians believe that Islam is a fraud. So while it's semantically, arguably the same, it's not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream Christians do consider Islam and Christianity (and Judaism of course) as worshiping the same God. It has been pointed out that all through the Middle Ages when Muslims and Christians were warring across the Middle East and southern Europe no Christian ever made this argument. Redddogg (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I believe that a consensus is present here, yet this edit is more than trivial, so I'd like to give it a few more hours to see if there is any significant opposition based on sound reasoning and Wikipedia's practices. GRBerry 14:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

N Edit declined at this stage. Please only use {{editprotected}} after a consensus has been achieved.  Sandstein  16:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If 14-3 isn't enough consensus, how will we every get ANYTHING approved?

It is not just - or even primarily - the numbers. Strength of arguments matter also. There are also issues of whether enough time has passed that all views have had a chance to be heard (my reason for skipping this one earlier) and how urgent and trvial the item is. Correcting a clear infraction of the WP:BLP policy is urgent. Tweaking the fine details of content are not urgent. Correcting the punctuation to be correct is trivial. Altering the POV balance of the article is normally non-trivial. Keep discussing this issue, consensus may become clearer. GRBerry 18:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how 3 people saying that the quotes should stay because they prove she is a religious zealot is an argument of equal weight to 14 people who say the quotes seem normal enough for a church environment, and that if she is a religious zealot there should be better evidence of it then some quotes from a speech made at a church. I think the real problem isn't lack of consensus, but rather admins being paralyzed into inaction for fear of losing their admin privileges. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought that for BLP's we were supposed to err on the side of not using POV to make a person look like a jackass. You know, the whole add only with concensus, and delete immediately if it's controversial bit. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I brought these quotes up earlier (somewhere in the archives, but I can't find them). I support removing them on grounds that they're really material for news, not for an encyclopedia. The WEIGHT issues are really a consequence of the space the content takes up, relative to the significance of the event (specifically, particular quotes taken from much longer discourses, thus raising the issue of context, etc.). Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I humbly request that administrators, instead of waiting for an impossible perfect consensus, try to keep the actual page in line with the developing consensus. In other words, if there's a 14-3 agreement, do the editprotect, with a note that your resolution is not final and further editprotect requests are welcome. I know it seems like more work for you guys, but I doubt it really is; and it is undoubtedly unhealthy to keep the article frozen on an arbitrary version. Homunq (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I second (as the one who originally started this topic). The statements as they stand are clear POV, and the undue weight is not supported by the referenced documentation. It's embarrassing for a biographical article. While there is presently no consensus, they should be removed in their entirety immediately based on the existing majority of objections until those in the minority can present a more compelling case to paint Palin as a religious zealot in the manner done here. Fcreid (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed per the above consensus. Woody (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Funny that it took someone named "Woody" to have the "balls" to make the edit. Thank you. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)